Mexican wolf Blue Range reintroduction project 5-year review: AMOC responses to public comment component

              Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review: AMOC Responses to Public Comment Component







by Adaptive Management Oversight Committee Arizona Game and Fish Department New Mexico Department of Game and Fish U.S.D.A. ? APHIS, Wildlife Services U.S.D.A. Forest Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service White Mountain Apache Tribe















December 31, 2005















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review: AMOC Responses to Public Comment Component







by Adaptive Management Oversight Committee Note: see the Administrative Component for a list of abbreviations, acronyms, and terms. RESPONSES TO 5-YEAR REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENT IN JANUARY-JULY 2005 This document, part of the 5-Year Review, includes AMOC responses to: (1) written public comment on the 5-Year Review received January through July 2005; (b) oral public comment on the 5-Year Review at eight AMWG public meetings in June 2005; and (3) AMOC responses to public comment on a proposed Moratorium, and several Project SOPs addressing issues ranging from control of Mexican wolves to Project outreach activities. The responses also reflect AMOC consideration of oral public comment at 10-12 other AMWG public meetings in AZ and NM during the 5-Year Review period. The Reintroduction Project operates under authority of a nonessential experimental population Final Rule (USFWS 1998), pursuant to Section 10(j) of the ESA1 (see the Administrative Component for a list of abbreviations, acronyms, and terms used throughout the 5-Year Review). The Final Rule was approved by the Secretary of the Interior in 1998, after a 1996 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS; USFWS 1996) was completed pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), with a Record of Decision (ROD) in 1997 (USFWS 1997). The Final Rule requires 3-Year and 5-Year Reviews of the Reintroduction Project to determine if changes are needed in any aspect of the reintroduction effort. The 3-Year Review was conducted in 2001; see Kelly et al. (2001) and Paquet et al. (2001) for the primary information on that review. The 5-Year Review was conducted in 2005, and the results are detailed in this document and several others referenced herein. Reference is frequently made in the entries below to requested or possible actions and AMOC recommendations, including changes in the Final Rule. Please note that this is not a decision document, nor is any other part of the 5-Year Review a decision document, except in terms of clarifying the primary areas in which AMOC will be considering changes over the coming years. After initial discussion and vetting within AMOC and through AMWG, any changes in the Final Rule or in any other law, rule, regulation, or policy would need to be proposed and approved through the appropriate State, Tribal, and/or Federal administrative and/or regulatory processes. Thus, the need for compliance with APA, ESA, NEPA, and other State, Tribal, and Federal laws is implicit, and not overtly stated and re-stated with each response below. However, given that







1















See the Administrative Component for a list of abbreviations, acronyms, and terms used throughout the 5-Year Review.















ARPCC-1















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review:















December 31, 2005















some entities are prone to imply such compliance does not occur, we do occasionally reference such compliance requirements as a reminder that we are well aware of them. Indeed, every action AMOC (including the IFT) takes in any aspect of the Reintroduction Project is in full compliance with the agencies' interpretations of applicable laws, rules, regulations, and policies. Public comment below is divided into various sections. Each section represents comment that was received and considered at various stages of the 5-Year Review. Thus, the AMOC responses to a given issue may vary slightly from one section to another. Such changes reflect evolution in AMOC's perspective on a given issue as the 5-Year Review proceeded. However, the first section provides the most detailed AMCO responses and reflects final AMOC consideration of all relevant information. Many comments in that section are redundant to comments in subsequent sections. No effort was made to eliminate redundant comment because of the complexities of numbering and cross-referencing entries within each section. Written Public Comment and AMOC Responses Below is a summary of written public comment that AMOC received on the 5-Year Review from January through July 2005. Each Comment is accompanied by an AMOC Response. The notation C/R is used to flag other Comment/Response entries that seem relevant to the topic. A. General 1. Comment: The word "persecute" with respect to treatment of wolves is not appropriate. Response: The document will be reworded, so choice of modifiers does not distract from more substantive issues. Comment: It has been made clear that dissenting viewpoints in the current status and management of the program were not welcome and would not be applied to the 5-Year Review. People were told the termination option would not be available for comment. In all program reviews there are three options: continue, continue with modifications, and termination. It is premature and self serving to ignore a legal and obligatory option, simply because the agency wishes to succeed at reintroduction and eventual recovery. Response: USFWS stated in a cover letter released with the draft 5-Year Review that the Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project is a matter of law, the courts have repeatedly affirmed the legality of the Project, and the focus of the 5-Year Review would be on objectively identifying specifics about what has worked and what has not worked thus far in the Reintroduction Project. The cover letter also stated that comments providing position statements (e.g. like/dislike; agree/disagree with reintroduction) would not be considered relevant to the Review. These statements did not mean that dissenting viewpoints and the termination option would not be considered. Rather, they were intended to mean that opinions (organizational or personal preferences) on whether or not wolves should be in the wild are moot, because wolves are already on the landscape pursuant to the ESA and relevant court decisions. The purpose of the public comment period was to solicit meaningful input regarding how Mexican wolves are managed on the ground and how the Project could be improved. Therefore, what was sought through ARPCC-2















2.















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review:















December 31, 2005















public comment was substantive input (reflecting on-the-ground experiences, facts, and perceived or real flaws in current management, as opposed to simply opinions) explaining why the Project should continue, how it might be modified, or why it should be terminated. 3. Comment: In the interest of fairness to all parties, the USFWS should make every effort not only to avoid taking politically motivated solutions to problems but also should avoid the appearance of favoritism and insist that all meetings with "members of the public" be announced in advance and open to the public without restriction. (This comment was made in reference to 2 Congressman Pearce meetings). Response: The referenced meetings were not AMOC or USFWS meetings. Neither AMOC nor USFWS requested the meetings, nor did they have any role in planning or conducting them. The meetings were convened and attended by staff of Congressman Pearce (NM) and local (NM) livestock and landowner interests. They were held in Glenwood and Socorro NM, on February 12, 2005. The Congressman asked that USFWS officials attend to listen and respond to comments on the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program and the BRWRA Reintroduction Project. USFWS asked the Congressman's staff if AMOC could be extended an invitation, which was granted a few days before the meetings. AMOC, as a body, declined the invitation, in part because the meetings were not open to the public. However, when a standing member of Congress asks a Federal agency such as USFWS to attend a meeting, that agency generally does not decline the invitation. Regardless, neither AMOC nor its individual agency members can dictate with whom a Congressman and/or his staff meet. Any group or individual can request a meeting with a Congressman by contacting him or his staff directly. Comment: The ground rules for public participation in the review process have been circumvented with the 2 extra meetings in February at the request of reintroduction opponents who could not seem to convey their complaints adequately at the 4 scheduled open houses. Response: See C/R 3. Comment: The program sides with environmental extremists. Key employees' attitudes may be jaded for love of the wolf over other wildlife. It is common knowledge that one or more key players on the USFWS wolf Recovery Team are on record of wanting to stop multiple-use and in particular, grazing on Federally managed lands. That makes it hard for your team to be objective and obvious that the program has always been about more than just reintroducing wolves. Response: Agency employees in the Reintroduction Project do not have anti-grazing or anti-multiple-use agendas. As government employees and public servants, our job is to implement the Project consistent with all applicable Federal, State, and Tribal laws, and help recover the Mexican wolf, not make judgments regarding the appropriateness of grazing or other multiple-use activities on public lands. Grazing of public lands is a lawful activity, subject to regulations that AMOC does not establish or administer. It is, however, just one of the multiple-uses of public lands that we must consider in adaptively managing the Reintroduction Project.















4.















5.















ARPCC-3















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review:















December 31, 2005















6.















Comment: Will there be a highly influential scientific assessment of all science and data obtained on the Mexican wolf Reintroduction Project? All information must be complete and peer reviewed in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget, Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review published in December 2004. If the information is peer reviewed, will it be transparent and the written charge to the peer reviewers be made available to the public? Will the peer reviewer's names and expertise be made available to the public? Will the peer reviewer's reports and the agency's response to the peer reviewer's reports be made available to the public? Response: With regard to scientific assessment, the 5-Year Review's Administrative and Technical components were provided to the SWDPS Recovery Team's Technical Sub-Group in October 2004 for informal "peer" review. AMOC did that not because of a legal or procedural requirement, but because the Sub-Group had expertise directly relevant to the 5-Year Review. The Technical Sub-Group was asked to provide comment as individuals. Some did, and the documents were revised extensively to address the comment. AMOC also provided the public comment drafts of both components to the Recovery Team's Stakeholder Sub-Group as well as the Technical Sub-Group in December 2004. Again, each member was asked to provide comment individually, during the ensuing public comment period. Some did, and some provided comment through organizations or agencies with which they were affiliated. All comment received is integrated into this document, and will be reflected in appropriate final revisions of the draft 5-Year review. The Recovery Team was not asked to review the Socioeconomic Component of the 5Year Review because the Team had become inactive (see C/R 64) when that document became available for public comment in April 2005. Regarding the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (OMB 2005): that Bulletin does not apply to information disseminated on or before June 16, 2005. The Bulletin also does not apply to information for which an agency has already provided a draft report and an associated charge to peer reviewers. OMB's intent, as expressed in the Bulletin, is for agencies to have appropriate and scientifically rigorous peer review on all significant regulatory information the agencies intend to disseminate. The Administrative and Technical components of the 5-Year Review were disseminated to the public in December 2004 and January 2005, and the Socioeconomic Component was disseminated in April 2005. Since both releases preceded June 16, 2005, and the 5Year Review is not regulatory in nature; formal peer review per the OMB Bulletin is not required. The OMB Bulletin is also supplemental guidance to existing agency peer review requirements. USFWS policy (see USFWS 1994b and 1994c) is to solicit independent peer review on listing recommendations and draft recovery plans to ensure the best biological and commercial information is used in the decision-making process, as well as to ensure that reviews by recognized experts are incorporated into the review process of rulemakings and recovery plans developed in accordance with requirements of the ESA. Thus, as with the OMB Bulletin, the USFWS policy on peer review does not apply to the 5-Year Review. Comment: Will USFWS address any peer reviewer's potential conflicts of interest (including those stemming from ties to other stakeholders or others involved in the















7.















ARPCC-4















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review:















December 31, 2005















issue)? Response: All comments were taken at face value, without consideration for possible conflict of interest. See C/R 6. 8. 9. 10. 11. Comment: This report needs to be subjected to a peer review by a disinterested entity. Response: See C/R 6 and 7. Comment: Will the selection process for peer reviewers be done by using the policies employed by the National Academy of Science? Response: See C/R 6 and 7. Comment: If the peer reviewers are government employees will they be subject to Federal ethics requirements? Response: See C/R 6 and 7. Comment: Page 34, Paragraph 1 (Technical): The statement "Some forms of removal (those caused by livestock depredations) will likely remain near current levels...as they are a necessary part of any successful wolf Recovery Program" is not based on science or fact. All wolf Recovery Programs to date in the USA have included removing wolves for livestock depredations so there has been no attempt to institute a wolf Recovery Program that does not do so. Therefore this statement is not based on empirical comparison but rather on a preconceived notion. The notion that removals for depredations are an unalterable part of the management landscape but will not impact success does not have a relation to the experience of this program. The opinion quoted by agency personnel that the numbers of wolves removed due to depredations will not substantially change reflects a prejudice in favor of the current failing management paradigm, and not a considered evaluation of the facts on the ground, the Paquet analysis, nor the experience of other wolf programs. This statement should be deleted and a more reasoned evaluation of the prospects of lowering this removal rate should be substituted. Furthermore, the entire section devoted to Reproduction and Population Growth should include a PVA that incorporates all the factors effecting population and its prospects including its genetic composition. Response: The referenced comments are from the discussion section of the Technical Component of the 5-Year Review, and it appears the commenter overlooked use of the qualifier "likely." Wolves that present a chronic threat to livestock are removed to address negative impacts and to promote tolerance for other wolves on the landscape. The Blue Range Reintroduction Project and wolf recovery efforts elsewhere in the USA remove wolves with chronic livestock depredations to reduce conflicts and to manage wolves within the framework of practices that were in place prior to reintroduction or expansion of wolves. Management must also be consistent with the legal designation of wolves in the particular area. Removal of problem wolves in the BRWRA is not evidence of a failing management paradigm, but a reasoned response to wolf/human conflicts that arise. SOP 13.0: Control of Mexican Wolves is a detailed management approach aimed at lowering removal rate from the wild through application of a stepwise series of responses to nuisance and problem wolf issues. Finally, development and inclusion of a PVA is not a purpose of, and is beyond the scope of, the 5-Year Review. However, after considering all public and cooperator comment during the 5-Year Review, and its own evaluations, AMOC has made recommendations regarding a PVA that reflects our concerns about















ARPCC-5















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review:















December 31, 2005















data sufficiency for such an analysis (see the AMOC Recommendations Component; see also Fritts and Carbyn 1995, White 2000, Boitani 2003). 12. Comment: The paucity and quality of data have created an inadequate, flawed, biased review. This and the Paquet report should have been conducted by reviewers completely divorced from the program and wolf advocacy and with thorough knowledge and sensitivity to those impacted by their findings. Response: AMOC believes this Comment inaccurately portrays the integrity and quality of the 5-Year Review process. We readily acknowledge that data are lacking in some areas or are insufficient for thorough statistical analysis, although this is less a problem now than it was during the 3-Year Review (including the Paquet report). Some data insufficiencies are explainable, given the relatively brief tenure of the Reintroduction Project. Other data problems reflect reluctance by affected publics to report depredation incidents, human-wolf interactions, and documented economic impacts (positive or negative). Regardless, the 5-Year Review is being carried out as a component of an overall adaptive management program, and the persons assigned to carry it out have a thorough knowledge of the relevant issues and an objective viewpoint as to the need for and nature of constructive change. Comment: I would like to register a complaint that comments on the review be restricted to and limited by the review itself as that avoids expressing the essence of the reality. Response: The purpose of the 5-Year Review was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Mexican wolf Reintroduction Project in the BRWRA. As such, public comments were solicited specific to that topic. Regardless of the 5-Year Review, members of the public may write or call agency cooperators at any time to make inquiries, express opinions, and voice concerns or issues about any aspect of the Reintroduction Project or wolf recovery efforts. See C/R 2. Comment: NMDA suggests a total overhaul if the program is to continue, beginning with a request to Congress for proper funding levels. This funding should include fencing of a sanctuary large enough to support the contemplated recovery population. Private entities should also be contacted for additional monies. Response: Larger, dedicated budgets and more personnel would not, by themselves, lead to earlier recovery of the Mexican wolf. Greater support in those areas would help, but much more than that is needed. The Reintroduction Project reflects a legal mandate under the ESA and a judicial mandate from a pivotal court settlement and subsequent court decisions. A total Project overhaul would require changes to relevant laws, regulations, or a court decision related to the Final Rule (USFWS 1998) authorizing the reintroduction. In addition, recovery of a listed species under the ESA generally connotes healthy populations of wild, naturally interacting and dispersing, free-ranging animals that are no longer in danger of elimination throughout all or a significant portion of their range. Consequently, artificial containment of Mexican wolves to a fenced "sanctuary" would not meet the legal standard of recovery of the species under the ESA. For example, wolves maintained at pre-release facilities, such as Sevilleta and Ladder Ranch, do not count toward recovery while in captivity.















13.















14.















ARPCC-6















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review:















December 31, 2005















15.















Comment: Failure to implement the recommendations of the Paquet report has cost the project dearly in work hours, funds, morale and has contributed to the downward population trend in the wild. It would be best to recover the Mexican wolf so that it could then be managed as a recovered population with the concomitant benefits to the taxpayer, ranchers, outfitter, business people, tourists, politicians and the American public. Response: Wolf recovery and subsequent management at State or Tribal levels would likely provide benefits to many interested and affected parties. However, the Paquet et al. 2001 report, which addressed technical issues, was only one component of the 3-Year Review. The August 2001 Stakeholders Workshop (Kelly et al. 2001) also generated many recommendations. Under a principle of "equality of implementation," perhaps both sets of recommendations would have been implemented. This would have been impractical, since some recommendations in the Stakeholders report conflicted with some in the Paquet report or others in the Stakeholders report. A fundamental failure of the 3Review was absence of an overall set of recommendations from the various components that the cooperators agreed to implement. However, failure to implement recommendations from the Technical Component (i.e. Paquet report) of the 3-Year Review has not resulted in a failure to attain "recovered" status at this point, nor has it caused a downward population trend in the wild. Despite fluctuations in population parameters due to mortality, weather, disease, reproduction, removals, and many other causes, the number of breeding pairs in the wild and total wolf numbers in the wild are increasing. In 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 there were 0, 0, 1, 3, 5, 3, and 6 breeding pairs (5-Year Review Technical Component). The IFT projects that the number of breeding pairs on December 31, 2005 will be 5-8. Similar trends have been observed for the minimum population count, with counts of 4, 15, 22, 26, 42, 55, and 4448 for 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, respectively (5-Year Review Technical Component). The mid-year informal (tentative) count for 2005 indicates a minimum of 51-63 wolves. However, after considering all public and cooperator comment during the 5-Year Review, and its own evaluations, AMOC has made recommendations regarding possible changes in the Final Rule or creation of a new Final Rule, and other essential actions that would enhance efforts to attain Reintroduction Project objectives (see the AMOC Recommendations Component). Comment: Page 1, first paragraph, Technical: Wolves still inhabited Mexico through the 1980s, not because removal efforts there were not as effective, but because organized efforts were begun later in 1950 and because these efforts were sporadic and not as consistent as they had been in the US. Response: Other possible explanations for longer persistence in Mexico include more wolves to begin with, less effective eradication techniques and fewer dedicated control agents, and/or more remote areas with less access. Any explanation at this juncture would be conjectural, however, so it might be best to simply state (as we will) that "wolf removal efforts in Mexico in the early to mid-1900s were not completely successful, in that some wolves survived." Comment: The Catron County Commission is concerned about the introduction of Mexican wolves to the county and formally requests that the NMFG Commission institute an assessment of the existing and potential impacts that may occur to the wildlife ARPCC-7















16.















17.















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review:















December 31, 2005















of NM. We also request they determine the wolf impacts on the other specifics of NM wildlife to include effects on elk population, on the declining mule deer population, on threatened and endangered species of the State, and the nation. Furthermore we request that the Game and Fish Commission utilize the services of NM State University's Wildlife Department, who has expertise regarding predator/prey ecology and wildlife management. Response: This request is outside the scope of the 5-Year Review. However, the following discussion addresses, in part, issues raised by the Commenter. Using the best available information: The FEIS estimates 4800-10,000 fewer deer and 1200-1900 fewer elk over the entire BRWRA at a point in time five years after the initial wolf population goal of 100 wolves is achieved. Data gathered on free-ranging wolves since their release in 1998 suggest a heavier reliance on elk, and less use of deer, than was estimated in the FEIS. NMDGF has more recently modeled elk populations and wolf mortality within the NM portion of the BRWRA. Their results indicated that humancaused mortality (i.e. hunting) of elk is the primary mortality factor regulating elk populations, and that elk hunting designed to meet (human) objectives for elk populations in this unit and wolf predation can be sustained with the current BRWRA wolf reintroduction goal. To date, no detectable changes to big game populations as a result of wolf reintroduction have occurred in AZ or NM. No changes in the number of permits issued for big game hunts have been made as a result of wolf presence, either. The Socioeconomic Component of the 5-Year Review indicates the level of hunting activity across the BRWRA has not declined since the Reintroduction Project began. Elk permits and hunter days have both increased during the Reintroduction Project (1998-2004). Although there is no data at this time specific to the BRWRA, primarily due to the small population size and lack of detailed studies prior to reintroduction of Mexican wolves in the BRWRA, the effects of reintroducing a "top carnivore" on other associated species can be postulated from research conducted in Yellowstone. That data shows a positive response from willows, aspen, and cottonwoods trees in areas frequented by wolves (Ripple and Beschta 2003, 2004), suggesting wolf reintroduction has likely had a positive influence on watershed conditions by redistributing ungulate (primarily elk) grazing. Wolves in Yellowstone have contributed to a more stable and healthy elk population (Smith et al. 2003). Also, wolves have reduced coyote populations and wolf kills provide a meat source for bears, eagles, and other scavengers (Smith et al. 2003). The Yellowstone studies have thus shown the wolf can play an important role in contributing toward balanced ecosystem function (see also Terborgh et al. 1999 regarding ecosystem roles of "top carnivores"). There is no evidence that Mexican wolves pose threats to, or have adverse impacts on, any other species of wildlife (including other imperiled, at-risk, threatened, or endangered species) in terms of diminished prey population status. 18. Comment: Within this program, the public funds allocated have been exceeded. Positive results have not been seen and the subsidies are not working. Good management of this program is highly overrated for conservation purposes. Response: As the Project has moved toward a true partnership among the Lead Agencies participating in AMOC, the shortfall in annual Congressional appropriations to USFWS for this project has been partially offset by increased contributions from other partners. The other agencies see this as a reflection of their legal obligations under the ESA and essential to meeting ARPCC-8















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review:















December 31, 2005















obligations created when wolf reintroduction was approved. As the partnership funding has increased over the past two years, under auspices of AMOC, we have been able to increase on-the-ground wolf management efforts through an expanded IFT. Much of this growth has occurred over the past 12-18 months, thus it is not reflected in the draft 5Year Review documents. Nevertheless, the partner agencies believe the investment is worthwhile, and wolf management is improving as a result. 19. Comment: WS used to provide hazing, pre-inspection of localized wolves, and outreach services which are no longer available the last two years because of cost-cutting. No effort has been made to replace this loss as the population increases. Because of no collaring wolves the last two years, management for WS is impossible and ranchers to adjust to grazing areas. Response: WS responds to potential Mexican wolf depredations reported by livestock owners, the public and the IFT (of which WS staff are members). Since FY 2003, appropriated funds have been insufficient for WS to contribute to all wolf work needed in the BRWRA. AMOC needs four FTEs from WS for wolf management in AZ and NM, but WS funding is sufficient for only 1.25 FTEs. Consequently, WS has been forced to redirect its IFT resources to focus primarily on timely depredation response. More wolves have been captured in 2005 than in any previous year on the Project. However, even more wolves must be collared to improve all aspects of wolf management. Finally, AMOC is constantly seeking additional sources of funding, personnel, and equipment to further assist cooperative efforts in managing wolves throughout the BRWRA. Comment: Catron County NM requests the USFWS schedule another public meeting regarding the introduction of the wolf. Response: AMOC is the appropriate entity to convene public meetings regarding the Blue Range Reintroduction Project. AMOC is comprised of six lead agencies (AGFD, NMDGF, WS, USFS, USFWS, and WMAT) that share primary regulatory jurisdiction and/or management authority over the Mexican wolf in AZ and NM. These agencies have delegated oversight and direction of the Blue Range Reintroduction Project to AMOC. Other State agencies and county governments that have an interest in Mexican wolf management can also participate, as formal or informal Cooperators. NMDA and Greenlee County AZ are examples of formal Cooperators. AMOC holds quarterly public AMWG meetings in the BRWRA to provide ample opportunity for stakeholder participation in the Reintroduction Project. Since this Comment was submitted (July 2005), AMOC has held two additional public meetings regarding the Reintroduction Project, one each in Glenwood NM and Morenci AZ (both in October 2005), and two more will be held in January 2006, in Safford AZ and Silver City NM. Other public meetings will held as necessary to further opportunities for public participation. Requests for public meetings should be directed to the AMOC Chair, Mr. Terry B. Johnson, AGFD. Comment: The open house sessions held by the USFWS put on a one-sided show ? all pro-wolf and shows none of the damages wolves cause. Response: See C/R 20. USFWS is just one of six AMOC Lead Agencies. AMOC conducted several open houses and other public meetings in 2004 and 2005, as components of the 5-Year Review. All six ARPCC-9















20.















21.















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review:















December 31, 2005















Lead Agencies participated in structuring and carrying out the meetings. The meetings reflected previous public comment about format, including conflicting desires for more structured and for less structured meetings. In each meeting, AMOC's discussion of the issues inherent to wolf reintroduction (e.g. livestock depredation, nuisance wolf problems) was forthright and balanced ? all aspects were covered, wolf damage was not downplayed. However, perhaps the "one-sided show" Comment is in reference to possible under-representation of depredation scenes in graphics (e.g. posters) posted at these meetings. Thus, AMOC is developing material to provide better graphic image balance in the future, and would appreciate contributions of appropriate images from any source. 22. Comment: Project personnel are not honest or truthful about the wolves and their history. Response: Inaccurate information is never intentionally provided by Reintroduction Project personnel or by any agency participant in the Project. Anyone who has evidence to the contrary should submit it to AMOC, or directly to the appropriate agency, with sufficient detail to enable appropriate investigation. All information provided about individual wolves and their history is factual, and is based on the best available information. The Project maintains various databases that track each individual wolf in the wild. Additionally, a hard-copy file maintained for each wolf contains information on the wolf's history. However, wolf behavior and new circumstances inevitably result in changes in knowledge about individual wolves and packs of wolves. AMOC is well aware that when agency employees provide new information that conflicts with previous information, accusations of dishonesty and lying may result. This does not stop us from presenting new facts or theories, when appropriate to do so. Comment: The relationship between the IFT and locals needs to be improved. Local input on prey base should be considered along with greater input on wolf saturation level should be used unless greater funds become available to supply greater staff to a large rugged area. Response: There is always room for improvement in this area, and the IFT is working with local landowners on a daily basis to make the Project more efficient and effective for all stakeholders. The IFT invites local residents and other members of the public to participate in wolf management activities as available and as appropriate to the specific activity. AMOC and the IFT will consider any specific suggestions in regard to improving relationships with local residents and/or other interested parties and stakeholders. With regard to prey base issues, the IFT uses the best available information from the State and Tribal wildlife agencies, but insights from local residents can be very helpful (e.g. to help identify the best suitable areas for release or translocation of wolves). Comment: The Administrative Introduction section fails to mention the turnover in the Mexican wolf project leader position and the long lapses of time during which the position remained vacant. Response: The USFWS Mexican Wolf Recovery Coordinator position was vacant from October 1999 through April 2000, and again from July 2003 through November 2004. During both periods, USFWS continued to fulfill Recovery















23.















24.















ARPCC-10















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review:















December 31, 2005















Coordinator responsibilities through use of existing Mexican wolf Recovery Program staff or by appointing an Acting Mexican Wolf Recovery Coordinator. 25. Comment: Why has the Defenders fund which offers assistance to ranchers for additional riders, ranch hands, fences, etc. been so under-utilized? Response: Defenders has not provided any data to AMOC that would enable us to determine if its incentives fund has been under- or over-used. However, use of this fund is not within AMOC's scope of authority. The fund is private, and its use is a function of cooperation between individual ranchers and Defenders. We can only provide information to the public that the fund is available, and contact information for Defenders. Comment: Page 1, first paragraph (Technical): The Predatory Animal and Rodent Control Service was not actually a Service and did not exist in the period 1915 ? 1925. The agency that should be referenced is the US Biological Survey which in 1940 became the USFWS. Response: The Federal government's direct predator control work began in 1914, within the Bureau of Biological Survey (see Robinson 2005 for relevant background). In 1924, the Bureau became the Division of Predatory Animal and Rodent Control (PARC). At least two more name changes occurred before 1939, when the Division of Predator and Rodent Control was transferred from USDA to the Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. More name changes occurred, before the predator control program was returned to USDA, where it eventually became known as USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services. The 5-Year Review's Technical Component will be modified to reflect this history. Comment: Supporters of the Mexican wolf program far outnumber its opponents. Response: The few public surveys and opinion polls conducted on this subject affirm that a majority of respondents (including those residing within the BRWRA) support Mexican wolf recovery (e.g. Biggs 1988, Duda et al. 1998, Johnson 1990, Manfredo et al. 1994). Comment: Obviously the USFWS is spread so thin that they cannot cover the entire BRWRA and have not the personnel to do so. The agency admits to being chronically short staffed. Response: The IFT has not been fully staffed or funded since reintroduction began in 1998. Recent cutbacks in WS budget have exacerbated problems in management responses (see C/R 19). However (see C/R 18), in 2004 and 2005 AMOC was able to compensate for Congressionally-imposed cutbacks in USFWS funding by infusing more State and USFS funding. At the Reintroduction Project's public meetings in 2005, various individuals commented that some aspects of the field effort had improved as a result of infusion of additional resources into the IFT. Comment: The USFWS annual budget for FY 2005 (October 1, 2004 to September 30, 2005) had to be enhanced by a $350,000 line item. Response: USFWS does not receive a specific line item for Mexican wolf from Congress. The Recovery Program has received varying sums of money directly from USFWS's Washington Office (versus the more conventional budget allocation process within USFWS, Region 2, Albuquerque) the last couple of years. In FY 2005 this sum was $350,000. Depending on the amount allocated ARPCC-11















26.















27.















28.















29.















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review:















December 31, 2005















by Washington each year, Region 2 has made up at least part, if not all, of the shortfall in program funds by reallocating funds within the Region. In FY 2006 (October 1, 2005 to September 30, 2006), the USFWS Mexican Wolf Recovery Program is not scheduled to receive funding directly from the Washington Office. Whether USFWS Region 2 will make sufficient regional funds available to cover any wolf program shortfall in FY 2006 (i.e. between the proposed budget and the allocated funds) remains to be seen. However, USFWS will continue to seek the amount of funding needed for the program. 30. Comment: The agencies budget for FY 2006 is a half million dollars less than FY 2003 and there are more and more wolves on the ground to manage. Response: The initial FY 2006 budget figures for the USFWS portion of the Project budget are down from last year. However, USFWS is only one of six agencies that fund AMOC and IFT activities. Total budget projections (i.e. among all Lead Agencies) for the Project in FY 2006 are close to last year's actual allocations. Comment: The USFWS annual budget for FY 2006 (October 1, 2005 to September 30, 2006) will not be enhanced by a line item. Response: See C/R 29 and 30. Comment: Tax money shouldn't be spent on recovering wolves and putting us out of business. Response: Funds spent on Mexican wolf recovery are a lawful, legitimate, and court-mandated use of Federal tax monies. No State or Tribal tax funds are used for the Reintroduction Project. The Socioeconomic Component of the 5-Year Review, conducted by an independent contractor, failed to identify any instances whereby Mexican wolf reintroduction efforts have put anyone out of business. If anyone has documentation to the contrary, please provide it to AMOC. Comment: I would like to know the cost of recapturing a wolf. I would think it considerable with all the manpower, vehicles, and aircraft involved. Response: AMOC cannot break out each individual activity for a cost analysis; agency cost accounting systems do not enable us to do so. See C/R 30 and 36. Comment: There are no measurable meaningful milestones of costs or time to consider if the program is on track. The costs of the program must be available to the public at any and all times. There should be a budget, time table and a plan the public can see the progress of and if results are forthcoming cost effectiveness. Response: The AMOC Lead Agencies have made concerted efforts to account for all monies spent on reintroduction and recovery of the Mexican wolf. Current Mexican wolf recovery/reintroduction budget information is presented to the public twice each year, during AMWG meetings (see C/R 242-251 regarding adaptive management). The Socioeconomic Component of the 5-Year Review also addresses Project costs. The 3 and 5-Year Reviews and Reintroduction Project Annual Reports are also benchmarks designed to report and help evaluate progress. Comment: The IFT must have state of the art equipment and research tools to better monitor and record data relating to Mexican wolves. Increased funding for research will ARPCC-12















31. 32.















33.















34.















35.















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review:















December 31, 2005















increase the type and volume of data collected for improved management. Response: The IFT has all the equipment and tools appropriate and necessary to perform its functions. However, the IFT is a management entity, not a research entity. The IFT uses proven techniques that have been developed and/or refined by countless wildlife researchers. The IFT also explores additional methods by which it can improve these techniques for Mexican wolf monitoring and management. Project-related research is largely conducted by parties other than the IFT, to ensure that it doesn't detract from IFT management priorities. 36. Comment: What is the cost per wolf of the program? Response: Cost per wolf is a highly misleading measure of program effectiveness, because so many factors come into play. As of June 30, 2005, there were approximately 51-63 Mexican wolves in the wild (see C/R 15) and more than 200 in captivity. AMOC estimates that for the period 19772005 expenditures on Mexican wolf recovery and reintroduction by all cooperating agencies were approximately $14,177,094. This does not include expenditures by captive-rearing facilities, which are often subsidized by private donations. Costs for facilities, equipment, and other "long-lived" items must be amortized, not just across wolves produced in captivity or the wild to date, but across those that will be produced within the useful lifespan of such facilities and equipment. Finally, a "cost per wolf" index would fail to attribute costs to such AMOC actions as increasing the quantity, quality, and geographic coverage of public participation components of wolf recovery/reintroduction, which are considerable. See C/R 30 and 33. Comment: There needs to be accountability and responsibility for all adverse results associated with this program (public health, personal losses, and revenue loss). Response: AMOC and its signatory Cooperators recognize (as stated in the October 2003 MOU convening the group) that negative impacts of wolf reintroduction must be satisfactorily addressed in order to maximize likelihood of success. The question becomes, however, what is the actual extent of impact in each area, and how might these impacts best be remedied? Hard data are needed to refine the extent of impact; thus far such data have proven elusive at best. In the absence of hard data, anecdotal information and more subjective personal observation come into play. The complexity of interpreting cause and effect (thus remedies) is exacerbated, because other factors mask impacts from wolves in many areas of concern. Moreover, despite widespread attention given to documented, undocumented, or perceived impacts, no elected officials have stepped forward to provide a reliable, stable, sufficient source of funding for management incentives or compensation for any aspect of private or local government impact, including livestock depredation. After considering all public and cooperator comment during the 5-Year Review, and its own evaluations, AMOC has made recommendations regarding possible voluntary incentives programs to address livestock depredation issues and associated economic issues (see the AMOC Recommendations Component). Comment: Those that live in the recovery area want the wolves out. The only private sector opinions that should be considered are from those people living inside the recovery area. Those that want the wolves that live in cities don't have to deal with a dangerous ARPCC-13















37.















38.















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review:















December 31, 2005















animal in their midst or threats to their livelihoods. Response: AMOC is committed to ensuring that the voices of those most directly affected by wolf reintroduction are heard and heeded as decisions are shaped and implemented, but all other opinions and voices must also be heard. 39. Comment: Inherent in the Mexican wolf program is the "opinion" that the various rural cultures are not valuable. This is our home and our world and it is being attacked by outsiders in a very sophisticated but insensitive and war-like manner by these transient outsiders from their transient homes, worlds, and careers. The Mexican wolf program if persisted in, will inevitably lead to cultural and material disasters --the rural cultures are threatened by wolf recovery and cannot survive it. Response: AMOC believes that a commitment to wolf recovery is unrelated to any "opinions" about whether or not rural cultures are valuable. However, the AMOC Lead Agencies wish to make clear that by law, policy, regulation, ethics, and action, they do and always will value rural cultures. The fact is, wolf reintroduction and recovery are infinitely more compatible with rural than with urban culture. Thus, finding meaningful ways to sustain, even enhance, rural culture is essential to successful pursuit of wolf reintroduction and recovery goals. Comment: The USFWS admitted to feeding wolves in captivity diets consisting of beef. Thus if the environmentalists assumption (that wolves that scavenge on livestock carcasses will eventually kill livestock) is correct, then no wolves ever fed from these sources in captivity should be released to the wild. Response: Mexican wolves in SSP captive breeding facilities in the USA that are not candidates for eventual release can be fed beef. Many facilities, however, choose not to exercise this option and continue to feed their wolves native prey, or a zoo based canine diet that includes a high protein, nutrientdense, poultry and pork-based kibble, and a high protein meat "log" made of horse meat and horse meat by-products. Wolves housed at USFWS approved pre-release facilities (i.e. Ladder Ranch Wolf Management Facility, Sevilleta Wolf Management Facility, and Wolf Haven International) are fed a varying diet that does not include beef. Pre-release wolves are primarily fed native prey animals such as mule deer, white-tailed deer, and elk. Most of the native prey food is obtained via road kill salvage. When native prey is not available, pre-release wolves are fed kibble or carnivore logs (but never beef in any form). Comment: Any road kill fed to wolves should be disease free to mitigate potential spread of CWD. (#22 Technical). Response: Road-killed ungulate carcasses fed to Mexican wolves in captivity or the wild should be disease free. Appropriate, conservative measures are being taken in AZ and NM to avoid potential for spread of CWD (see SOP 9.0: Road Kill Salvage). Understanding of CWD is constantly expanding; as new information becomes available, SOP 9.0 will be amended appropriately. Comment: You admit to having continual funding problems to fund the program and now you suggest "financial incentive programs for landowners/permittees in exchange for an increased level of tolerance." When will you stop finding new ways to spend money and accept there are numerous problems with this Recovery Program and ARPCC-14















40.















41.















42.















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review:















December 31, 2005















financing is certainly not the least of it? Response: AMOC has consistently stated that funding for the Reintroduction Project, including funds for field staff, currently fall below the level necessary to meet all public desires for information and management actions relating to Mexican wolves. More funding and more funding stability are needed to perform all wolf-related activities at the levels requested by interested publics. These activities include monitoring for wolf locations, determining population size, monitoring reproduction and number of breeding pairs, information dissemination, management and control actions, improving counts of livestock losses to wolves, monitoring for changes in social/cultural aspects of local communities, studies of prey population changes and potential ecosystem effects. Funding for financial incentives described within the 5-Year Review would have to originate from different sources of funds than those already available for the Reintroduction Project, to prevent a reduction of ongoing services the Project currently provides. 43. Comment: The main objective of this project is to put ranchers out of business and should be addressed in the 5-Year Review. Response: Consistent with the MOU under which the Reintroduction Project operates, the Project's objective is to help recover the Mexican wolf pursuant to the ESA and relevant court rulings, while minimizing negative impacts within the BRWRA. See also C/R 5. Comment: The 1996 FEIS on the reintroduction of the Mexican wolf did not demonstrate the real socioeconomic inputs to communities and individuals, did not properly consider local experts observations and opinion, and did not truthfully report the past or reality. This is a gross injustice. Response: Socioeconomic aspects of the FEIS were based on the best information available at the time. The FEIS projected future environmental consequences of a range of alternatives as objectively, accurately, and completely as possible. However, this Comment is outside the scope of the 5-Year Review. Comment: A large stakeholders group was put together by the Wolf Recovery Coordinator at the time, for the purpose of making recommendations for changes in the program in a way that would forward the program, yet eliminate or mitigate the problems and make things work for the majority of the stakeholders. What has happened to those recommendations? Response: The 3-Year Review, which included the referenced Stakeholders Workshop, was conducted in 2001. However, it did not culminate with the desired primary cooperator (USFWS, AGFD, NMDGF, and WMAT) discussion of the recommendations, thus final actions were not taken in a formal or organized, collaborative sense. Several things occurred that contributed to the lack of closure: (1) in July 2001, Congressman Skeen (NM) inserted language in the USFWS 2002 budget allocation directing USFWS to conduct an independent review of the 3-Year Review before taking action on its recommendations; (2) the USFWS Region 2 Director position (covering AZ and NM as well as Oklahoma and Texas) was vacated in 2001, and Acting Directors were hesitant to make decisions in the absence of a new Director; and (3) lack of cooperator and public consensus about the fairness and validity of the overall 3-Year Review process. As a result of these factors, in August 2002 USFWS asked the State ARPCC-15















44.















45.















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review:















December 31, 2005















wildlife agencies in AZ and NM to conduct the independent review Congressman Skeen had requested, which was due in September 2002. The states conducted the review, and in September 2002 provided a suite of recommendations to the new USFWS Region 2 Director. From September 2002 through October 2003, the states, USFWS, and eventually other State, Federal, Tribal, and local government cooperators, developed a cooperative adaptive management program to provide fresh guidance for the Reintroduction Project, and restore and enhance opportunities for public involvement in the effort. Fundamental to this renewed commitment to collaboration was conducting a thorough 5-Year Review of the Reintroduction Project, with substantial public involvement, during which the Paquet Report, the Stakeholders Workshop, and all other aspects of the 3-Year Review would be re-considered. The Paquet Report is often referenced as "pure science," but much of it has administrative, legal, and social contexts, especially some of the key recommendations that were not subjected to final primary cooperator review. The Stakeholders Workshop also generated recommendations, some of which conflicted with other recommendations from the same workshop, and some of which conflicted with recommendations from the Paquet report. These conflicts were never explored or resolved in 2001, for reasons discussed above. Now they have been vetted and addressed during the 5-Year Review. See also C/R 15. 46. Comment: USFWS has stopped trapping in winter months unless forced to do so by a major depredation problem and official pressure. Response: The IFT traps wolves yearround as necessary for depredation management (see SOP 13.0: Control of Mexican Wolves). However, the IFT does not trap for routine monitoring when temperatures are too cold, because of increased risk of foot injuries (i.e. all management actions have inherent risks) and the labor-intensive monitoring (i.e. hourly trap checks throughout the night) needed for devices that indicate when a wolf has been caught. These devices also require trapping within a localized area, thus limiting success because, in winter, wolves typically only localize in areas near recent kills. Comment: Consider termination of the program for various reasons including: budget constraints, ineffective management, failure to implement the Final Rule, failure to deal with public safety issues, wolf reintroduction has changed the socioeconomic, culture and customs of the recovery area. Response: Under applicable Federal law, and relevant court decisions, wolf reintroduction will be pursued until recovery has been achieved, thus setting the stage for Federal downlisting, and delisting, and a "return" to State and Tribal management outside the ESA. See also C/R 14. Comment: WS should have the lead for the program. Response: Each of the six AMOC Lead Agencies brings unique authorities and responsibilities to Mexican wolf management. The ESA of 1973, as amended, commits all Federal departments and agencies (and States participating in ESA Section 6 agreements, such as AZ and NM) to conserving endangered and threatened species, and using their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the ESA. Under Federal law of March 2, 1931, WS, a Federal agency, is also responsible for providing Federal leadership and expertise to resolve conflicts between humans and wildlife, including threatened and endangered species. Conflicts are ARPCC-16















47.















48.















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review:















December 31, 2005















resolved in cooperation with Federal, State, and Tribal agencies, private individuals, and other public and private agencies, organizations, and institutions. USFWS is the lead Federal agency in matters pertaining to the ESA. In addition, each State or Tribal wildlife agency is responsible for managing wildlife within its boundaries as a public or Tribal trust. Thus, responsibility for the Reintroduction Project is appropriately shared among the six AMOC Lead Agencies. 49. Comment: Remove cooperator status of NGOs that influence the program through financial contributions. Response: Per the MOU under which the Reintroduction Project operates, NGOs do not have Cooperator status in AMOC or in AMWG. No NGO has influenced or will be allowed to influence (i.e. directly or indirectly) the Reintroduction Project via financial contributions, although AMOC continues to welcome financial contributions from any organization or individual for purposes that are consistent with Project objectives and management approaches. See also C/R 245 and 247.















B. Legal Issues 50. Comment: The 5-Year Review should contain some discussion and recommendations concerning law enforcement in wolf mortalities. Response: Law enforcement is a small but crucial portion of reintroduction/recovery efforts for species like the Mexican wolf. The 5-Year Review will be revised to address general enforcement issues better, but discussion of individual active investigations is precluded to protect the integrity of the investigations and potential prosecutions. Also, after considering all public and cooperator comment during the 5-Year Review, and its own evaluations, AMOC has made a recommendation regarding law enforcement activities, including investigative issues (see the AMOC Recommendations Component). Comment: Prior to a rule change or recommending any changes to livestock operations in the BRWRA, a takings implication assessment should occur. A real one ? not the shallow inadequate attempt implemented by the prior FEIS related to the current rule. There have been several cases since the FEIS relating to property on Federal lands, surface easements, and water rights that need to be completely considered before implementing any new changes that detrimentally affect livestock operators. Response: The Reintroduction Project is authorized under the Final Rule, which reflects a commitment to integrate wolf reintroduction and recovery into multiple-uses of public lands and to minimize conflicts on private lands. The Final Rule is not structured, nor is the Reintroduction Project empowered or administered, to force changes in public or private grazing practices to accommodate presence of wolves. Thus, the 5-Year Review and ongoing adaptive management of the Project will continue to focus on finding and implementing incentives for voluntary actions by ranchers and other stakeholders that would help accommodate presence of wolves by reducing conflicts such as livestock depredation. After considering all public and cooperator comment during the 5-Year Review, and its own evaluations, AMOC has made a recommendation regarding possible voluntary incentives programs to address issues reflected in this Comment (see the AMOC Recommendations Component). However, concerns about "takings" implications ARPCC-17















51.















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review:















December 31, 2005















for livestock operations should be addressed through agency appeals processes and/or legal action, as they largely represent constitutional and legal issues about which there is significant disagreement between and among the interested and affected parties (i.e. they are beyond the scope of the 5-Year Review). 52. Comment: You have no flexible legal protection like a large control zone with complete protection (the containment area) surrounded by a zone in which wolves can be taken under permit or for depredation control or for reduction of wolf numbers. Response: Cooperating agencies within AMOC are committed by law, rule, and policy to manage wolves within a multiple-use context on public lands. There is no place in that scenario for a large control zone in which wolves are completely protected (e.g. where wolves would never be controlled, regardless of depredation behavior). Management (including prescribed take) of wolves within the Reintroduction Project is essential to comply with applicable laws (e.g. ESA), regulations (e.g. Final Rule), and policies (e.g. AMOC SOPs) and to appropriately balance wolf conservation (and progress toward recovery) with preexisting multiple-uses of public lands and private property rights. Comment: Page 22, Paragraph 2 (Technical): The word "illegal" should be added before "vehicle collision" to those that were not reported as required by the Final Rule because it is illegal to kill a Mexican wolf by vehicle and then not report it. Similarly, "lethal control" should be changed to "government gunshot" and "capture complications" should be changed to "stress from government aerial pursuit." Response: The referenced paragraph of the 5-Year Review summarizes the types of wolf mortalities that have occurred in the BRWRA. The collision itself is not illegal; failure to report the collision to the appropriate authorities is the illegal action. As for the other suggestion, lethal control and capture complications more accurately describe the occurrences. Comment: The right for individuals to protect themselves and their property from a wolf attack must be a part of any and all rules pertaining to the Mexican wolf. Response: The rights of individuals to protect themselves (and their property in certain circumstances) are affirmed in the Final Rule. Comment: USFWS had prior knowledge of the likelihood of livestock predation and knew that take of private property would occur yet no funds have been appropriated to pay for the take of US citizens' property. This is a violation of the Constitution. If tax payers want wolves, then taxpayers should pay for all costs of the program including private property damages. Response: See C/R 223-251 regarding compensation. Comment: Livestock owners should be allowed to protect their property regardless of where the livestock or the wolves are. The US Constitution outlines the rights of all citizens regardless of whether they are on private, State or Federal lands and the USFWS has made an unprecedented statement (law) which gives different rights depending on where someone is located. Response: On private lands and Tribal Trust Lands anywhere within the MWEPA, the Final Rule states "livestock owners or their agents may take (including kill or injure) any wolf actually `engaged in the act of killing, wounding, or ARPCC-18















53.















54.















55.















56.















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review:















December 31, 2005















biting livestock;' provided that evidence of livestock freshly wounded or killed by wolves is present; and further provided that the take is reported to the Service's Mexican Wolf Recovery Coordinator or a designated representative of the Service within 24 hours." The Final Rule also includes a provision that livestock owners or their agents may be issued a permit on public lands, under the ESA, to take wolves actually engaged in the act of killing, wounding, or biting livestock. Before such a permit is issued, several conditions must be met, including: a) livestock must be legally present on the grazing allotment; b) six or more breeding pairs of Mexican wolves must be present in the BRWRA; c) previous loss or injury of livestock on the grazing allotment, caused by wolves, must be documented by USFWS or authorized agent; and d) agency efforts to resolve the problem must be completed. At this time (September 2005), all four of these conditions have not been met in any one incident, thus no landowner permits have been issued. 57. Comment: Losses of livestock to other predators must also be considered a take of property by the program as severe restrictions have been placed on the use of M44s, leg hold traps, and aerial gunning of coyotes. Response: The Final Rule states that "the WS division will discontinue use of M-44s and choking-type snares in "occupied Mexican wolf range'' (see definition in section 17.84(k)(15))." A USFWS Biological Opinion issued to WS allows for M-44 use in the recovery area outside "occupied habitat." However, WS has chosen to be even more restrictive to ensure protection of wolves. The Final Rule does allow "selective lethal control of coyotes by traps, calling and shooting, and aerial shooting, as well as a variety of non-lethal techniques." No restrictions were placed on management of bears and mountain lions. Furthermore, in NM, the NMDA restricts use of M-44s by private applicators in areas of Mexican wolf habitat. Comment: How long can the American citizen expect to suffer under the mandates of a failed program and the dictates of the ESA? As a result of the ESA, citizens all across America have suffered as a result of a veritable cornucopia of nonessential species listings. I demand the ESA be repealed, terminated or major modifications enforced. Response: The Reintroduction Project has not failed. Reauthorization of the ESA is an issue to be addressed in Congress and is beyond the scope of the 5-Year Review. Comment: How long do the agencies plan on continuing this failed program? Response: See C/R 47 and 58. Comment: How long will funding continue to be allocated in support of this failed program? Response: See C/R 47 and 58. Comment: There is no public mandate to recover Mexican wolves. Response: See C/R 47 and 58. Comment: All of this is being done for a statute that expired many years ago (ESA) and would not be in place except for the appropriations committee not fighting for proper rules and procedures. It is hoped expired statutes would not be funded as a rule. Response: The ESA was due for reauthorization in 1993. Although it has not been ARPCC-19















58.















59. 60. 61. 62.















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review:















December 31, 2005















reauthorized, the USFWS Endangered Species program has continued to receive annual appropriations while Congress considers reauthorization. This allows conservation actions for threatened and endangered species to continue. The annual appropriations also serve to extend the ESA, as currently amended, one year at a time. 63. Comment: A congressional investigation should be made to investigate the USFWS and the field team. Response: AMOC does not intend to request a Congressional or GAO investigation of the USFWS, the IFT, or any other element of the Reintroduction Project; nor does AMOC believe an investigation is warranted or that it would be fruitful. Comment: The Mexican wolf recovery plan says there is "no possibility for complete delisting of the Mexican wolf." Mexican wolves will never be delisted so the statements you make to us about delisting them once 100 wolves are in the wild is a lie. Response: AMOC believes that no agency or employee representing the Reintroduction Project has ever said, nor could they say at this time, that achieving the Reintroduction Project's population objective of at least 100 wolves in the BRWRA would ensure delisting the Mexican wolf. There is no such guarantee of delisting, and never has been. In addition, we note that the 1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan (USFWS 1982) referenced in this Comment is 20 years out of date. The Plan itself notes that both the Plan and the quantified objective are "subject to amendment as more data on the Mexican wolf are acquired." New recovery guidance, based on what has been learned over the past 20 years, will be determined when the Recovery Plan is revised and approved, a process that was well underway in 2004. Given the recent U.S. District Court decisions (Defenders of Wildlife et al. v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Interior; et al. 03-1348-JO; and National Wildlife Federation et al. v. Secretary, United States Department of Interior. 1:03-CV340) to vacate the USFWS (2003) gray wolf reclassification, USFWS Region 2 put the SWDPS Recovery Team on hold in February 2005 pending a formal response to the court rulings. This means the Recovery Team cannot complete a revised Recovery Plan that covers the Reintroduction Project and the BRWRA until after this 5-Year Review has been completed. Whether or not achieving the BRWRA population objective is alone sufficient for recovery (thus delisting), or merely a step toward recovery, will not be clear until the Recovery Plan is completed and approved. See C/R 359 regarding the BRWRA population objective. Note: On December 19, 2005, AMOC was informed that Craig Manson, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, had that day issued a statement on the USFWS decision regarding the U.S. District Court decisions earlier this year striking down USFWS's reclassification of gray wolf populations. Mr. Manson's statement was as follows: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will not appeal U.S. District Court decisions earlier this year striking down the Service's reclassification of gray wolf populations from endangered to threatened for much of the species' current range in the United States, although we continue to believe the reclassification was both biologically and legally sound. We are exploring options for managing wolf ARPCC-20















64.















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review:















December 31, 2005















populations that comply with the Courts' rulings, while recognizing, as the courts did, that the Yellowstone and Great Lakes wolf populations have reached the recovery goals necessary for delisting. The Department of the Interior plans to issue separate, proposed rules to delist new distinct population segments of gray wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains and the Great Lakes as early as possible in 2006. Both proposed rules will have public comment periods lasting 90 days. In the meantime, gray wolves will continue to be managed as they were prior to the 2003 reclassification. Gray wolves in Minnesota are classified as threatened, as a result of a 1978 reclassification. Gray wolves in the remaining 47 conterminous states and Mexico are endangered, except where they are listed as part of an Experimental Population for reintroduction purposes in the northern Rockies and parts of the Southwest. Citizens with concerns about wolf management should contact the Fish and Wildlife Service or their State wildlife agency for clarification of what actions are currently allowed under the management designation in effect where they live. In light of Assistant Secretary Manson's statement (above), USFWS Region 2 also affirmed on December 19, 2005 that it would move forward with wolf recovery planning in the Southwest. Meanwhile, after considering all public and cooperator comment during the 5-Year Review, and its own evaluations, AMOC has made various recommendations to USFWS and for AMOC action on issues that it considers necessary to address within the context of the 5-Year Review of the Reintroduction Project and the Final Rule under which the Project operates (see the AMOC Recommendations Component). 65. Comment: Permit and urge WS officers to fulfill their obligations to the public in the area of predator control in spite of any objections to the contrary by USFWS. This is provided for under Title 7, U.S. Code for the Department of Agriculture, APHIS. Response: Title 7 of the U.S. Code Section 426 states "The Secretary of Agriculture may conduct a program of WS with respect to injurious animal species and take any action the Secretary considers necessary in conducting the program. The Secretary shall administer the program in a manner consistent with all of the WS authorities in effect on the day before October 28, 2000." Activities conducted by the WS Program are dependent on available funding and direction from Congress, the President, and the Secretary of Agriculture. See also C/R 48 regarding the WS mission. Comment: Once wolves are at the 100 level, total management should be turned over to the States to be managed in conjunction with all other wildlife. Response: The long-term prognosis for management of wolves in AZ and NM cannot be determined until a Recovery Plan covering this area has been completed and approved (see C/R 64). If and when delisting occurs, wolf management will become a State and Tribal wildlife management responsibility, in accordance with USFWS approved State- and Tribespecific management plans. However, if recovery proceeds to the point at which the ARPCC-21















66.















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review:















December 31, 2005















Mexican wolf is downlisted to "threatened" status, management could also become a State and Tribal responsibility pursuant to a special rule issued under Section 4(d) of the ESA. Meanwhile, with the Mexican wolf listed as an "endangered" species, management remains a Federal responsibility, in cooperation with the States, Tribes, and other partners as described in the Final Rule and various AMOC and other relevant documents. 67. Comment: Hunting should be stopped in wolf country. Response: Wolf recovery, including reintroduction, is compatible with hunting, as has been amply demonstrated for many years in the Great Lakes region and Northern Rockies. There is no evidence indicating hunting or hunters limit wolf reintroduction or recovery. To the contrary, hunter license fees are the foundation of wildlife management programs that manage the wild ungulates that are the primary prey base of wolves. See also C/R 17. Comment: Any public land permittee (i.e. rancher) who kills a wolf for any reason other than to protect human life should be required to forfeit all grazing leases in perpetuity. Likewise, any hunter who kills a wolf would lose his/her right to hunt on public lands in perpetuity. Response: Appropriate penalties for unlawful actions are defined in law and rule. The courts are the forum in which to advocate this belief, not the 5-Year Review. Comment: The program is a failure and should be abandoned immediately. Response: See C/R 47 and 58. Comment: Discontinue the project ? if the wolves survive independently, so be it; if they become extinct, so be it. Response: See C/R 47 and 58. Comment: Is this program one of perpetuity or is there an established schedule and perceived milestone date? Response: There is no final milestone date for determining whether success has been achieved or the effort should be discontinued. See C/R 66. Comment: The program should be stopped before a human life is lost. Response: Although attacks by wolves on humans do occur, they are considered extremely rare in North America (see also C/R 175, 328, 330, 332, and 415 on the well documented low probability of human injury or death from wolves). Loss of a human life for any reason would be tragic, but the Reintroduction Project will continue until the ESA, a Final Rule revision, and/or a court decision dictates otherwise, or recovery is achieved and reintroduction transitions to State and Tribal population management and maintenance. Comment: The program should be stopped until USFWS: 1) can verify that every wolf is free of hybridization, 2) can identify with certainty how each wolf is obtaining its food supply and 3) can keep wolves from coming into contact with the public in a threatening manner. Response: USFWS has a legal mandate under the ESA to conserve and recover listed species, including the Mexican wolf. The other cooperating agencies in AMOC share that responsibility. The genetic pedigree of every wolf in captivity is known; all are pure Mexican wolves. It is impossible and unrealistic for anyone to verify every wolf in the wild is free of hybridization, because not all Mexican wolves in the wild have been ARPCC-22















68.















69. 70. 71.















72.















73.















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review:















December 31, 2005















(or can be) captured and genetically assessed. However, aside from two wild-born litters that were discovered (and subsequently euthanized), there is no evidence to date (as determined by ongoing genetic testing of all captured wolves) to suggest hybridization with dogs or other canids is occurring in the free-ranging wolf population. It is equally unrealistic to expect the Reintroduction Project to determine how each wolf is obtaining its food supply, or to keep wolves away from people, as wolves are curious animals and will sometimes come into proximity of people. Agencies cannot prevent free-ranging wildlife from interacting with humans, or vice versa. 74. Comment: Considering the financial circumstances of the program and the fact that there is likely to be even less funding in the future, termination or no further expansion of the program is a valid recommendation. Response: After considering all public and cooperator comment during the 5-Year Review, and its own evaluations, AMOC has made a recommendation against terminating the Reintroduction Project (see the AMOC Recommendations Component). See also C/R 47 and 58. Comment: Immediately relinquish control of the program from the USFWS to county or State government agencies. Response: Dissatisfaction reflected or expressed during and after the 3-Year Review strongly indicated the need to move the reintroduction effort from control of a single agency (USFWS) to oversight and management by a broader partnership. The States of AZ and NM strongly advocated in September 2002 that cooperation of at least the two State Wildlife Agencies and USFWS was essential to addressing wolf issues and to effectively representing State and local interests. The States also advocated stronger, more meaningful participation by local governments. The desired partnership State-Federal-Tribal partnership is being achieved through AMOC, although the redefined effort is little more than 2 years old. Counties within the BRWRA were aggressively solicited to participate, but only one ? Greenlee County AZ ? has taken full advantage of the opportunity. Two other Counties are signatory to the AMOC MOU, but are not active participants. Three other Counties initially attended meetings and participated in shaping the AMOC MOU, but have since dropped out, in one case (Catron County NM) asserting in public meetings that its participation would just lend credence to the adaptive management effort, when the only acceptable outcome for them is removal of all wolves from wild and abandonment of recovery efforts. See C/R 66. Comment: We believe the Mexican wolf project has failed in many ways. The first major injustice came when you failed to consider the effect it would have on the Blue community, the livelihoods of livestock producers, the lifestyles of everyone who lives here from the ranchers to the retired people who have a pet dog, cat, or chicken, the hunter who have dogs, mules, and horses they use for their business, the school children who have had to learn to be watchful on the playground and the teacher who is responsible for their well-being. We think it is time you gave a long hard look at the program. The funds spent, the failure incurred, and the many hungry children and needy elderly people we could be helping with that 10 million. Where are your priorities and values? Response: The USA is a patchwork quilt of public and private priorities and values; rarely can one be set aside entirely in favor of another. Finding a balance between ARPCC-23















75.















76.















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review:















December 31, 2005















opposing values is the essence of governing a democracy, and managing natural and other resources. Wolf reintroduction, public lands, private property rights, human hunger, and rural lifestyles are not either/or values. They must be weighed against each other, and compromises must be made that enable stakeholders favoring each to have meaningful returns on their societal investment. Give and take is vitally important. In any event, the potential effects of wolf reintroduction on communities within the BRWRA were considered through NEPA process before reintroduction was approved in 1998. AMOC remains committed to such values. However, that does not mean decisions will never be made that favor other values. See also C/R 47 and 58. 77. Comment: Stop all Federal funding of the Mexican wolf program with all funding being reallocated for watershed improvements in the Gila wilderness and surrounding areas. Response: The Mexican Wolf Recovery Program and the Blue Range Reintroduction Project are conducted under auspices of the ESA. Most of the funding for the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program is appropriated by Congress to the USFWS. Funding for watershed improvements in the Gila Wilderness Area would be allocated to USFS, therefore it is not possible to directly divert funds. Furthermore, the Gila National Forest has been using fire as a management tool in the Gila Wilderness. These management activities are expected to result in long term benefits to watershed condition and ecosystem health. Other than fire, direct habitat manipulations are not allowed in Wilderness Areas. Comment: We oppose further funding or exploring this program. There are so many factors that have not proven successful and too much has been spent already. There are many disaster victims who we consider more important than the Mexican wolf reintroduction. Response: See C/R 47 and 58. Comment: My suggestion for the Mexican wolf program is to take six sections of the National Forest southeast of Reserve NM and fence it 9 feet high with chain link and lay 2 foot wire on the inside ground so wolves can't dig out and put the wolves in this area which should be adequate space for them to roam and breed. Question #1 is food source. One that comes to mind besides road kill would be a contract with the dairies by Anthony NM for old cows that are inadequate for further production to be used as wolf food. If you wanted this to pay its own way, you could put a visitor center and lodging place in the center of the area so people could visit and see them and hear them howl. I think it would bring in a lot of tourists to Catron County which we all know needs the revenue. Response: See C/R 14 regarding why a fenced enclosure would not contribute toward recovery. Comment: USFWS inflexibility in changing the MOU is what is keeping most of the other affected counties from signing it. Response: All affected Counties participating in developing the MOU, whether or not they ultimately signed the MOU, contributed to crafting the final language that was endorsed by all signatories. Every County issue was addressed through revisions that were accepted by all participants, as evidenced by discussion at the "negotiating table." Unfortunately, most of the affected Counties have ARPCC-24















78.















79.















80.















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review:















December 31, 2005















opted not to participate actively, even in non-public meetings, thus preventing AMOC from determining what "changes" they might have in mind now. 81. Comment: Sierra County has not signed the MOU as reported on Page 7 (Administrative). Response: AMOC has a signed copy of the October 23, 2003 final (approval) draft of the MOU on file. Comment: Page 4, paragraph 3 (Technical): The reclassification of wolves was overturned thus the wolf is not the DPS as a listed entity. Note also that the 1978 FR Gray Wolf Reclassification Rule that is now current states that recovery will move forward according to biological subspecies. Response: The final 5-Year Review will appropriately reference the listed status of the wolf and the SWDPS as they stand when the Review is completed. See C/R 64 regarding the USFWS decision on appeal of U.S. District Court decisions regarding reclassification. Comment: Page 34, Paragraph 2 (Technical): The reference to the "recent reclassification rule for gray wolves" should be removed due to recent litigation. Furthermore it was not part of the Paquet Report nor the Philips et al. article cited and is not germane to the reasons why the boundary rule is inappropriate. Response: The final 5-Year Review will appropriately reference the listed status of the wolf and the SWDPS as they stand when the Review is completed. See C/R 64 regarding the USFWS decision on appeal of U.S. District Court decisions regarding reclassification. Comment: Page 42, Paragraph 2 (Technical): Since there is no longer a SWDPS, wolves should be allowed to roam free regardless of political or regulatory designations so long as they are not creating a tangible problem. Response: The final 5-Year Review will appropriately reference the listed status of the wolf and the SWDPS as they stand when the Review is completed. See C/R 52 regarding management "zones," and see C/R 64 regarding the USFWS decision on appeal of U.S. District Court decisions regarding reclassification. Comment: Page 85, Item 8 (Technical): The SWDPS no longer exists and progress on developing a revised plan has been stopped by the USFWS Regional Director. Response: The final 5-Year Review will appropriately reference the listed status of the wolf and the SWDPS as they stand when the Review is completed. See C/R 64 regarding the USFWS decision on appeal of U.S. District Court decisions regarding reclassification. Comment: The nullification of the 2003 gray wolf listing rule does not obviate the USFWS mandate under the ESA to continue to recover the Mexican wolf. Rather, the mandate reverts to the 1978 listing under which Mexican wolf recovery was conceived and implemented. USFWS has no legitimate excuse or reason to continue to delay actions necessary for Mexican wolf recovery. Response: The final 5-Year Review will appropriately reference the listed status of the wolf and the SWDPS as they stand when the Review is completed. See C/R 64 regarding the USFWS decision on appeal of U.S. District Court decisions regarding reclassification. As for delays in recovery actions, ARPCC-25















82.















83.















84.















85.















86.















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review:















December 31, 2005















USFWS and cooperating agencies have implemented or are implementing the majority of the recovery actions in the 1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule (see Page 59 of the Recovery Plan, USFWS 1982) (e.g. 111-1, 111-2, 112-1, 112-21, 112-22, 12, 131, 132, 133, 211, 212-1, 212-2, 221-1 (or as per SOP 13), 221-2, 221-3, 222-1, 222-21, 222-22, 222-23, 222-3, 23, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 261-1, 2612, 261-3, 262, 311-3, 311-2, 311-3, 312-1, 312-2, 313, 314, 315, 316, 321, 322-324, 33, 34, 5). See also C/R 64, 82-85. 87. Comment: Due to the recent litigation that vacated the Gray Wolf Final Rule, the status of the SWDPS Recovery Team needs to be discussed and clarified in the 5-Year Review. Response: The discussion requested in this Comment is outside the scope of the 5-Year Review. See C/R 64 regarding the USFWS decision on appeal of U.S. District Court decisions regarding reclassification. See also C/R 82-86 and the Administrative Component of the 5-Year Review. Comment: Given the recent court decision on the DPS, the USFWS should reconsider the SWDPS to more properly coincide with the historic range of the Mexican wolf. This would limit the primary reintroduction effort to Mexico and a narrow area along the Mexican border in Texas, NM, and AZ. Response: See C/R 64 regarding the USFWS decision on appeal of U.S. District Court decisions regarding reclassification and reinitiating wolf recovery planning in the Southwest. See also C/R 82-87. Although the limited area referenced in this Comment once comprised the northerly portion of known historical range of the Mexican wolf (e.g. when the FEIS was completed; see also GarciaMoreno et al. 1996), recent genetic research (Leonard et al. 2005) strongly suggests a wider mandate for reintroduction of the Mexican wolf may be justified due to evidence of extensive historic gene flow between Mexican wolves and northern wolves across the previously recognized boundaries of the various subspecies. Comment: Currently there is a study in effect to increase the wolf range to include the entire States of NM, AZ, and parts of Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas, and Mexico. This activity needs to be terminated. Agencies have failed to maintain control and implement goals within the current experimental area. Attempts to broaden the areas of introduction will further devastate the local economies and the welfare of its citizens. Response: This Comment is in reference to the SWDPS Recovery Team and apparently an imminent publication by Carroll et al. (in press). Neither is within the scope of the 5Year Review. Moreover, AMOC has no authority over, or influence on, independent scientific research. See also C/R 64 and 82-88. Comment: Other areas including but not limited to the Sky Islands ecosystem, Southern Rockies in southern Colorado and northern NM and the Grand Canyon ecosystem need to be evaluated for reintroduction of Mexican wolves. Response: This Comment is outside the scope of the 5-Year Review. See also C/R 88-89. Comment: Page 14 Administrative Component. WSMR should still be considered. All models and assessments predicting failures if wolves are released there are based on the ARPCC-26















88.















89.















90.















91.















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review:















December 31, 2005















discredited notion of confining wolves to a specific area. WSMR is supposed to be used if the BRWRA ends up insufficient to get to 100 wolves. There is now abundant evidence that under the current management that goal may not be reached. WSMR should be opened up for releases and should be authorized in this review. Failure to do so along with failure to change management to allow the BRWRA to reach 100 wolves may constitute a NEPA violation. Response: Five independent evaluations (Bednarz 1989, USFWS 1996 [the FEIS], Green-Hammond 1994, Paquet et al. 2001, and Carroll et al. in press) have all concluded that WSMR is an inferior area for Mexican wolves because of its small size, isolation from other suitable habitat, and poor surrounding wolf habitat which would hinder dispersal to and from other areas. After considering all public and cooperator comment during the 5-Year Review, and its own evaluations, AMOC has made a recommendation to eliminate WSMR as a Mexican wolf recovery area or reintroduction zone (see the AMOC Recommendations Component). See also C/R 95, 100, 103, and 117 regarding rulemaking and NEPA. 92. Comment: The SWDPS exceeds the historic range of the Mexican wolf and should be modified to reflect that the range does not extends beyond an 80 mile distance north of the Mexican border in AZ and NM. Response: See C/R 64 regarding status of the SWDPS and C/R 82 and 89 regarding the evolving understanding of Mexican wolf historical distribution. Comment: We question the appropriateness and scientific validity of imposing secondary boundaries on this small population of endangered wolves and we see no reason why highly endangered Mexican wolves should receive lower standards of protection and tolerance than more abundant wolves elsewhere in the USA. Response: The Mexican wolf is protected under ESA consistent with the law itself and the Final Rule under which reintroduction is occurring. The Final Rule, issued under Section 10(j) of the ESA, designates the AZ-NM population as "experimental nonessential," meaning that wolves released to the wild within the 10(j) boundary are not essential to recovery. That is, even if all wild Mexican wolves in the BRWRA died, elimination would not occur because there are now sufficient Mexican wolves in captivity. Secondary boundaries, such as were established in the Final Rule, are implemented when they will help achieve the desired results for reintroduction, and thus contribute toward recovery. The need for secondary boundaries seemed clear in the FEIS. The 5-Year Review was intended, in part, to revisit that need in terms of the on-the-ground experience that has been gained since 1998 through reintroduction and management. Consequently, after considering all public and cooperator comment during the 5-Year Review, and its own evaluations, AMOC has made a recommendation regarding possible secondary boundary adjustments to facilitate initial wolf releases and translocations and to enable broader dispersal throughout the MWEPA (see the AMOC Recommendations Component).















93.















C. 10(j) Final Rule 94. Comment: The Mexican wolf program does not have a clearly defined goal stating exactly what the criteria and numbers will be for delisting the Mexican wolf as an ARPCC-27















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review:















December 31, 2005















endangered species. Clearly defined, attainable, and realistic goals must be included as part of the 5-Year Review. Response: The 5-Year Review is not the appropriate legal tool to define recovery downlisting and delisting criteria for the Mexican wolf program. That is a Recovery Team and Recovery Plan function. See C/R 64 and 93. 95. Comment: We recommend USFWS move forward with the draft rule change language by sharing it with the public. Response: After considering all public and cooperator comment during the 5-Year Review, and its own evaluations, AMOC has made recommendations regarding possible changes in the Final Rule or creation of a new Final Rule (see the AMOC Recommendations Component). The USFWS will determine whether and how to proceed with AMOC's recommendations. If and when proposed rule change language is drafted, it will be released to the public pursuant to the ESA, APA, and NEPA to ensure appropriate opportunities for participation and input by the public. See also C/R 64 and 93. Comment: A unified, consensus recommendation from the SWDPS Recovery Team in order to change the Final Rule is unrealistic. The management of the Mexican wolf is the responsibility of the Secretary of the Interior (entrusted to USFWS and the Recovery Team works at the pleasure of the Secretary. USFWS has an affirmative responsibility and a mandate under the ESA to recover endangered species and that responsibility cannot be trusted to a non-government entity like the Recovery Team. A rule change should be advanced independently of the Recovery Team process. Response: As noted in C/R 64, the SWDPS Recovery Team is inactive at this time. Any questions or concerns regarding the Team and its activities or responsibilities are outside the scope of this 5Year Review and should be posed to the USFWS Southwest Regional Director. See C/R 93, 95, and 99 regarding AMOC's recommendations for changes in the Final Rule. Comment: We note this is the third technical review of this project since 1999 ? all of which have recommended that the existing rule be revised. USFWS has delayed this important decision for 5.5 years. Further delay cannot be justified. Response: There have been three technical reviews of the Mexican wolf program. The first review was held in January 1999, after the majority of the wolves released the first year in 1998 were illegally shot and killed. That review indicated the need to revise the Final Rule to allow for release of wolves in more isolated, remote, areas to reduce the likelihood of illegal shootings and wolf/livestock conflict. Please see the Administrative Component of the 5Year Review for explanation of why a Final Rule amendment was not completed subsequent to the 1998 review. The second technical review, commonly referred to as the Paquet report, was performed in 2001 as part of the 3-Year Review. The known factors contributing to failure to complete and implement the 3-Year Review are discussed in C/R 15 and 45. The third review is this 5-Year Review. Thus, all three reviews have concluded that the Final Rule should be revised to enhance progress toward the reintroduction population objective and recovery. See C/R 93 and 96. See also Parsons and Nicholopoulos 1998.















96.















97.















ARPCC-28















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review:















December 31, 2005















98.















Comment: The short-comings of the program stem directly from politically motivated project components incorporated into the initial project design and Final Rule. We strongly recommend a science-based revision of the current rule and science-based implementation of the project from this point on. Response: The Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project was authorized for and is carried out on lands that are largely public, and subject to multiple-use. Biological science is not the only driver for recovery efforts, and determining now much of a landscape can or should be dedicated to recovery efforts is not a simple or an easy matter (e.g. see Carroll et al. in press, Reading et al. 1997, and Vucetich et al. in review). Although all recovery and reintroduction efforts should, if not must, reflect the best available science, other factors, such as valuational and organizational considerations (i.e. social tolerance and human dimensions), legitimately come into play; in fact, they might be crucial to determining success or lack thereof (e.g. Reading et al. 1997, Breitenmoser et al. 2001). Thus, the 5Year Review and its recommendations (see the AMOC Recommendations Component) are consistent with science, but were also shaped by consideration of other relevant information, including social values and concerns as well as biological needs and constraints. Comment: Absent continued releases of wolves into the BRWRA in perpetuity, it is difficult to see how the population can grow and sustain itself under the restraints of the boundary rule. Response: After careful consideration of public comment on the 5-Year Review and its own evaluations of wolf management activities and problems in the BRWRA, AMOC has reached the same conclusion. Accordingly, AMOC has made recommendations regarding possible changes in the Final Rule or creation of a new Final Rule to adjust at least the secondary boundaries and to enable dispersal throughout the MWEPA (see the AMOC Recommendations Component). See also C/R 93 and 95-98. Comment: The existing FEIS already analyzed an alternative without boundaries. Any additional NEPA required for a revised rule should not require multiple years to complete. Response: The FEIS did analyze an alternative without boundaries; Alternatives A, B, and C included reintroduction of wolves into (only) the Primary Recovery Zone of the BRWRA. The alternatives differed in their approach to dispersal, with Alternative A allowing wolves to disperse (or be translocated) into the Secondary Recovery Zone only, Alternative B allowing no dispersal outside the primary recovery zone, and Alternative C designating reintroduced wolves as endangered and allowing wolves to disperse with no boundary (Alternative D was the No Action alternative). However, because the FEIS analyzed the presence of wolves throughout the entire BRWRA, the 5-Year Review states that revision of the Final Rule would not require preparation of a supplemental EIS if the only revision were to allow direct releases into the Secondary Recovery Zone in addition to the Primary Recovery Zone (see B.5 in the Administrative Component of the 5-Year Review). However, the 5-Year Review goes on to explain that wolf dispersal beyond the BRWRA has become a significant management and recovery issue, and it recommends revision of the nonessential population boundary rule to address this problem (see Management Implications, Technical Component). The effects of allowing wolves to disperse to SCAR, FAIR, the Sitgreaves National Forest, ARPCC-29















99.















100.















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review:















December 31, 2005















and the San Mateo Mountains were analyzed under Alternative C within the FEIS. However, these effects were analyzed with Mexican wolves classified as endangered rather than nonessential experimental. Further, the current revision may or may not include a greater area than described under Alternative C, therefore a supplemental EIS would likely be required during the process of rule revision. A rule revision of that magnitude (which could include additional possible revisions beyond those mentioned here) would require significant technical, social, and economic review and considerable public scoping; the process could, therefore, realistically take more than a year to complete. 101. 102. Comment: Modify the Final Rule to allow direct releases of wolves into the Gila National Forest. Response: See C/R 93 and 95-99. Comment: Translocation of free-ranging wolves for management purposes was not presented to the public and affected interests at the time the proposed rule was promulgated nor was it given proper evaluation in the EIS. The decision to take this management direction was the result of a liberal and deceptive interpretation of the rule. Response: Translocation of Mexican wolves as a management action was done with full public participation and disclosure. The FEIS and ROD for reintroduction of Mexican wolves analyzed in detail the presence of wolves and the associated effects for the entire BRWRA, which includes both the primary and secondary zones. Many key changes or clarifications regarding the proposed rule were incorporated into the Final Rule, based on public and primary cooperator comments received on, or related to, the proposed rule. One of those key changes was that the definition of "secondary recovery zone" was modified to clarify that, following initial release of wolves in the primary recovery zone; wolves may be translocated and released into the secondary recovery zone for authorized management purposes. Following publication of the Final Rule on January 12, 1998, additional public comment was accepted for a 14-day period. Because of the high public interest regarding translocation of wolves into NM, especially those that previously depredated livestock, on January 14, 2000, USFWS announced its intent to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) entitled "The Environmental Assessment for the Translocation of Mexican Wolves Throughout the BRWRA in Arizona and New Mexico." Translocation of wolves is a management action discussed in general terms in the FEIS and associated ROD. The intent of the EA was to provide a specific connection between the general terms used in the FEIS and ROD to the specific language in the Final Rule that authorizes translocations. A scoping letter was sent to more than 1000 interested members of the public. Additionally, news releases requesting input on wolf translocation were distributed, and agency personnel contacted local ranchers, land owners, outfitters/guides, and special interest groups. Scoping comments were accepted through February 4, 2000. Many of the issues raised in more than 700 responses received through the public scoping process were outside the scope of the analysis, or no new information or circumstances were presented over what had previously been addressed in the FEIS. However, three issues (native prey base for wolves, livestock depredation, impacts on local government policies and plans) required further analysis and disclosure through an EA. The EA, which was tiered to the FEIS, was prepared and distributed on ARPCC-30















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review:















December 31, 2005















February 10, 2000, to more than 700 individuals and organizations. A 30-day public comment period extended through March 15, 2000. It included two public hearings, one each in Catron (Reserve) and Grant (Silver City) counties NM. More than 9000 public comments were received and carefully considered. On March 17, 2000, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was signed, in regard to translocating wolves into the secondary zone of the BRWRA. The Reintroduction Project's current approach to wolf translocation is entirely consistent with that administrative record, although it is still constrained (geographically) by the current Final Rule. 103. Comment: Before modifying the rule can be considered or signed a Decision Notice by the Regional Director of the USFWS is required to conduct the proper NEPA process, analysis and full disclosure of the potential impacts. The USFWS should mitigate the significant adverse effects of the current wolf introduction program before these modifications are considered. Response: After considering all public and cooperator comment during the 5-Year Review, and its own evaluations, AMOC has made recommendations regarding possible changes in the Final Rule or creation of a new Final Rule (see the AMOC Recommendations Component). If USFWS determines the Final Rule should be changed in response to recommendations in the final 5-Year Review and further AMOC actions, or for some other reason, it will develop a formal proposal to do so, and subject that proposal to appropriate rulemaking procedures, including applicable NEPA review. Comment: Expanding the recovery area and increasing the number of wolves beyond 100 is unacceptable. Response: See C/R 93, 95-99, 101, and 103 regarding AMOC recommendations for changes in the Final Rule. Comment: I felt a promise was given to those opposing reintroduction that the area the wolves were allowed would not be expanded. That promise should not be broken. The only way to expand the range would be to obtain consensus approval of those who received the promise. Response: AMOC finds no evidence of a promise by any of the agencies cooperating in the Reintroduction Project that the area within which wolves are allowed would never be expanded (or diminished, for that matter). To the contrary, the commitment to reassess all elements of the Reintroduction Project, including current boundaries, in 3-Year and 5-Year Reviews is evident in the administrative record and the FEIS. See also C/R 93 and 95-103 regarding AMOC recommendations for changes in the Final Rule. Comment: Change the current rule that requires killing difficult to trap wolves. This is critically endangering genetic diversity of the wolves and having a significant negative impact on their numbers. Response: The Final Rule stipulates that, in accordance with the ESA, wolves released to the wild are considered expendable to the Recovery Program. The Final Rule also states that a person may take (kill) a Mexican wolf in selfdefense or in the defense of other humans. The Final Rule is not structured, nor is the Reintroduction Project empowered or administered, to force changes in public or private grazing practices to accommodate presence of wolves. Changing the status of wolves in ARPCC-31















104.















105.















106.















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review:















December 31, 2005















the BRWRA from "nonessential experimental" to fully endangered would restrict management flexibility. None of the AMOC Lead Agencies support such an action. As for the assertion that the current rule "requires" killing difficult to trap wolves, it does not. The Final Rule and the Reintroduction Project's SOPs provide flexibility that enables live capture and permanent removal of "problem" wolves. AMOC has determined that active management (including killing and/or other permanent removal of problem wolves) has not endangered genetic diversity of the wild population, nor has it had a significant long-term (lasting) impact on the number of wolves in the wild. 107. Comment: Part B, #5 (Administrative): The review does not provide any evidence or rationale for not proceeding with a rule change. Response: Using information from the 5Year Review and comments submitted on the draft review, AMOC has assessed whether the project is operating sufficiently effectively to drive progress toward the Reintroduction Project's population objective (at least 100 wolves in the BRWRA) under its current regulatory structure. After considering all public and cooperator comment during the 5-Year Review, and its own evaluations, AMOC has made recommendations regarding possible changes in the Final Rule or creation of a new Final Rule (see the AMOC Recommendations Component). USFWS will determine whether and how to proceed with AMOC's recommendations regarding the Final Rule. If and when proposed rule change language is drafted, it will be released to the public pursuant to the ESA, APA, and NEPA to ensure appropriate opportunities for participation and input by the public. See also C/R 64 and 93-103 regarding possible changes in the Final Rule. Comment: Wolves should not be allowed to expand outside the BRWRA; all wolves outside the Recovery Area should be removed. Response: See C/R 64 and 93-103. After considering all public and cooperator comment during the 5-Year Review, and its own evaluations, AMOC has made recommendations regarding possible changes in the Final Rule or creation of a new Final Rule (see the AMOC Recommendations Component). AMOC has determined that the Final Rule should be modified to address several issues, including providing for population dispersal outside the current boundaries of the BRWRA (i.e. Apache and Gila National Forests in AZ and NM). Allowing wolves to more freely disperse across the landscape into suitable habitat throughout the MWEPA would speed progress toward the reintroduction goal. Expansion of the MWEPA 10(j) area to the southern borders of NM and AZ could also ensure management flexibility if wolves were to come northward from Mexico, where reintroduction is now underway. However, expansion beyond the current MWEPA would also entail various new costs, both within the Reintroduction Project and to various stakeholders. AMOC will need to address these issues fully during any informal or formal rulemaking processes subsequent to USFWS consideration of the AMOC recommendations. Comment: Because Defenders; et al. v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Interior et al. 031348-JO enjoined and vacated the proposed reclassification rule, there is ongoing uncertainty over the fate of the SWDPS recovery planning process. Therefore, it is imperative the USFWS act now to revise the BRWRA dispersal rule rather than waiting for revisions of national management policy for the wolf. Response: H. Dale Hall, the ARPCC-32















108.















109.















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review:















December 31, 2005















previous USFWS Region 2 Director, stated in Spring 2005 that in the absence of a Recovery Team, he (and presumably his successor) would look to AMOC and the 5-Year Review for recommendations on any changes to the Final Rule. Accordingly, after considering all public and cooperator comment during the 5-Year Review, and its own evaluations, AMOC has made recommendations regarding possible changes in the Final Rule or creation of a new Final Rule (see the AMOC Recommendations Component). USFWS will determine whether and how to proceed with AMOC's recommendations. If and when proposed rule change language is drafted, it will be released to the public pursuant to the ESA, APA, and NEPA to ensure appropriate opportunities for participation and input by the public. See also C/R 64, 93, 103, and 107 regarding Final Rule changes. 110. Comment: We recommend that expansion of the Primary Recovery Area be considered in light of the biological needs of the wolf population. This issue must be analyzed in more depth and should be undertaken by the newly modified Recovery Team. Response: See C/R 85, 88, 93, 103, and 107-109. Comment: We recommend adjustments to the regulations regarding wolves that stray from the recovery area to allow more flexibility for dispersing wolves. This will be critical to the recovery of the Mexican wolf. If wolves are successfully hunting, breeding, and avoiding humans, they should be allowed to remain outside the recovery area. Response: Greater freedom to disperse should lessen management-induced disruption of social bonds to packs and promote territory establishment and stability within and between packs, which in turn could lessen the number of human/wolf conflicts. Allowing wolves to freely disperse across the landscape into suitable habitat, versus attempting to artificially confine their movements to a recovery area with regulatory (versus biological) boundaries, could speed progress toward Reintroduction Project's population goal. As noted earlier, expansion of the current MWEPA 10(j) area would require amendment of the Final Rule. Thus, after considering all public and cooperator comment during the 5Year Review, and its own evaluations, AMOC has made recommendations regarding possible changes in the Final Rule or creation of a new Final Rule (see the AMOC Recommendations Component). The USFWS will determine whether and how to proceed with AMOC's recommendations. If and when proposed rule change language is drafted, it will be released to the public pursuant to the ESA, APA, and NEPA to ensure appropriate opportunities for participation and input by the public. See also C/R 64, 85, 88, 93, and 107-109. Comment: Recommendations for boundary changes and direct releases into NM are irrelevant to the report without the final Recovery Team's recommendation. These recommendations should not have been included in the review questions. Response: See C/R 109 regarding the SWDPS Recovery Team's role vs. AMOC's role in recommending boundary changes to the USFWS Region 2 Director. Comment: Delay in modifying the no-dispersal rule will impose increasing burdens on project staff by involving them in counter productive management actions toward nonARPCC-33















111.















112.















113.















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review:















December 31, 2005















depredating dispersing wolves; the wolves that would normally form the most valuable component of population recovery. Response: See C/R 107-109, and 111. Allowing wolves not causing a management problem outside the current BRWRA to remain there would allow the IFT to concentrate on other management issues (e.g. outreach, nuisance and problem animals, tracking and monitoring, research and investigations). However, the geographic scope of participating agency responsibilities would have to be expanded to address management issues that develop in the outlying areas, and this factor also must be considered in assessing the merits of secondary boundary expansion. In any event, after considering all public and cooperator comment during the 5-Year Review, and its own evaluations, AMOC has made recommendations regarding possible changes in the Final Rule or creation of a new Final Rule (see the AMOC Recommendations Component). 114. Comment: We believe the current level of take of wolves authorized and accomplished through the existing rule is unsustainable and violates the provision of Section 10(j)(2)(A) of the ESA requiring that releases of listed species under 10(j) provisions must "further the conservation" of the species. If other recommendations (change rule to allow releases into NM; allow dispersal of wolves outside the BRWRA, decreased removals in response to livestock depredation, co-equal status of wolves and livestock, etc.) cannot be accomplished under a revised nonessential experimental population classification, the rule should be rescinded and Mexican wolves recognized as either "essential experimental" or fully endangered. Response: The Final Rule provides for limited allowable legal take of wolves in the wild within the MWEPA. It states that no person, agency, or organization may "take" any wolf in the wild within the MWEPA, except as provided in the rule. Stripping the nonessential experimental status from wolves in the BRWRA would, AMOC believes, severely restrict management options and impede progress toward establishing a viable, self-sustaining population of free-ranging wolves. None of the AMOC Lead Agencies support such an action. See also C/R 106 regarding lack of AMOC agency support for rescinding nonessential, experimental population designation. Comment: The nonessential, experimental classification is wrong. They are highly endangered wildlife and deserve the full protection of the ESA. Response: AMOC Lead Agencies and Cooperators unanimously believe Mexican wolf reintroduction in AZ and NM is best pursued via nonessential experimental population status (i.e. 10[j] rule), as has been conferred via the existing Final Rule for this Project. Nonessential experimental population rules provide for management flexibility essential to a reintroduction effort such as this one. See also C/R106 and 114, regarding lack of AMOC agency support for rescinding the nonessential experimental population designation. Comment: Reintroduce wolves in the sky islands ecosystem and the Grand Canyon ecosystem to increase the population and to restore vital ecological processes. Response: See C/R 85-88, 103, and 106-109 regarding AMOC recommendations for possible boundary changes.















115.















116.















ARPCC-34















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review:















December 31, 2005















117.















Comment: Expanding the program's recovery zones will have a deleterious effect on livestock producers and may have serious repercussions for human safety. Any expansion should consider the economic impacts and the threats to livestock as well as human safety. Response: Expansion of the current MWEPA 10(j) area and/or the current BRWRA boundaries would require amendment of the Final Rule and would include an analysis of economic impacts, in compliance with NEPA. See also C/R 95, 100, and 103 regarding rulemaking and NEPA. Comment: Inclusion of WSMR as part of a future recovery area targeted for wolf releases is short sighted and may have a negative impact on the future mission of WSMR and could potentially affect the Base Realignment and Closure process negatively, thus losing billions of dollars that WSMR provides to NM's economy. Response: See C/R 91. Comment: The draft 5-Year Review does not reveal the reasons why the boundaries have not been lifted. Where is the story that conveys this information? Response: The 5Year Review discusses in detail why a rule change to address the boundary issues has not yet been accomplished. Please refer to sections 2.4 and 2.5 of the Administrative Component of the 5-Year Review. See also C/R 15 and 45. Comment: USFWS should adopt the 5-Year Review's recommendations for improving the Mexican wolf program by modifying the current nonessential experimental population rule to allow wolves to colonize suitable habitats throughout the SWDPS. Response: See C/R 107-109. Comment: The experimental population rule should be revised to allow initial releases of wolves anywhere in the BRWRA, FAIR, and any other Native American or private lands within Mexican wolf historic range where owners have entered into agreements to support wolf recovery. Response: WMAT is one of six lead agencies that participate in AMOC. WMAT also has an MOU with the USFWS that allows for management of Mexican wolves on FAIR. Given the unique government to government relationship the Federal government has with Indian tribes, WMAT has certain sovereign rights, and has final jurisdiction on the number and what kind of wolf releases will be allowed on FAIR. In regard to initial releases of wolves on private lands, after considering all public and cooperator comment during the 5-Year Review, and its own evaluations, AMOC has made recommendations regarding possible changes in the Final Rule or creation of a new Final Rule (see the AMOC Recommendations Component). The processes by which those issues are considered will enable AMOC to address the possibility of initial releases of wolves on private lands. Comment: Pages 8 ? 14, 4 and 5, Administrative: These 2 areas depend too heavily on the results of the SWDPS Recovery Team. This team is trying to encompass a larger area than the BRWRA. The BRWRA had recommendations for change that needs to be addressed now for the benefit of the daily program that is already on the ground. Response: See C/R 103 and 107-109.















118.















119.















120.















121.















122.















ARPCC-35















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review:















December 31, 2005















123.















Comment: The 1996 FEIS only considered the effects of 100 wolves in the wild. The implication was that this was the target number when all parties knew that there was no way this would be considered a sustainable breeding population. By adopting the 10(j) rule, USFWS sought to eliminate the need to evaluate the future known impacts of having 1,500 or more wolves in their historic range. Response: The adequacy of the FEIS has been reaffirmed in various court decisions since it was released. Comment: According to USFWS own numbers, there are at least 20 fewer known wolves in the wild than predicted and only because of a policy change allowing multiple re-releases of problem animals. Response: Wolf counts in the BRWRA are minimum population counts that represent the number of collared and uncollared wolves observed in the wild. The actual population is probably higher because some individual wolves and packs are not detected, including dispersing wolves without collars. At the end of 2003, the BRWRA minimum population estimate of 50-60 was similar to the FEIS prediction for the sixth year of the Reintroduction Project (55). The final end-of-year minimum population count for 2005 will not be made until December 31, 2005. Comment: From 2004 to mid 2005 more wolves have been released and removed due to livestock depredation and other nuisance behaviors than at any other time in the programs history. Hopefully this data will not be ignored simply because it is more beneficial for the program if the 5-Year Review is read in a vacuum. However, as of the end of June, 2005 the collared population consisted of 22 wolves, in nine packs, and five lone wolves. Response: Some Mexican wolves will likely be removed for livestock depredations every year. The 5-Year Review covers the period 1998-2003. However, for 1998-2005, the highest rate of collared wolves being removed for livestock depredations occurred in 1999, and the highest rate of collared wolves being removed for nuisance situations occurred in 2000. The 5-Year Review suggests that as fewer wolves are released from captivity to the wild, there may be fewer removals for nuisance issues (current patterns of nuisance removal are consistent with this speculation). Most nuisance issues occur with wolves that are released directly from captivity. See also C/R 124 regarding minimum population counts. Comment: According to predictions in the EIS for preferred alternative A, releases of Mexican wolves should have ended in 2002, four years after the program began. They have not ended, but have increased using problem animals. This is indicative that the population cannot hold its own, on its own, in the BRWRA. Response: The FEIS predicted it would take five years of initial releases (beginning in 1997), to achieve the reintroduction goal of 100 or more wolves in the wild by 2005. This timeline was largely based on untested assumptions, since there were no Mexican wolves in the wild from which to learn. It serves as a reference point for evaluating progress toward population objectives, but the fact that actual results vary from the predictions is not an indication that the BRWRA population "cannot hold its own, on its own." Comment: Page 41, Paragraph 3 (Technical): The recommendation to create a large experience center is poorly described and most likely unnecessary. If that means placing ARPCC-36















124.















125.















126.















127.















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review:















December 31, 2005















wolves somewhere where once again there will be a boundary on their roaming it is inappropriate for all the reasons discussed in the 3 year review and in paragraph 2 of Page 41. The process of removing wolves from the wild is physically and socially dangerous to the wolves. 12 wolves have died as a direct result of capture (either in captivity or during capture): 3 Pipestem pups, 2 other wild-conceived pups infected with Parvovirus by the Pipestem pups, 5 Francisco pups, one wolf run down by aircraft, and F511. Additionally many previously cohesive packs have split upon re-release and later dying or being removed. These incidental effects of an attempt to translocate wolves should be taken into account in both the notion of setting up an experience center and in the notion that translocations are a net benefit to wolves. Response: An experience center concept was offered in the draft 5-Year Review as food for thought. Upon further reflection, AMOC has determined that it will be removed from the final 5-Year Review for lack of merit. 128. Comment: Trapping for what have been routine activities such as wellness checks or collar refreshment should be minimized or eliminated. The program is attempting to develop a self sustaining wild wolf population ? leave these animals alone as much as possible and let them be wild. Response: Mexican wolves are not captured in the wild for "wellness" checks. They are captured in the wild to place or replace radio-collars, or for other management purposes. Radio collars allow the IFT to accurately document home ranges, minimum population estimates, dispersals, survival, reproduction, pack formation and a variety of other biological factors. Radio-collars also assist in management (e.g. responses to depredation incidents) and help the IFT identify appropriate individuals for