Mexican wolf Blue Range reintroduction project 5-year review: socioeconomic component: final report

              MEXICAN WOLF BLUE RANGE REINTRODUCTION PROJECT 5-YEAR REVIEW:







SOCIOECONOMIC COMPONENT















Final Report | 31 December 2005















prepared for: Division of Economics U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4401 N. Fairfax Drive Arlington, VA 22203















prepared by: Robert Unsworth, Leslie Genova, Katherine Wallace Industrial Economics, Incorporated 2067 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02140 and Dr. Aaron Harp Berven, Harp & Associates















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS















We would like to thank our technical advisors, who provided valuable input to and guidance for this analysis. They are: Dr. Allen Torell, Professor of Agricultural Economics, New Mexico State University; Dr. Larry Van Tassell, Dept. of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, University of Idaho; and Dr. David Brookshire, Professor of Economics, University of New Mexico.















TABLE OF CONTENTS







E X E C U T I V E SUMMA R Y SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION







ES-1















1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8















Framework for Analysis 1-1 Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project Background 1-1 Analytic Approach 1-2 Data Sources 1-3 Economic Impact Assessment 1-3 Social Impact Assessment 1-4 Socio-Economic Estimates Presented in the Final Environmental Impact Statement 1-6 Structure of Report 1-6







2-1















SECTION 2 D E M O G R A P H I C TR E N D S I N T H E BLU E RA N G E W O L F R E C O V E R Y A R E A















2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6















Introduction 2-1 Overview of Study Area 2-1 Climatic Conditions 2-4 Population Trends 2-6 Economic Indicators 2-12 Conclusions 2-20















SECTION 3 ECONOMIC IMPA C T S OF MEXICAN WOLF REINTRODUCTION ON RANCHING ACTIVITIES







3-1















3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11















Economic Concerns of the Ranching Industry Utilizing the BRWRA 3-1 Brief Overview of Ranching Activities in the BRWRA 3-2 Economic Impacts of Wolf Depredation of Ranch Animals 3-5 Physiological Impacts on Livestock 3-20 Change in Forage Use 3-21 Need for Additional Ranch Labor 3-21 Additional Expenditures on Ranch Supplies 3-23 Property Value Impacts 3-24 Positive Impacts 3-26 Total Economic Impacts 3-26 Conclusions and Comparison to FEIS 3-30















SECTION 4















ECONOMIC IMPA C T S OF MEXICAN WOLF REINTRODUCTION ON HUNTING ACTIVITIES







4-1















4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8







SECTION 5















FEIS Estimates of Impacts on Hunting Activities 4-1 Economic Concerns of Outfitters, Guides, and Hunters Who Utilize the BRWRA 4-2 Big Game Population Effects 4-3 Effects on Hunter Visitation to the Region 4-8 Effects on Hunting Success 4-16 Lost Income/Costs to Outfitters 4-22 Regional Economic Impacts 4-23 Conclusions and Comparison to FEIS 4-24















ECONOMIC IMPA C T S OF MEXICAN WOLF REINTRODUCTION ON TRIBES 5-1















5.1 5.2 5.3







SECTION 6















San Carlos Apache Tribe 5-1 White Mountain Apache Tribe 5-3 Conclusions and Comparison to FEIS 5-6















ECONOMIC IMPA C T S OF MEXICAN WOLF REINTRODUCTION ON TOURISM A N D C O N S E R V AT I O N







6-1















6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8







SECTION 7















Potential Economic Benefits of Mexican Wolf Reintroduction 6-1 Increased Recreation Visits 6-3 Regional Tourism Expenditures 6-9 Agency Expenditures 6-12 Existence Value (Intrinsic Value) 6-14 Overall Ecosystem Health 6-20 Other Positive Impacts 6-21 Conclusions and Comparison to FEIS 6-22







7-1















SOC I A L IMPA C T S W I T H I N BRWRA















7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8















Introduction 7-1 Methodology and Data Sources 7-2 Overview 7-3 Social Impacts: Ranching Activities 7-4 Social Impacts: Outfitters, Guides, and Hunters 7-7 Social Impacts: Tribes 7-8 Social Impacts: Tourism and Conservation 7-9 Conclusions: Attitudes Toward Mexican Wolf Reintroduction 7-10















A P P E N D I X A : R A N C H E R - E S T I M AT E D ME X I C A N W O L F DEP R E D AT I O N S I N A R I Z O N A A N D N E W ME X I C O BY R A N C H , 1 9 9 9 TO 2 0 0 3 REFERENCES







R-1 A-1















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















EXECUTIVE SUMMARY















The 1998 Mexican Wolf Final Rule states that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will evaluate Mexican wolf reintroduction progress and prepare full evaluations of the program after three and five years.1 These evaluations will include recommendations of whether to continue, modify, or terminate reintroduction. The purpose of this analysis is to estimate the social and economic impacts of the Mexican wolf reintroduction effort since its inception in 1998 as part of the five-year review assessment of the program being conducted by the USFWS and cooperating agencies. This information is intended to assist the USFWS, cooperating agencies, and stakeholders in their evaluation of the reintroduction effort. The time frame for this evaluation is the initial five-year period for Mexican wolf reintroduction, from March 1998 to December 31, 2003. However, where more recent data are available, it is included in the analysis. The study area is defined as the five counties that include lands within the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area (BRWRA), including Catron, Sierra, and Grant Counties, New Mexico, and Apache and Greenlee Counties, Arizona. Key findings are summarized below. Economic Impacts The economic impacts portion of the analysis attempts to identify changes in economic activities that have occurred since Mexican wolf reintroduction began, and to quantify these changes where possible. To accomplish this, the analysis focuses on comparing the level of economic activity in various sectors after wolf reintroduction to activity levels prior to the reintroduction. The analysis then compares current estimates to estimates presented in the Reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf Within its Historic Range in the Southwestern United States: Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).2 The FEIS estimated potential economic impacts that would occur once the Mexican wolf population reached 100. Under Alternative A, the Preferred Alternative, the FEIS estimated that impacts associated with livestock losses, reduced hunting value and associated regional expenditures, and land use restrictions near dens, pens, and rendezvous sites (minor impacts)















Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the Mexican Gray Wolf in Arizona and New Mexico, 63 Federal Register 1763-1772; 50 CFR Section 17.84(k). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf Within Its Historic Range in the Southwestern United States: Final Environmental Impact Statement.







2















1















SEC ES-1















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















could occur.3 Economic benefits were estimated to include increased recreational use and associated expenditures. Impacts related to ranching and hunting activities were quantified. This analysis finds that from 1998 to 2003, the economic impacts described in the FEIS were not realized, except for some impacts on ranching and, to a lesser extent, recreational use. The lack of observable impacts is likely to result, in part, from the relatively small wolf population within the BRWRA during this time period compared to the 100-wolf projections of the FEIS. The low estimate of impacts on ranching, represented by agency logs of confirmed wolf depredations, roughly corresponds to FEIS estimates (adjusted to the smaller wolf population). The analysis also presents estimates of unrecorded depredations based on the number of confirmed kills and rancher estimates of depredations, which are higher than the FEIS estimates.4 In addition to impacts on ranching, impacts on recreational use were also observed. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some individuals participated in recreational activities related to the Mexican wolf. This analysis finds that impacts to hunting participation did not occur during the study period. Hunting success rates did decline, likely due to a combination of management, weather patterns (drought), and biology-related factors. Key findings are summarized below: Demographics: Overall, the BRWRA study area contains a high percentage of Federal lands and is sparsely populated, with a five-county study area population of 122,000 and an average population density of 4.5 people per square mile. On average, population growth in affected communities has been slower over the past decade than in Arizona and New Mexico as a whole. The majority of communities within and in proximity to the BRWRA exhibited below average median household incomes and had a larger share of their populations living in poverty than was typical for Arizona and New Mexico both in 1990 and 2000. The five counties containing portions of the BRWRA also demonstrated higher rates of unemployment than surrounding counties during both census years. However, many communities experienced an increase in median household income, a decrease in poverty rates, and a decrease in unemployment between 1990 and 2000. Effects of Mexican wolf reintroduction on demographic trends are not perceptible over the study period, as the lower population growth rates and median income, as well as the higher poverty and unemployment rates, for the most part pre-dated wolf reintroduction. Thus, these conditions are likely to be evidence of continuing long-term trends, including aging rural populations, rather than impacts of wolf reintroduction. The FEIS was accurate when predicting that the areas in proximity to the BRWRA would not experience the same population growth from 1990 to 2000 as elsewhere in Arizona and New Mexico. Rancher Impacts: The economies of ranching communities that utilize the BRWRA are affected by decisions that alter the uses of Federal lands. Wolves may also venture outside of the BRWRA onto private ranch lands that border the BRWRA and affect both deeded and public







3















The FEIS considered four alternative wolf reintroduction scenarios and determined that Alternative A, which includes the BRWRA, was the Preferred Alternative. The FEIS estimates that a population of 100 wolves would be confirmed to kill between one and 34 cattle each year, but notes that additional undocumented and/or unconfirmed depredations would occur.















4















SEC ES-2















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















land ranches. Ranchers have identified a number of consequences that may result from wolf reintroduction: ? Physical effects: Ranch animal depredation, including cattle, sheep, horses, and dog deaths and injuries from wolf attacks; non-lethal physiological impacts on livestock, such as weight loss, stress, and lower birth rates. Additional costs of livestock management: Need to alter forage use, provide additional labor, and increase expenditures on supplies to prevent depredation. Property value impacts: Ranchers have expressed concern that disproportionately affected ranches may go out of business due to wolf depredation impacts. Additionally, ranch market value may be reduced due to wolf impacts. Positive impacts: Positive impacts could be associated with increased predation on coyotes or improved forage conditions due to less competition with elk.















? ?















?















To date, the primary impacts on ranching activities have been associated with depredation of ranch animals. Exhibit ES-1 presents a range of estimates of wolf depredation from 1998 to 2004.5 The low estimate represents the average of the agency records of confirmed kills (including records from the USFWS, USDA Wildlife Services, and the Defenders of Wildlife compensation program). The medium estimate incorporates a multiplier from published literature that estimates unconfirmed kills in addition to confirmed kills. The high estimate reflects estimates of losses due to wolf depredation provided by ranchers. These estimates range from an average of five to 33 cattle killed each year by wolves, which is less than one percent of the 34,800 cattle grazed in the BRWRA annually. The average death loss rate for cattle operations in Arizona and New Mexico from all factors was four percent in 1997, including predation by other animals, digestive, respiratory, and calving problems, disease, weather conditions, poison, theft, and unknown causes.6 Applying these percentages to the estimated number of livestock in the BRWRA, approximately 1,310 cattle and calves and six sheep died from causes other than slaughter in the BRWRA in 2002 (the year of highest recorded depredations), compared to 5 to 33 cattle killed by wolves. Thus, wolf predation comprises a small percent (between 0.3 and 2.5 percent) of typical cattle losses experienced annually in the BRWRA. However, some individual ranchers may be disproportionately affected.















5 6















Although the scope of this analysis is 1998 to 2003, this analysis includes readily available information for 2004.















U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service (1999), Meat Animals Production, Disposition, and Income: Final Estimates 1993-1997. Statistical Bulletin Number 959a.















SEC ES-3















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















Exhibit ES-1 TOTAL NUMBER OF WOLF DEPREDATIONS, 1998 to 2004a Cattle Sheep Horses Number of Killsb Low Estimate 32.3 2.3 0.3 Medium Estimate High Estimate







c















Dogs















2.0 3.0 3.0















181.1 233.0















5.4 5.4















3.0 4.0















5.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 Number of Injuries Notes: a While the scope of the five year review is from 1998 through 2003, data for 2004 are included to incorporate the most recent records of depredation. b The low estimate represents the average of the Agency records of confirmed kills. The medium estimate includes a multiplier from published literature that estimates unconfirmed kills in addition to confirmed kills. The high estimate presents the estimates provided by ranchers of losses due to wolf depredation. Section 3 describes the methods used to develop these estimates in detail. Note that the medium estimate does not represent an "average" or "best" estimate; it represents one method for estimating the number of kills. c The costs associated with injury estimates are applied to the low, medium, and high estimates of kills when calculating the total economic impacts to ranchers.















Exhibit ES-2 presents a summary of the economic impacts to ranching that have occurred to date. Adjusted FEIS estimates are roughly consistent with agency logs of confirmed wolf depredations over the past five years (low estimate in this analysis). The analysis also presents estimates of unrecorded depredations based on the number of confirmed kills (medium estimate) and rancher estimates of depredations (high estimate), which are higher than confirmed agency estimates. The value of wolf-related losses is estimated at $39,000 to $206,000, including time to prepare claims.7 Of these estimated costs, $34,000 in compensation has been paid to ranchers since 1998. The annual regional economic impact associated with uncompensated costs to ranchers is estimated to range from $3,000 to $99,000 (see Exhibit ES-3).8 This impact represents less than one percent of the $83.9 million (2004$) in livestock cash receipts in 2002.9















7















These estimates include data for 2004. Loss estimates for 1998 to 2003, the defined time period of the five-year review, range from $32,000 to $173,000.















The decreased direct regional economic output includes the direct and induced effects of lost cattle minus any compensation that ranchers received for these cattle. Production losses do not include the value of lost dogs and horses or the value of time spent by ranchers preparing compensation claims since these losses do not affect output (i.e., revenue from cattle and sheep sales). To the extent that ranchers forego investing in livestock herds because they instead spent money replacing dogs and horses or paying for additional labor, this analysis may understate actual production losses. Section 3 discusses these estimates in greater detail. Impacts are measured in terms of decreased economic output in 2002, the year in which ranchers sustained the most livestock losses. This estimate compares the regional impacts in 2002 (the year of highest recorded depredations) with the livestock receipts in that year.







9















8















SEC ES-4















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















Exhibit ES-2 TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS TO RANCHERS, 1998 to 2004a (2004$)















Low Estimateb















$38,650







b















Medium Estimate High Estimate







b















$163,270 $206,290















Notes: a While the scope of the five year review is from 1998 through 2003, data for 2004 is included to include the most recent records of depredation. Impacts include the market value of livestock and domestic animals killed by wolves, the cost of injuries resulting from wolf attacks, and the value of the time spent by ranchers to prepare claims for compensation. These values do not include (i.e., subtract out) compensation received by ranchers for these losses. b The low estimate represents the average of the agency records of confirmed kills. The medium estimate incorporates a multiplier from the published literature that estimates unconfirmed kills in addition to confirmed kills. The high estimate is based on estimates provided by ranchers of losses due to wolf depredation.















Exhibit ES-3 ESTIMATED ANNUAL REGIONAL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF REDUCTIONS IN LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION USING 2002 DATA (2004$)a Type of Loss Direct Effect Indirect Effect Induced Effect Total Impact Livestock Loss (Output) c Estimateb (Output) (Output) (Output) Low Estimate Output $1,840 $350 $390 $2,590 Employment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Medium Estimate Output $34,700 $6,630 $7,440 $48,770 Employment 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.9 High Estimate Output $70,530 $13,470 $15,130 $99,130 Employment 1.4 0.2 0.2 1.9 Notes: a Regional economic impact measures represent a one-time change in economic activity; thus, they are not additive to other estimates. These estimates represent the estimated regional economic impact from livestock losses in 2002. As 2002 was the year with the highest depredation rate, the regional impact analysis represents the upper bound of annual direct, indirect, and induced effects from 1998 to 2004. b Livestock loss estimates include the uncompensated value of cattle killed by wolves in 2002. No reported cattle injuries or sheep depredations occurred in this year. c Note that estimates may not sum due to rounding.















Regarding property values, public land ranches in all areas of New Mexico experienced a reduced rate of ranch appreciation when compared to deeded land ranches between 1998 and 2003. This slowed appreciation has been attributed to uncertainty about future grazing access on public lands and the many controversies associated with public land grazing, including issues such as grazing fees, NEPA compliance, and Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance. Thus, wolf reintroduction activities may have been one of many factors, along with conservation activities for other endangered species, as well as other controversies and uncertainties, that







SEC ES-5















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















contributed to a difference in appreciation rates for deeded land versus public land ranches in the BRWRA. Hunters/Outfitters/Guide Impacts: Because the hunting outfitter and guide industry operating within the BRWRA relies on state and Federal permits and access to Federal lands, as well as a healthy population of wild prey, it may be subject to policy changes concerning the use of resources on Federal lands. The FEIS estimated that a harvest reduction of 120 to 200 elk would occur once the wolf population reached 100. This harvest reduction would have represented two to six percent of annual elk harvest in the BRWRA between 1998 to 2003. Reductions in hunting days equal to the FEIS estimates would have represented one to two percent of total elk hunting days in New Mexico and Arizona in 2001, or four to seven percent of elk hunting days in the BRWRA. However, over the past five years, wolf populations have not reached 100. Due to the small wolf population and more dominant overall trends that are unrelated to wolves, impacts on hunters and hunting effort in this region have not been observable to date. Specifically: ? Effects on big game population from depredation: The current BRWRA elk population is larger than the population projected by the FEIS to exist after the wolf population reaches 100. Nonetheless, both elk and deer populations in the BRWRA declined since 1998. However, other factors, such as game manager decision-making strategies as well as an ongoing drought complicate the assessment of whether wolf predation has affected elk populations to date. State wildlife agencies attribute the decline in deer population, which has been ongoing for at least a decade, to a combination of factors, including drought, forest succession, lack of natural fires, and resulting lack of available forage for deer. Effects on hunter visitation to the region: The number of elk permits sold in the BRWRA increased from 1998 to 2004, as did the number of hunters and hunter days. Thus, this analysis finds no evidence that wolf reintroduction has affected the hunter visitation in the BRWRA area. Correspondingly, this analysis also finds no evidence that either New Mexico or Arizona has experienced reductions in elk permit revenue since wolf reintroduction. While wolves have killed elk over this time period, a change in hunter visitation due to deer and elk population reductions by wolves is not detectable. The number of deer licenses issued in New Mexico declined by 13 to 18 percent in recent years. The number of deer permits issued in Arizona declined from 2,100 in 1998 to 850 in 2003 (a decline of 36 percent). As stated above, the decline in deer population has been caused by multiple factors other than wolves, and is the most likely cause for the reduction in permits granted. Reduced hunting success: Overall, elk hunting success rates in the New Mexico portion of the BRWRA show a decrease over the study period, from 39 percent in 1998 to 34 percent in 2003 (on average across game management units). Success rates in the Arizona portion of the BRWRA show a decrease from 48.5 percent to 42 percent over this time period. Despite small increases in the number of elk hunters in recent years, elk harvests have







SEC ES-6















?















?















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















remained relatively constant, resulting in a slight decrease in the elk hunting success rate. This decrease is likely due to the combination of a larger group of elk hunters pursuing a smaller amount of prey. Because of the relatively small number of wolves compared to the overall elk population, any incremental impact of wolf reintroduction is not detectable at this time. The success rate for deer permits did decline over this time period, however the change corresponds to the decline in deer population, and is the most likely reason for this decline. In addition, ongoing research suggests that deer comprise a small fraction of the Mexican wolf diet.10 Any incremental decrease in success rates for deer harvest due to wolves is not detectable. ? Lost income to outfitter/guides: The outfitter/guide industry is an important contributor to local economies and likely brings $13 to $17 million in gross revenues annually. However, revenue impacts are not estimated because no reduction in hunter participation was observed during the study period. Regional Economic Effects: Regional economic impacts are not estimated because no reduction in hunter participation was observed.















?















San Carlos Apache and White Mountain Apache Tribes Impacts: Although the BRWRA does not include any Tribal lands, the lands of the San Carlos Apache and the White Mountain Apache (Fort Apache Reservation) lie adjacent to the BRWRA. Because of their rural nature, high unemployment, and dependence on natural resources on Reservation lands, both Tribes are in a relatively weak economic position to absorb incremental cost increases that could result from Mexican wolf reintroduction. While each Tribe initially objected to the introduction of wolves onto their lands, the White Mountain Apache now have an agreement with the USFWS to allow wolf reintroductions. The San Carlos Apache continue to object to the reintroductions, and report that wolf depredation on livestock has occurred on their lands. The Point of Pines Cattle Association on the Reservation reports that "at one branding site there were only two branded calves compared to the past when an Apache reported that three hundred used to be branded at that site. This decline in branding numbers happened after the wolves were reintroduced. Point of Pines was never compensated for those losses."11 These calves had an economic value of over $100,000 to the Tribe, which may be attributable to wolf reintroduction. However, further investigation of the cause of the livestock losses would be necessary to accurately evaluate impacts to date. Both Tribes also expend considerable effort in attending meetings to discuss management of the Mexican wolf. Both USFWS and DoW contributed funds to support Tribal efforts for wolves during the study period. Other economic impacts on the Tribes, such as impacts on available hunting permits, have not been observable to date. The FEIS estimated that if the lands of the San Carlos Apache become fully occupied by wolves, impacts of wolf reintroduction could be $4,900 to $21,100 annually. The San Carlos discussion about livestock losses due to wolf depredation would suggest that the FEIS could







10 11















Personal communication with Mexican Wolf Recovery Coordinator, December 16, 2005.















Letter from Steve Titla, Titla and Parsi, General Counsel for the San Carlos Apache Tribe, Re: Economic impact of wolf depredation to Point of Pines on San Carlos, November 18, 2004.















SEC ES-7















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















have underestimated impacts on livestock. However, as stated above, further investigation of the cause of these livestock losses would be necessary to accurately evaluate impacts to date. Tourism/Conservation Impacts: The primary categories of economic benefits of the reintroduction effort include: ? Increased recreation visits. Greater National Forest visitation could lead to increased regional tourism and recreation-related expenditures in local economies. Existence value. The public holds a non-use value for the Mexican wolf that could be enhanced by actions to reintroduce the species to the study area. Agency spending in local areas. Federal and state agency spending on the reintroduction effort may contribute to local economies. Overall ecosystem health. The restoration of wolves as the top carnivore could restore ecosystem function to the BRWRA area.















? ? ?















Approximately 3.2 million National Forest visits, or 14 percent of National Forest visits to Arizona and New Mexico, occur annually in the BRWRA area. Lack of data makes assessment of recent changes to visitation difficult, though measurable increases in visitation for wolf-related recreation appears unlikely given the small number of wolves and the lack of a current mechanism for issuing guiding permits. The FEIS states that increased recreational value and expenditures may occur in the BRWRA after Mexican wolf reintroduction. Some anecdotal evidence demonstrates that increases in recreation have occurred since wolf reintroduction, including reports that at least 15 wolf-related tours have visited the BRWRA since the program began. In addition, at least one workshop was held that discussed potential tourism opportunities. A large number of public and agency meetings (estimated at 277) have been held since Mexican wolf reintroductions began. Federal and State agency funding for the Mexican wolf program totaled $7.8 million from 1998 to 2004, or between $0.67 to $1.4 million annually.12 Regional impacts of agency expenditures were approximately $1.5 million in regional output annually, with a benefit to employment of 31 jobs, assuming that all funds were spent in the BRWRA area.13 In addition to agency expenditures, some non-profit groups have invested resources into the Mexican wolf program. For example, DoW reports spending $59,000 on equipment and an additional $78,000 on staff and staff housing for the wolf project. Actual agency expenditures are somewhat higher than those estimated in the FEIS, which estimated expenditures at approximately $5 million from 1998 to 2004. Regional economic impact estimates were not included in the FEIS. The public holds a non-use value for the Mexican wolf that could be enhanced by actions to reintroduce the species to the study area. However, no studies exist that estimate the existence







12 13















From 1998 to 2003, Federal and state agency funding totaled $6.3 million (2004$). This estimate is based on 2002 expenditures.















SEC ES-8















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















value for Mexican wolves. While a few studies in the literature have attempted to estimate existence value for other wolf populations, these studies were not conducted in the Southwest. Because the context of the other study areas was unique to those areas (Yellowstone National Park and North Carolina), a transfer of estimated benefits is not conducted. Social Impacts With the exception of the social impacts on two groups, nearby Tribes and a subset of ranchers, the analysis concludes that social impacts of the reintroduction effort between 1998 and 2003 have been minimal. Three factors provide the foundation for this conclusion. First, wolf populations would have to be much larger to generate impacts on most groups in the BRWRA. Second, certain segments of local society are unlikely to see widespread impacts, positive or negative, even if wolves appear in larger numbers. The general population is aware of the presence of wolves, but that fact has little bearing on their day to day social (and economic) lives. Third, social impacts from wolf reintroduction are likely to take a much longer period of time to develop than the five-year study period. For example, if wolf populations grow slowly and after ten years have a negative impact on elk herds, then the number of outfitters might decline as business is slowly reduced. With these issues in mind, the general conclusions of our social impact assessment are: ? The distribution of social impacts is such that a majority of them fall on a subset of local ranchers, including Tribal operations. These operators have had to repeatedly alter their social lives to accommodate wolves. The cultural impacts of wolf recovery on the two Tribes adjacent to the BRWRA are complex. While the impacts are not direct, the Tribes view these impacts to be significant. Though the two Tribes currently view the reintroduction effort differently, ranching and outfitting are important components in their social and economic structures. The relationship between the Tribes and the Federal agencies resulted in social impacts during the study period, and remains a complex source of possible future impacts. Outfitters remain nervous about economic impacts, but social impacts to hunting and outfitting have not emerged to date. The information concerning changes to the tourism industry, including hotel operators, tour operators and restaurants, supports a finding of limited social impacts on this group from wolf recovery. Local conservationists' social impacts from wolf recovery are positive, heterogeneous and difficult to aggregate due to the wide ranging social, economic and demographic groups they represent. There is little data to support a finding of widespread social impacts.















?















? ?















?















SEC ES-9















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















Comparison of FEIS to Current Assessment Exhibit ES-4 presents a comparison of the impacts contained in the FEIS to the findings of this report.















SEC ES-10















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















Exhibit ES-4 COMPARISON OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF MEXICAN WOLF REINTRODUCTION IN THE BRWRA TO FEIS ESTIMATES, 1998 TO 2004 Category Description of Impact FEIS Estimatea Observed Wolf Impacts (1998 to 2004) Wolf population in BRWRA 100 2004 population: 44 Elk population in BRWRA 9,300 to 18,000 ~20,000: 6,000 in AZ; 14,000 in NM (2002) Biological Deer population in BRWRA 35,500 to 64,100 ~10,000 in AZ (2002); Unknown in NM. effects Deer population reduction 4,800 to 10,000 Deer population declining in both states. Elk population reduction Reduction in deer harvest 1,200 to 1,900 300 to 560 annually Elk population declining in both states. Not observable to date. Success rates have declined somewhat. Elk harvest has remained constant, while deer harvest declined along with population. Success rates have declined for both elk and deer. Wolf impact not observable. Not observable to date. Number of hunters and hunter days increased. Not observable to date. Number of hunters and hunter days increased.















Huntingb















Not observable to date. 32 to 233 cattle, 2 to 5 sheep, 0 to 4 horses, and 2 to 3 dogs (1998-2004); or 5 to 33 cattle, 0 to 1 sheep and Number of livestock losses 1 to 34 confirmed annually horses, and less than 1 dog annually. Ranching $38,600 to $206,000 (1998-2004), or $5,500 to $29,500 Lost livestock value to ranchers $840 to $28,560 annuallyc annually. Regional impacts $3,000 to $99,000 annually. Property value Not addressed. Public land ranches showed slow appreciation. Potential reduction in non-member elk $4,900 to $21,100 Tribal d Not observable to date. Activities hunting permits to San Carlos Apache annually Livestock depredation Not quantified Reported losses of 300 calves in one year. Increased recreational use Not quantified Incidental reports of at least 15 trips made to area. Benefits Increased tourism/expenditures Not quantified Incidental reports of at least 15 trips made to area. Enhanced existence value Conflicts with local ordinances Minor access restrictions near pens, dens, and rendezvous sites Agency Expenditures Not quantified Not quantified Not quantified Not quantified. Discussed in social impacts section. Not observed to date.















120 to 200 annually $877,900 to $1.6 million Lost hunting value annually $707,400 to $1.3 million Lost hunter expenditures annually Lost revenue to AZ/NM from reduced $83,100 to $151,700 permit sales (2004$) annually















Reduction in elk harvest/success















Other















$7.8 million (1998-2004), or between $0.67 to $1.4 $5.0 million (1998 - 2004); million annually, in direct expenditures. annual average $713,500 Approx. $1.5 million additional regional output annually, with a benefit to employment of 31 jobs.















Notes: a The FEIS estimates compare a point in time five years after the wolf population goal for the area is achieved to what the prey populations were projected to be without wolves. EIS estimated are inflated to 2004 dollars. b The FEIS states that the estimated hunting losses may overstate actual losses, as hunter may pursue substitute sites or to substitute species for hunting. In addition, because hunting in New Mexico and Arizona is dominated by resident hunters, money not spent in the BRWRA is likely to be spent elsewhere in these states. c Value of cattle losses calculated by multiplying estimated number of lost cattle by the average value of cattle sold across all size and weight classes in Arizona and New Mexico in 2004, as reported by U.S. Department of Agriculture (1998 ? 2004), Meat Animals Production, Disposition, and Income: Summary, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Mt An 1-1. d Values of lost deer and elk are estimated assuming that 30 wolves utilize the Reservation. Cost estimates do not include lost hunting value or regional expenditures (FEIS 4-35). Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf Within Its Historic Range in the Southwestern United States: Final Environmental Impact Statement.















SEC ES-11















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















INTRODUCTION 1.1 Framework for Analysis















SECTION 1















The Mexican wolf Final Rule states that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will evaluate Mexican wolf reintroduction progress and prepare full evaluations after three and five years.14 These evaluations will include recommendations of whether to continue, modify, or terminate the reintroduction effort. The purpose of this analysis is to estimate the social and economic impacts of the Mexican wolf reintroduction effort since its inception in 1998 as part of the fiveyear review assessment of the program being conducted by the USFWS and cooperating agencies. This information is intended to assist the USFWS, cooperating agencies, and stakeholders in their evaluation of the reintroduction effort. 1.2 Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project Background















In 1998, the USFWS, in cooperation with the Arizona Game and Fish Department, the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, USDA Wildlife Services, and USDA Forest Service, began a program to release a "nonessential experimental" population of Mexican wolves into a portion of its native territory in Arizona and New Mexico. The area where the wolves are allowed to disperse into and colonize, known as the "Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area," encompasses approximately 7,200 square miles of the Apache National Forest in southeastern Arizona and the Gila National Forest in southwestern New Mexico. Wolves may only be released into the primary recovery zone, an area within the BRWRA in eastern Arizona. The rule allows the wolf population to disperse into the remaining portion of the BRWRA, but does not allow wolves to establish territories on lands outside of the BRWRA (except on Tribal or private lands when landowners consent). The primary goal of the Reintroduction Project is to restore a "self-sustaining population of about 100 wild Mexican wolves distributed over 5,000 square miles of the BRWRA."15 Under the rule, promulgated under section 10(j) of the ESA, private citizens may kill or injure wolves in defense of human life or when wolves are in the act of attacking livestock (with some restrictions). Regulatory History Timeline: ? ? Pre-1970: Last confirmed sighting of wild Mexican wolf in Southwestern United States. 1976: Mexican wolf listed as endangered subspecies under the ESA.















14















Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the Mexican Gray Wolf in Arizona and New Mexico, 63 Federal Register 1763-1772; 50 CFR Section 17.84(k). Paquet, Paul C. et al. "Mexican wolf recovery: Three year program review and assessment." Prepared by the Conservation Breeding Group for the Service. June, 2001.















15















SEC 1-1















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















? ? ? ?















1978: Entire gray wolf species in North America south of Canada listed as endangered under the ESA (listed as threatened in Minnesota). 1982: Mexican wolf recovery plan published. November 1996: Service releases the FEIS. January 1998: Service publishes final rule to establish a nonessential experimental population of the Mexican gray wolf in Arizona and New Mexico within the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area (under section 10(j) of the ESA). March 1998: Service commences reintroduction of Mexican wolf. June 2001: Three-year review of the Mexican wolf reintroduction program completed. 2004-2005: Release of administrative, technical and socioeconomic components of 5-Year Review of Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project to the public.















? ? ?















1.3















Analytic Approach















The goal of this socioeconomic analysis is to evaluate the local and regional social and economic impacts of the Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project that occurred between March 1998 and December 2003, and to compare those impacts to impacts estimated in the 1996 Final Environmental Impact Statement. This analysis is intended to allow resource managers and the public to evaluate the social and economic implications of altering the Reintroduction Project. The analysis presents two analyses: 1) an assessment of economic impacts and comparison to the FEIS; 2) an assessment of social impacts. The scope of the analysis is as follows: This analysis focuses on regional social and economic impacts. As part of this effort, the analysis characterizes the regional economy, population characteristics and community and institutional structures for the study area. The analysis is retrospective, identifying potential social and economic impacts for the five-year review period (1998 to 2003). However, where more recent data is available, it is included in the analysis. This analysis focuses on impacts in the five counties that contain lands within the BRWRA: Catron, Grant, and Sierra Counties, New Mexico; Greenlee and Apache Counties, Arizona, as well as adjacent Tribal lands of the White Mountain Apache (Fort Apache) and the San Carlos Apache. The five counties included in the Study Area for the economic analysis each include some portions of the BRWRA, and thus are most likely to experience the largest impacts of wolf reintroduction. Thus, the analysis focuses on these counties when trying to understand potential impacts related to wolf reintroduction. Section 6 of the analysis also discusses broader non-use, or existence values, for Mexican wolves.







SEC 1-2















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















This analysis also evaluates the relevance and quality of available research studies related to the attitudes, as well as social and economic impacts of wolves or wolf reintroduction from other areas. 1.4 Data Sources















FEIS estimates are used to provide a basis against which recent activities occurring in the BRWRA study area since Mexican wolf reintroduction are compared. This analysis reviewed a variety of data sources to understand recent and historical activities, including: ? In-person discussions with numerous individuals at Service open house meetings in January and February 2005 as well as personal communication with more than 60 local stakeholders, including private, municipal, state, and Federal sources; Published data sources; Administrative records from the FEIS and from recent litigation regarding the Mexican wolf recovery and reintroduction; Relevant research and policy literature, with a focus on those projects that directly address the social and economic issues arising from wolf reintroduction in the BRWRA in particular and North America in general; Available secondary economic and social data on the BRWRA region describing the county and community level social, demographic, and economic conditions; and Public comments on the draft socioeconomic analysis.















? ? ?















?















? 1.5















Economic Impact Assessment















The economic impacts portion of the analysis attempts to identify changes in economic activities that have occurred since Mexican wolf reintroduction began, and to quantify these changes where possible. To accomplish this, the analysis focuses on comparing the level of economic activity in various sectors after wolf reintroduction to activity levels prior to the reintroduction. The analysis then compares current estimates to estimates presented in the FEIS. Specifically, this analysis: 1) Characterizes changes to the regional economy since 1996; 2) Describes the issues raised by stakeholders in economic sectors affected by the reintroduction of the Mexican wolf;















SEC 1-3















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















3) Discusses whether existing data indicate that the reintroduction of the Mexican wolf has played a role in changes to the affected economic sectors and whether these changes have had an effect on the regional or local economy; and 4) Quantifies such impacts to the extent possible. Note that, in addition to potential impacts from wolf reintroduction, drought and other factors contributed to changes in the regional economy over the study period, and assigning the cause of change is difficult. Ongoing trends are often well established and overwhelm any observations of incremental effects caused by Mexican wolf reintroduction. 1.6 Social Impact Assessment















This portion of this analysis addresses possible social impacts from Mexican wolf reintroduction in the study area during the initial five year recovery period of 1998 to 2003. Social impacts are defined as "...the consequences to human populations of any public or private actions that alter the ways in which people live, work, play, relate to one another, organize to meet their needs and generally cope as members of society. The term also includes cultural impacts involving changes to the norms, values, and beliefs that guide and rationalize their cognition of themselves and their society."16 In the context of this analysis, such impacts are hypothesized to derive from the reintroduction and management policies for Mexican wolves during the initial five years of that program (1998-2003). Social impacts are generally assumed to occur in standard categories consisting of population changes, community and institutional structures, political and social resources, individual and family changes, and community resources. These categories are defined as follows: ? Population Characteristics: Ongoing and expected population changes (growth or decline), ethnic and racial makeup, and net migration, temporary residents, seasonal or leisure residents, and age distributions; Community and Institutional Structures: changes to group and individual relationships with federal and state agencies; changes to the basis of community economic and social stability; Political and Social Resources: The size, structure, and organization of local government; its relationship with state and federal governments; historical and current patterns of employment and industrial diversification; activities of voluntary associations, religious organizations, interests groups; relationships between social and political institutions;















?















?















16















Interorganizational Committee, 2003: 231.















SEC 1-4















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















?















Individual and Family Changes: Influences on the daily life of the individuals and families, including attitudes, perceptions, family characteristics, and local social networks; can include changing attitudes toward the policy, an alteration in family and friendship networks, perceptions of risk, health, and safety; fears and aspirations; Community Resources: Patterns of natural resource and land use; past and current housing and community services (health, police, fire, sanitation); continuity and survival of historical and cultural resources; changes for indigenous people and religious sub-cultures.















?















Impacts are placed into each category if the analysis establishes that such an impact is related directly to wolf reintroduction or is clearly an indirect impact of wolf reintroduction. Time and resource limitations allow us to draw general conclusions only as to possible social impacts on most groups and communities. Significant field research is required to adequately address specific direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of wolf recovery. Hence, this analysis will focus on direct impacts suggested by the limited information gathered for this study. Impacts on groups can be broken into two general categories: active impacts and passive impacts. Active impacts are social impacts derived from direct interactions with wolves. Ranchers, outfitters and people living in areas where wolves are common are more likely to have active encounters with wolves. Thus, social impacts derived from those encounters are more readily identified. Active impacts appear to be relatively rare for the general public. Passive impacts occur when people in the study area hold strong opinions about wolves and their reintroduction but have few, if any, direct encounters with wolves. Social impacts on such groups are much harder to establish beyond those associated with opinions held about the positive existence value of the wolves. It must be made clear that social impacts are prima fascia neither positive nor negative. Those who feel that their social lives have been significantly altered do typically make a distinction between positive and negative impacts. However, people from different social groups frequently assess the same impact differently. For example, ranchers may label the anxiety they feel when they see wolves in close proximity to their livestock as a negative impact while their neighbors might find the sighting of the very same wolves to have a positive impact on their social lives. We generally speak of impacts as negative or positive if they were described as such by those that were interviewed. 1.7 Socio-Economic Estimates Presented in the Final Environmental Impact Statement















This section presents a brief summary of the estimates presented for the BRWRA as part of Alternative A in the FEIS.17 These estimates are the basis of comparison for this analysis.







U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf Within Its Historic Range in the Southwestern United States: Final Environmental Impact Statement.







17















SEC 1-5















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















Exhibit 1-1 presents a summary of the impacts that would result from reintroduction of wolves to the BRWRA area, as estimated in the 1996 FEIS. Note that these estimated impacts are projected for "a point in time five years after the wolf population goal for the area of 100 wolves is achieved."18 Thus, impacts presented in this Exhibit are unlikely to have been realized to date, since the population of wolves has not yet reached 100. As shown, impacts were anticipated to include reductions in prey populations, reductions in hunting and livestock values (both Tribal and non-Tribal), increases in tourism and recreation, and other minor restrictions. The majority of quantified impacts were projected to involve lost hunting value and reductions in hunter expenditures. 1.8 Structure of Report This remainder of this report is organized as follows: ? ? ? ? ? ? Section 2: Demographic Trends In The Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area Section 3: Economic Impacts of Mexican Wolf Reintroduction On Ranching Activities Section 4: Economic Impacts of Mexican Wolf Reintroduction On Hunting Activities Section 5: Economic Impacts of Mexican Wolf Reintroduction On Tribes Section 6: Economic Impacts of Mexican Wolf Reintroduction on Tourism and Conservation Section 7: Social Impacts of Mexican Wolf Reintroduction















U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf Within Its Historic Range in the Southwestern United States: Final Environmental Impact Statement.















18















SEC 1-6















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















Exhibit 1-1 SUMMARY OF FEIS ESTIMATES OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF WOLF REINTRODUCTION IN THE BRWRA Category Description of Impact Value 100 4,800 to 10,000 1,200 to 1,900 300 to 560 120 to 200 $877,900 to $1.6 million annually Wolf population Biological effectsa Deer population reductions Elk population reductions Reduction in deer harvest Huntingb Reduction in elk harvest Lost hunting value (2004$)















Ranching















Lost hunter expenditures (2004$) $707,400 to $1.3 million annually Lost revenue to AZ/NM from reduced permit sales (2004$) $83,100 to $151,700 annually Confirmed cattle losses 1 to 34 Lost value to ranchers (2004$)c $840 to $28,560 annually















Potential reduction in non-member elk hunting permits to Tribal Activities San Carlos Apache (2004$)d $4,900 to $21,100 annually Livestock depredation Increased recreational use Increased tourism Enhanced existence value Conflicts with local ordinances Minor access restrictions near pens, dens, and rendezvous sites Agency Expenditures (2004$) Not quantified Not quantified Not quantified Not quantified Not quantified $5.0 million (1998 - 2004); annual average $713,500















Benefits















Other















Notes: a Prey population estimates compare a point in time five years after the wolf population goal for the area is achieved to what the prey populations were projected to be without wolves. b Estimated hunting losses may overstate actual losses, as hunters may pursue substitute sites or substitute species. In addition, because hunting in New Mexico and Arizona is dominated by resident hunters, money not spent in the BRWRA is likely to be spent elsewhere in these states. c Value of cattle losses calculated by multiplying estimated number of lost cattle by the average value of cattle sold across all size and weight classes in Arizona and New Mexico in 2004, as reported by U.S. Department of Agriculture (1998 ? 2004), Meat Animals Production, Disposition, and Income: Summary, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Mt An 1-1. d Values of lost deer and elk are estimated assuming that 30 wolves utilize the reservation. Cost estimates do not include lost hunting value or regional expenditures (FEIS 4-35). Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf Within Its Historic Range in the Southwestern United States: Final Environmental Impact Statement.















SEC 1-7















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS IN THE BLUE RANGE WOLF RECOVERY AREA 2.1 Introduction















SECTION 2















This section describes the general climatic conditions, population trends, and economic activity within and in proximity to the BRWRA both prior to and since the reintroduction of Mexican wolves. The purpose of this section is to provide background on the five counties and communities containing portions of the BRWRA in order to present a context for subsequent sections of this analysis; the purpose is not to suggest that population and economic indicators are the result of the Reintroduction Project. We begin with an overview of the land use, population, and history of the counties that contain portions of the BRWRA and the communities in proximity to the BRWRA. Subsequent segments present more detailed demographic and socioeconomic information. Throughout this section, we compare population and economic indicators to information and predictions presented in the FEIS.19 The BRWRA encompasses approximately 7,200 square miles and straddles the border between Arizona and New Mexico (see Exhibit 2-1). Portions of the BRWRA fall within five counties: Apache and Greenlee counties in Arizona; and Catron, Grant, and Sierra counties in New Mexico. The USFWS initially released wolves within the Primary Recovery Area, which constitutes approximately 1,200 square miles of the BRWRA and falls within Greenlee County, Arizona. 2.2 Overview of Study Area















The five counties in Arizona and New Mexico that contain portions of the BRWRA can be generally characterized as mountainous and sparsely populated. Within the BRWRA,







19















U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1996), Reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf Within Its Historic Range in the Southwestern United States: Final Environmental Impact Statement. When comparing data describing the BRWRA in this analysis and the FEIS, note that the two analyses have separate definitions of the study area. The FEIS relies on statistics from the 1990 Census tracts that are within the BRWRA (Apache County 3901; Greenlee County 9704; all of Catron County; Grant County 9841, 9842, and 9849; and Sierra County 7824). Since the location of tracts is not consistent between Censuses, however, this analysis defines the study area as the five counties that contain portions of the BRWRA in order to compare statistics between 1990 and 2000.















SEC 2-1















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















elevations range from under 4,000 feet in the semi-desert lowlands to 11,000 feet in the mountains.20 The population density across the five counties is approximately 4.5 people per square mile; in contrast, the average population density throughout the U.S. is 79.6 people per square mile.21







Exhibit 2-1 LOCATION OF BLUE RANGE WOLF RECOVERY AREA















The majority of land in Apache, Greenlee, Catron, Grant, and Sierra counties is publicly owned. In Apache County, Arizona, 21 percent of the land is publicly owned, 14 percent is privately owned, and 66 percent is within the Apache and Navajo reservations. In Greenlee County, Arizona, 94 percent of the land is publicly owned and only seven percent is privately owned. In Catron, Grant, and Sierra counties, New Mexico, the percentages of land that are held publicly total 75, 64, and 82 percent, respectively, and private land comprises 25, 35, and 18 percent of these counties. In addition, tribal lands account for one percent of Grant County.















20 21















5-Year Review Technical Component. U.S. Census Bureau (2000), Census 2000.















SEC 2-2















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, government jobs (including Federal, state, local, and military employment) represent the most common sector of employment in four of the five counties containing portions of the BRWRA; in Sierra County, the services sector employs the largest portion of the population. In Apache County, almost 52 percent of employees are employed by government entities, while the percentage of government employment ranges from 10 to 30 percent in the remaining counties. In Apache, Catron, Grant, and Sierra counties, many employees work for various service industries, including professional, technical, administrative, educational, waste, accommodation, food, and other services. The portion of employees in the service industry in these four counties ranges from 11 percent in Catron County to 23 percent in Sierra County. Wholesale and retail trade also represents a major industry in the five counties, employing between six percent (in Greenlee and Catron counties) and 13 percent (in Grant County) of full- and part-time employees. Furthermore, construction employs between five and seven percent of workers in the five counties. Finally, a portion of the population in each of the counties in the study area is employed on farms and ranches. Two percent of full- and part-time employees work on farms in Apache County, three percent work on farms in Grant County, five percent work on farms in Greenlee County, eight percent work on farms in Sierra County, and 20 percent work on farms in Catron County.22 Raising beef cattle and calves constitutes the primary activity on the farms and ranches in the study area. As discussed in the FEIS, the majority of the communities in proximity to the BRWRA are small, with only Deming and Silver City, New Mexico, having populations greater than 10,000. Many of these cities and towns were established as mining towns at the turn of the century. Following countywide patterns, primary economic activities in these communities at present are services, retail trade, and some construction. The FEIS noted that tourism and the movement of retirees into these communities represented the primary drivers of these industries; this pattern has continued since 1998. In addition, many residents work for the Federal, state, and local government, and agriculture continues to play an important role, particularly in the smaller communities. Industries other than retail, services, and the government do employ a substantial number of residents in certain communities. Clifton, Arizona, contains a copper mine that employs 70 percent of the town's residents. Mining activities contribute to the relatively high median income and employment rates in this community (see Exhibits 2-9 and 2-12 later in this section). Furthermore, workers from other communities commute to work at this mine.23 The primary economic activity in Eagar and Springerville, Arizona, is power generation at two plants. In addition to work at these utilities, many residents commute to work in other communities such as St. Johns, which is located farther from the BRWRA. Similar to the county employment trends, however, many residents of Eagar and Springerville work for the government, as well as in















22















These percentages do not include employment in the forestry, fishing, hunting, and agriculture support sector, which accounts for less than one percent of employment in all counties except for Catron, where approximately six percent of employees work in this sector. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis (2005), Regional Economic Accounts, CA25N: Total full-time and part-time employment by industry in 2002, accessed March 23, 2005, at <http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis/default.cfm>. Arizona Department of Commerce (2005), Arizona Community Economic Base Studies, accessed March 23, 2005, at <http://www.commerce.state.az.us/prop/eir/azcommunitybasestudy.asp>.















23















SEC 2-3















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















manufacturing, accommodation, and the food services sectors.24 The remainder of this section provides more detailed information on climatic conditions, demographic trends, and economic indicators in the counties and communities in proximity to the BRWRA. 2.3 Climatic Conditions















Seasonal and long-term weather patterns affect water availability and plant growth. In the BRWRA, these conditions can directly influence economic activities such as ranching, which relies on available forage for livestock; hunting, which relies on the availability of wild game; and tourism, which is influenced by the weather. Under typical conditions, the amount of rainfall varies substantially throughout the study area. The average annual precipitation is only approximately 12 inches in the lowlands, but annual precipitation levels reach 37 inches in the mixed conifer forests.25 The Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), prepared by the National Weather Service, represents an index of relative dryness or wetness. The National Weather Service divides states into climate zones and classifies these divisions weekly on a scale ranging from extreme drought to extremely moist. Exhibit 2-2 illustrates the National Weather Service climate divisions for Arizona and New Mexico; Exhibit 2-3 presents the PDSI from 1998 to 2004 in Arizona Zones 2 and 7 and New Mexico Zones 4 and 8, the four climate divisions that overlap with the BRWRA. As Exhibit 2-3 demonstrates, these areas experienced moist conditions in 1998 and the beginning of 2001, but they also underwent prolonged drought periods in 1999 and 2002 through 2004. As discussed in the hunting and grazing sections of this analysis, the recent drought has affected forage availability for cattle and wild game, leading to a reduction in herd numbers due to the decreased carrying capacity of the land.















24















Arizona Department of Commerce (2005), Arizona Community Economic Base Studies, accessed March 23, 2005, at <http://www.commerce.state.az.us/prop/eir/azcommunitybasestudy.asp>. 5-Year Review Technical Component.















25















SEC 2-4















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















Exhibit 2-2 ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO PALMER DROUGHT SEVERITY INDEX ZONES















Note: The National Weather Service divides the states into climate zones and classifies these zones weekly on a scale ranging from extreme drought to extremely moist (relative to the normal conditions in each zone). Source: National Weather Service Climate Prediction Center. 2005. Past Palmer Drought Severity Index Maps by Week for 1998 - 2004. Accessed January 3, 2005, at <http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/ monitoring_and_data/drought.shtml>. Exhibit 2-3 PALMER DROUGHT INDEX: QUARTERLY MOVING AVERAGE (1998 ? 2004)







5 Moist -> 4 3 2 Normal 1 0 -1 <- Drought -2 -3 -4 -5 -5 Jan-98 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Sep-98 Sep-99 Sep-00 Sep-01 Sep-02 Sep-03 Jan-04 Jan-99 May-98 May-99 May-00 May-01 May-02 May-03 May-04 Sep-04















Arizona Zone 2 Arizona Zone 7 New Mexico Zone 4 New Mexico Zone 8















Source: National Weather Service Climate Prediction Center. 2005. Past Palmer Drought Severity Index Maps by Week for 1998 - 2004. Accessed January 3, 2005, at <http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/ products/monitoring_and_data/drought.shtml>.















SEC 2-5















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















2.4















Population Trends















This section discusses population trends and age distributions in counties and communities in proximity to the BRWRA. We also compare these data to statewide and U.S. trends in order to better understand how demographics in the study area differ from state and national averages. 2.4.1 Total Population From 1990 to 2003, the U.S. population grew from 248.7 million to 290.8 million, an increase of 17 percent. During this same period, Arizona experienced rapid growth; the number of people living in the state increased from less than 3.7 million in 1990 to an estimated 5.8 million in 2003. This growth represents a 53 percent increase. New Mexico's growth, while more moderate than that of Arizona, also exceeded the national average; it increased 24 percent from 1.5 million to 1.9 million.26, 27 Exhibit 2-4 depicts these population changes.















26















U.S. Census Bureau (1990), Census 1990; U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division (2004a), U.S. and State Population Estimates from the U.S. Bureau of the Census: U.S. and State Population Estimates, 2000 to 2004, prepared by the Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of New Mexico, accessed March 6, 2005, at <http://www.unm.edu/~bber/demo/ usto2000s.htm>.















U.S. Census Bureau projections for the state of New Mexico are lower than those estimated by the University of New Mexico Bureau of Business and Economic Research. To the extent that the UNM estimates are more accurate, figures in this analysis may understate the population in New Mexico and its counties.















27















SEC 2-6















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















Exhibit 2-4 ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO POPULATION (1990 ? 2003)







6 ,0 0 0 , 0 0 0 5 ,0 0 0 , 0 0 0 4 ,0 0 0 , 0 0 0 Population 3 ,0 0 0 , 0 0 0 2 ,0 0 0 , 0 0 0 1 ,0 0 0 , 0 0 0 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003















Ar izo n a















New Mexico















Note: Population figures from 2001 to 2003 represent projections rather than population counts. U.S. Census Bureau projections for the state of New Mexico are lower than those estimated by the University of New Mexico Bureau of Business and Economic Research. To the extent that the UNM estimates are more accurate, figures in this analysis may understate the population in New Mexico counties. Sources: Arizona, 1990 ? 2003: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division (2004b), Intercensal Population Estimates of Arizona Counties: 1970-2003, accessed February 17, 2005, at <http://www.workforce.az.gov/admin/ uploadedPublications/524_betty70-97-2.pdf>; New Mexico, 1990 - 2000: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division (2002), New Mexico Revised County Population Estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau, prepared by the Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of New Mexico, accessed March 6, 2005, at <http://www.unm.edu/~bber/demo/nmcos4-19-02.htm>; New Mexico, 2001 ? 2003: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division (2004c), New Mexico County Population Estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau, prepared by the Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of New Mexico, accessed March 6, 2005, at <http://www.unm.edu/~bber/demo/copopest.htm>.















The population of the five counties containing portions of the BRWRA totaled approximately 122,000 people in 2003; these counties account for less than two percent of the population in Arizona and New Mexico. While Arizona and New Mexico experienced population growth of roughly 44 percent from 1990 to 2003, Exhibit 2-5 demonstrates that, as projected in the FEIS, population growth was less pronounced in the counties in the BRWRA. From 1990 to 2003, the population increased by 11 percent in the study area. Greenlee County, Arizona, is the only county that experienced a net decrease from 1990 to 2003; its population dropped six percent from 8,000 in 1990 to 7,500 in 2003. Apache County, Arizona, increased 11 percent over the same period, from 61,600 to 68,100. Grant County, New Mexico, experienced a moderate growth rate of eight percent, increasing from 27,700 in 1990 to 29,800 in 2003. Catron and Sierra counties in New Mexico underwent the largest growth rates of 33 and 32 percent,







SEC 2-7















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















respectively. Catron County grew from 2,600 to 3,400, while Sierra County increased from 9,900 to 13,100.28 The relatively large population growth in Catron County from 1990 to 2000 represents the only population change not predicted by the FEIS; the FEIS projected stable to negative population growth in Catron County, as opposed to an increase of over 30 percent.







Exhibit 2-5 COUNTY POPULATION TRENDS IN THE BRWRA STUDY AREA (1990 ? 2003)















80,000 70,000 60,000 Population 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1995















Apache County, AZ Catron County, NM















Greenlee County, AZ Grant County, NM Sierra County, NM















Note: Population figures from 2001 to 2003 represent projections rather than population counts. U.S. Census Bureau projections for the state of New Mexico are lower than those estimated by the University of New Mexico Bureau of Business and Economic Research. To the extent that the UNM estimates are more accurate, figures in this analysis may understate the population in New Mexico and its counties. Sources: Arizona, 1990 ? 2003: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division (2004b), Intercensal Population Estimates of Arizona Counties: 1970-2003, accessed February 17, 2005, at <http://www.workforce.az.gov/admin/ uploadedPublications/524_betty70-97-2.pdf>; New Mexico, 1990 2000: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division (2002), New Mexico Revised County Population Estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau, prepared by the Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of New Mexico, accessed March 6, 2005, at <http://www.unm.edu/~bber/demo/nmcos4-1902.htm>; New Mexico, 2001 ? 2003: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division (2004c), New Mexico County Population Estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau, prepared by the Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of New Mexico, accessed March 6, 2005, at <http://www.unm.edu/~bber/demo/copopest.htm>.















28















U.S. Census Bureau (2002), New Mexico Revised County Population Estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau, prepared by the Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of New Mexico, accessed March 6, 2005, at <http://www.unm.edu/~bber/demo/nmcos4-19-02.htm>; U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division (2004b), Intercensal Population Estimates of Arizona Counties: 1970-2003, accessed February 17, 2005, at <http://www.workforce.az.gov/admin/uploadedPublications/524_betty70-97-2.pdf>; U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division (2004c), New Mexico County Population Estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau, prepared by the Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of New Mexico, accessed March 6, 2005, at <http://www.unm.edu/~bber/demo/copopest.htm>.















SEC 2-8















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















This section also includes population information for selected cities and towns within or in proximity to the BRWRA. Exhibit 2-6 shows the locations of these communities, and Exhibit 2-7 displays their population in 1990 and 2000. On average, the communities' population growth rate was slower than that in Arizona and New Mexico as a whole. Exhibit 2-7 further demonstrates that the majority of the communities lagged behind the average growth rate in their states; only three communities (Show Low, Arizona, and Deming and Reserve, New Mexico) approached or exceeded the Arizona and New Mexico growth rates of 52 and 24 percent, respectively.







Exhibit 2-6 LOCATION OF COMMUNITIES IN PROXIMITY TO THE BLUE RANGE WOLF RECOVERY AREA















SEC 2-9















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















Exhibit 2-7 COMMUNITY POPULATION TRENDS IN THE BRWRA STUDY AREA (1990 and 2000) 1990 2000 Average Growth Average Growth Population Population Rate (State) Rate (U.S.) Community Growth Rate Clifton, AZ 2,840 2,600 -8.6% 52.3% 16.9% Eagar, AZ 4,030 4,030 0.2% 52.3% 16.9% McNary, AZ 360 350 -1.7% 52.3% 16.9% Show Low, AZ 5,020 7,700 53.3% 52.3% 16.9% Springerville, AZ 1,800 1,970 9.4% 52.3% 16.9% Bayard, NM 2,600 2,530 -2.5% 23.7% 16.9% Deming, NM 10,970 14,120 28.7% 23.7% 16.9% Hurley, NM 1,530 1,460 -4.6% 23.7% 16.9% Lordsburg, NM 2,950 3,380 14.5% 23.7% 16.9% Magdalena, NM 860 910 6.0% 23.7% 16.9% Reserve, NM 320 390 21.3% 23.7% 16.9% Silver City, NM 10,680 10,550 -1.3% 23.7% 16.9% Note: The percentage change between the 1990 and 2000 population figures may not equal the growth rate due to rounding. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (1990), Census 1990; U.S. Census Bureau (2000), Census 2000.















2.4.2 Population Age Structure Exhibit 2-8 compares the age distribution of the population within the U.S., Arizona, New Mexico, and the five counties containing portions of the BRWRA. Apache and Greenlee counties in Arizona have younger populations than the U.S. and Arizona averages. The counties within New Mexico (Catron, Grant, and Sierra) have disproportionately older populations and lower percentages of people below the age of 30 than the rest of the country and New Mexico. Catron and Grant counties in particular have aging populations, which could likely indicate the movement of retirees into these areas. Such movement could have impacts on median income levels and local industries, as discussed in subsequent sections.















SEC 2-10















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















Exhibit 2-8 POPULATION AGE STRUCTURE (1990 and 2000)







United United States







80 and older 70 to 79 60 to 69 Age Group 50 to 59 40 to 49 30 to 39 20 to 29 10 to 19 Less than 10 0% 5% 10% 15% Percent of Population 20% 80 and older 70 to 79 60 to 69 50 to 59 40 to 49 30 to 39 20 to 29 10 to 19 Less than 10 0% 5% 10% 15% Percent of Population 20%















Arizona







80 and older 70 70 to 79 60 to 69 50 to 59 40 to 49 30 to 39 20 to 29 10 to 19 Less than 10 0%















New Mexico







80 and older 70 to 79 60 to 69 50 to 59 40 to 49 30 to 39 20 to 29 10 to 19 Less than 10 5% 10% 15% Percent of Population 20% 0% 0% 5%















Apache County, AZ,















1990 2000















10% 15% 20% Percent of Population















25%















30%















Greenlee County, AZ







80 and older 70 to 79 60 to 69 Age Group 50 to 59 40 to 49 30 to 39 20 to 29 10 to 19 Less than 10 0% 0% 5% 10% 15% Percent of Population 20% 25% 80 and older 70 to 79 60 to 69 50 to 59 40 to 49 30 to 39 20 to 29 10 to 19 Less than 10 0% 0%















Catron County, NM







80 and older 70 to 79 60 to 69 50 to 59 40 to 49 30 to 39 20 to 29 10 to 19 Less than 10 5% 10% 15% Percent of Population 20% 0%















Grant County, NM







80 and older 70 to 79 60 to 69 50 to 59 40 to 49 30 to 39 20 to 29 10 to 19 Less than 10 5% 10% 15% Percent of Population 20% 0% 0%















Sierra County, NM















1990 2000















5% 10% 15% Percent of Population















20%















Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (1990), Census 1990; U.S. Census Bureau (2000), Census 2000.















SEC 2-11















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















2.5















Economic Indicators















This section describes the economic conditions in the counties and communities in proximity to the BRWRA. Similar to the previous section, the discussion compares economic conditions in Apache, Greenlee, Catron, Grant, and Sierra counties as well as selected communities in the study area to state and national averages. Economic indicators include median household income, poverty rates, trends in employment and the portion of employment in the agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting sector, and unemployment rates. 2.5.1 Median Household Income According to the 1990 U.S. Census, the median household income in Arizona was $42,000 (2004$), which was moderately below the national average of $45,800 (2004$).29 According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the median income in Arizona was $46,000, compared to the national average of $47,600. The median household income in New Mexico during the same years was further below the national average; it equaled $36,700 and $38,700 in 1990 and 2000, respectively. As Exhibit 2-9 demonstrates, the median household income in the majority of counties in the study area was below the national and state averages. The average median household income in the five counties, weighted by population, was $26,100 in 1990 and $29,400 in 2000. Only Greenlee County approached average income levels; in 1990, the median household income in Greenlee County was $41,900, while in 2000 the county's median household income equaled $44,700. Of the counties in the study area, Apache County, Arizona, demonstrated the lowest median income; it was $21,500 in 1990 and $26,500 in 2000.30 These figures are below the median income of $32,900 ($21,600 in nominal dollars) reported by the FEIS for the BRWRA in 1990.31 Income levels may be less than state averages due to the aging populations and number of retirees moving into the counties containing portions of the BRWRA because retired individuals living on fixed incomes typically have lower incomes than other segments of the population. Furthermore, residents of Apache County may demonstrate particularly low income levels because of the large portion of the land that is within Apache and Navajo reservations, areas that typically have lower income and higher poverty rates. The majority of the communities within and in proximity to the BRWRA also exhibit below average median household incomes. In 1990, only Clifton and Eagar, Arizona, demonstrated income levels similar to state and national averages. The median household income was $41,400 in Clifton and $47,000 in Eagar. These higher incomes could be due to the presence of industry, including mining activity in Clifton and power generation in Eagar. The communities in the study area with the lowest median household incomes in 1990 were McNary, Arizona ($16,800), and Deming, ($23,700), Lordsburg, ($24,500), and Bayard, New Mexico







29















All dollar values from this point forward are presented in 2004$, adjusted based on the consumer price index for all commodities. U.S. Census Bureau (1990), Census 1990; U.S. Census Bureau (2000), Census 2000. While the FEIS also relied on 1990 Census data for income figures, it only considered income levels in tracts within the BRWRA (Apache County 3901; Greenlee County 9704; all of Catron County; Grant County 9841, 9842, and 9849; and Sierra County 7824), while this analysis averages income levels throughout the counties containing portions of the BRWRA.















30 31















SEC 2-12















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















($24,600).32 Again in 2000, only Clifton ($45,100) and Eagar ($42,400) had median household incomes that approached state and national levels. McNary ($5,000) and Deming ($22,800) continued to demonstrate the lowest median household incomes among communities in the study area. In Arizona, New Mexico, the U.S., and the majority of counties and communities in the study area, median income levels increased moderately or remained relatively stable from 1990 to 2000. In Eagar and McNary, Arizona, and Reserve, New Mexico, however, income levels decreased by 10, 70, and 28 percent, respectively.33 While the median household income in the majority of counties within and in proximity to the BRWRA is below national and state averages, several communities experienced a rise in median household income between 1990 and 2000. For example, Apache City, Greenlee City, Clifton, and Springerville, Arizona as well as Grant City, Sierra City, and Bayard, New Mexico all had a higher median household income in 2000 than in 1990. Exhibit 2-9 depicts the median household income levels in the study area communities according to the 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census.







Exhibit 2-9 MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME (1990 and 2000)







$ 5 0 ,0 0 0 Median Household Income (2004$) $ 4 5 ,0 0 0 $ 4 0 ,0 0 0 $ 3 5 ,0 0 0 $ 3 0 ,0 0 0 $ 2 5 ,0 0 0 $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 $ 1 5 ,0 0 0 $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 $ 5 ,0 0 0 $0 Lordsburg, NM Show Low, AZ Magdalena, NM Bayard, NM Eagar, AZ Deming, NM Hurley, NM Springerville, AZ Reserve, NM Greenlee Cty, AZ Apache Cty, AZ Catron Cty, NM Silver City, NM Sierra Cty, NM Grant Cty, NM McNary, AZ Clifton, AZ 1 9 9 0 Census 2 0 0 0 Census U.S. Average AZ Average NM Average















Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (1990), Census 1990; U.S. Census Bureau (2000), Census 2000.















32















Unlike the other communities in the study area, McNary is a Census Designated Place (CDP) rather than an incorporated municipality. This difference may partially account for its low income and high unemployment and poverty rates. U.S. Census Bureau (1990), Census 1990; U.S. Census Bureau (2000), Census 2000.















33















SEC 2-13















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















2.5.2 Poverty Rate Just as median household incomes are disproportionately low in the study area, a greater portion of the population in proximity to the BRWRA lives below the poverty line. The 1990 Census reported that approximately 13 percent of the U.S. population lived in poverty, and the 2000 Census reported that approximately 12 percent lived in poverty. Both Arizona and New Mexico have higher poverty rates. In Arizona, 16 percent of the population lived below the poverty line in 1990 and 14 percent lived below the poverty line in 2000; in New Mexico, these percentages increase to 21 percent and 18 percent in 1990 and 2000, respectively.34 Once again, the majority of the counties containing portions of the BRWRA demonstrate poverty levels above the national average; the average poverty rate in the study area was 35 percent in 1990 and 29 percent in 2000. Only Greenlee County had equal or lower poverty rates (13 percent and 10 percent according to the 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census, respectively). While the poverty levels in Grant County (21 percent in 1990; 19 percent in 2000) and Sierra County (20 percent in 1990; 21 percent in 2000) exceed national levels, they were indicative of poverty rates throughout New Mexico. Apache County, Arizona, had the highest poverty rates of the five counties in both 1990 (47 percent) and 2000 (38 percent). Clifton and Eagar, Arizona, and Hurley, New Mexico, represent the only communities whose poverty rates approximately equal national levels. For the remaining communities, a disproportionate portion of the population lives below the poverty line compared to the remainder of the country. Show Low and Springerville, Arizona, as well as Reserve, New Mexico, have poverty rates similar to statewide averages. McNary demonstrated the highest poverty rate among the communities in the study area; according to the 1990 and 2000 Census, rates equaled approximately 56 and 86 percent, respectively. Bayard, Deming, and Lordsburg, New Mexico, also had higher poverty rates than the surrounding areas.35 Several communities within and in proximity to the BRWRA did experience a reduction in poverty rates between 1990 and 2000. For example, the poverty rates dropped in McNary and Springerville, Arizona and Sierra City and Hurley, New Mexico. Exhibit 2-10 presents poverty status data for the areas in and surrounding the study area. In contrast to the findings presented in this analysis, the FEIS reported that approximately 18 percent of the population in the BRWRA lived below the poverty level in 1990. This rate is closer to state and national averages. The difference in poverty rates between the FEIS and this analysis likely results from the difference in study areas; this analysis reports a weighted average for all counties containing portions of the BRWRA, while the FEIS only includes the 1990 Census tracts within the BRWRA (Apache County 3901; Greenlee County 9704; all of Catron County; Grant County 9841, 9842, and 9849; and Sierra County 7824).















34 35















U.S. Census Bureau (1990), Census 1990; U.S. Census Bureau (2000), Census 2000. U.S. Census Bureau (1990), Census 1990; U.S. Census Bureau (2000), Census 2000.















SEC 2-14















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















Exhibit 2-10 PERCENT OF POPULATION LIVING BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL (1989 and 1999)







100 90 80 70 Percent 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Show Low, AZ Lordsburg, NM Bayard, NM Magdalena, NM Eagar, AZ Deming, NM Hurley, NM Springerville, AZ Reserve, NM Greenlee Cty, AZ Apache Cty, AZ Catron Cty, NM Silver City, NM Sierra Cty, NM Grant Cty, NM McNary, AZ Clifton, AZ 1 9 9 0 Census 2 0 0 0 Census U.S. Average AZ Average NM Average















Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (1990), Census 1990; U.S. Census Bureau (2000), Census 2000.















2.5.3 Employment Exhibit 2-11 presents the number of employees by industry in the study area in 2003. As discussed in the overview section, the majority of full- and part-time workers in the study area are employed by the government, trade, and service sectors. As discussed in the FEIS, increasing tourist activity and the movement of retirees into the counties likely drives the trade and service sectors. The same trends are also likely to contribute to employment in the construction and real estate markets in these communities. The government, trade, and service sectors are not as likely to experience extensive positive or negative impacts due to the presence of Mexican wolves. The Reintroduction Project could increase the workload of some government employees. For instance, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would likely require additional staff to administer the program, and state and local officials may spend time attending meetings related to the Mexican wolf. Overall, however, the government sector should not change greatly due to Mexican wolves. The presence of wolves could also affect tourism activities, but no single sector accounts for all such activities. Instead, tourism is only one driver of several sectors such as retail trade, accommodation and food services, arts, entertainment, and recreation, and real estate.















SEC 2-15















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















Exhibit 2-11 Industry Farm Agricultural Services, Forestry, Hunting, and Fishing Mining Utilities Construction Manufacturing Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Transportation and Warehousing Information EMPLOYMENT ACROSS SECTORS, 2003a Arizona New Apache, Greenlee, Catron, Mexico AZ AZ NM 22,523 23,950 459 216 308 22,835 10,707 11,548 217,526 187,381 102,715 340,332 81,482 7,387 17,556 4,057 63,008 42,245 26,404 113,289 24,093 (D) (D) (D) 1,181 (D) 303 2,124 (D) (D) (D) 47 264 (D) (D) 247 (D) 91 (L) (D) 103 28 (D) 87 57 Grant, NM 442 (D) 609 (D) 987 226 198 1,575 (D) Sierra, NM 357 (D) (D) (D) 300 53 (D) 504 75















56,069 17,733 145 (D) (D) 179 32 Finance and Insurance 159,189 31,680 (D) (D) 13 310 100 Real Estate 141,671 30,922 (D) (D) 84 414 223 Servicesb 815,708 263,506 3,907 (D) 162 2,502 1,040 Government 417,726 213,002 13,285 532 364 3,618 946 Otherb 339,055 127,531 1,712 0 31 210 112 Totalc 2,926,467 1,006,363 25,362 4,295 1,531 13,329 4,514 Notes: a The estimates of employment are based on the 2002 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). (D) signifies that actual employment figures are not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information, but the estimates for this item are included in the totals. (L) signifies that there are less than 10 jobs in a sector, but the estimates for this item are included in the totals. b Numbers for the "Services" and "Other" sectors may underestimate employment as certain subsectors within these categories do not list employment data for proprietary reasons given the small number establishments within these subsectors. c Employment across sectors may not sum to total because certain sectors do not report employment figures for proprietary reasons given the small number of establishments within these sectors. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis (2005), Regional Economic Accounts, CA25: Total full-time and part-time employment by industry, accessed May 11, 2005, at <http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/ reis/default.cfm>.















The sectors that most likely experienced the greatest changes due to the Mexican wolf Reintroduction Project are farming and the services associated with agriculture, hunting, and the fishing sectors; Exhibit 2-12 presents changes in these sectors as well as changes in total employment between 1990 and 2003. In Arizona, New Mexico, and Apache, Greenlee, and Grant counties, agriculture represents five percent or less of total employment in both 1990 and 2003.36 In Sierra County, agriculture and related services accounted for 11 and eight percent of















36















For the remainder of this section, employment in "agriculture" refers to full- and part-time employment within the agricultural services, forestry, fishing, and hunting sector (SIC 100 in 1990; NAICS two-digit sector "11" in 2003) and employment on farms and ranches. Employment numbers for "agriculture" may underestimate actual employment as certain subsectors within these categories do not list employment data for proprietary reasons given the small number establishments within these subsectors.















SEC 2-16















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















employment in 1990 and 2003, respectively. Agriculture and related services employ the largest portion of the population in Catron County; in 1990 and 2003, these sectors accounted for 23 and 26 percent of the population, respectively.37







Exhibit 2-12 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT VERSUS EMPLOYMENT IN THE AGRICULTURE, FISHING, AND HUNTING SECTOR (1990 ? 2003) Year 1990 2003 Percent Change 1,909,879 2,926,467 53.23% Arizona Totala 47,114 45,358 -3.73% Agricultureb 2.47% 1.55% N.A. Percent 767,139 1,006,363 31.18% New Mexico Totala 28,180 31,337 11.20% Agricultureb 3.67% 3.11% N.A. Percent 17,876 25,362 41.88% Apache County, Totala AZ 483 459 -4.97% Agricultureb 2.70% 1.81% N.A. Percent 3,607 4,295 19.07% Greenlee County, Totala AZ 187 216 15.51% Agricultureb 5.18% 5.03% N.A. Percent 1,246 1,531 22.87% Catron County, Totala NM 282 399 41.49% Agricultureb 22.63% 26.06% N.A. Percent 12,046 13,329 10.65% Grant County, Totala NM 436 442 1.38% Agricultureb 3.62% 3.32% N.A. Percent 3,334 4,514 35.39% Sierra County, Totala NM 352 357 1.42% Agricultureb 10.56% 7.91% N.A. Percent Note: a "Total" represents total full and part-time employment, including employees, sole proprietors, and active partners but not unpaid family workers or volunteers. b "Agriculture" represents employment within the agricultural services, hunting, forestry, and fishing sector (SIC 100 in 1990; NAICS two-digit sector "11" in 2003) and employment on farms and ranches. Employment numbers for "Agriculture" may underestimate actual employment as certain subsectors within these categories do not list employment data for proprietary reasons given the small number establishments within these subsectors.. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis (2005), Regional Economic Accounts, CA25: Total full-time and part-time employment by industry, accessed May 11, 2005, at <http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis/default.cfm>.















From 1990 to 2003, total employment across all sectors in Arizona and New Mexico increased by 53 and 31 percent, respectively. This increase in employment resembled changes in







37















U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis (2005), Regional Economic Accounts, CA25: Total full-time and part-time employment by industry, accessed May 11, 2005, at <http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/ reis/default.cfm>.















SEC 2-17















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















population, which increased by 53 percent and 24 percent from 1990 to 2000 in Arizona and New Mexico, respectively. Employment growth did outpace population growth in the study area, however; employment increased by 32 percent from 1990 to 2003, while population increased by 11 percent during the same period. Employment increases in the majority of the five counties containing portions of the BRWRA did not match state rates; only Sierra County sustained employment increases that exceeded the state average (35 percent increase, compared to 31 percent throughout New Mexico). In the majority of the counties containing portions of the BRWRA, employment in the agriculture sectors did not demonstrate the same growth as total employment. In Arizona, employment in the agriculture sectors decreased by almost four percent. Consequently, the percent of employment within the agriculture sector decreased from 1990 to 2003. In New Mexico, both total and agricultural employment increased, but since increases in the agriculture sectors were less substantial, the percent of employment in agriculture declined slightly. The percent of employment attributable to agriculture decreased in Apache County as total employment increased by 42 percent but agricultural employment decreased by five percent. Catron County represents the only county where the percentage of the workforce within the agriculture sectors increased; Bureau of Economic Analysis data suggest that agricultural employment increased by 41 percent from 1990 to 2003 while total employment grew by only 23 percent. In the remaining counties, both agricultural and total employment increased during this period, resulting in little change in the percent of employment attributable to agriculture.38 The FEIS predicted that farm and ranch employment would decrease by approximately eight percent from 1988 to 2000. While agriculture did not grow as strongly as other sectors in the study area, it did perform better than FEIS predictions. Growth in employment in the agriculture sectors exceeded population increases in Greenlee and Catron counties between 1990 and 2003. In Greenlee County, population decreased by six percent while employment in the agriculture sectors increased by almost 16 percent. In Catron County, employment in the agriculture sectors increased by 41 percent, compared to a 33 percent increase in population. In the remaining counties in the study area, however, population growth exceeded changes in employment in the agriculture sectors. In Apache County, employment in the agriculture sector decreased by five percent while population increased by 11 percent. In Grant and Sierra counties, employment in the agriculture sectors increased by one percent while population increased by eight and 32 percent, respectively. 2.5.4 Unemployment In 1990, the unemployment rate was six percent nationwide, seven percent in Arizona, and eight percent in New Mexico.39 Unemployment was higher in the study area, averaging 17 percent. Of the five counties, Apache County, Arizona, demonstrated the highest unemployment







38















U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis (2005), Regional Economic Accounts, CA25: Total full-time and part-time employment by industry, accessed May 11, 2005, at <http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/ reis/default.cfm>. The unemployment rate equals the number of unemployed in the civilian labor force divided by the total civilian labor force.















39















SEC 2-18















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















rate (24 percent); this rate could in part be the result of the high percentage of the population living on the Apache and Navajo reservations, as reservations typically demonstrate aboveaverage unemployment rates. Catron and Grant counties, New Mexico, also had rates higher than 10 percent in 1990; unemployment totaled almost 13 percent in Catron County and over 10 percent in Grant County. Unemployment in Greenlee and Sierra counties was closer to the state and national averages. Of the communities, McNary, Arizona, demonstrated the highest unemployment rate, topping 50 percent. Several other communities in the study area also had unemployment rates greater than 10 percent, including Springerville, Arizona (13 percent), and Bayard (13 percent), Deming (17 percent), Hurley (11 percent), Lordsburg (12 percent), and Silver City, New Mexico (11 percent).40 The national unemployment rate continued to equal approximately six percent in 2000. Similarly, it equaled six percent in Arizona and seven percent in New Mexico. As in 1990, unemployment throughout the study area was higher, averaging 15 percent in 2000. Apache County continued to have the highest unemployment rate of the five counties; unemployment totaled approximately 22 percent in 2000. The remaining counties experienced moderately high unemployment rates during this time period compared to national and state averages. McNary, Arizona, continued to have the highest unemployment rate among the communities in the study area (21 percent). Fewer cities and towns in the study area demonstrated rates exceeding 10 percent in 2000; only the New Mexico communities of Bayard (11 percent), Deming (17 percent), Lordsburg (12 percent), and Magdalena (13 percent) had double-digit unemployment rates. While unemployment in the U.S., Arizona, New Mexico, and the majority of counties and communities decreased from 1990 to 2000, it increased in Clifton, Arizona (seven percent to nine percent), and Magdalena, New Mexico (seven to 13 percent).41 While unemployment rates were higher than the state and national averages, many of the communities studied exhibited a reduction in unemployment between 1990 and 2000. With exception of Clifton, AZ and Magdalena, NM, all communities exhibited at least a slight decline in unemployment rates. Exhibit 12-13 presents unemployment rate data for these areas. Note that unemployment rates reported in this analysis are more than twice as high as unemployment rates presented in the FEIS. For example, this analysis states that the average unemployment rate in the study area was 17 percent in 1990, while the FEIS reports an unemployment rate of 8.3 percent. As noted above, this difference most likely occurs because this analysis calculates unemployment rates across the five counties containing portions of the BRWRA, while the FEIS averages unemployment rates across the 1990 Census tracts that are within the BRWRA.















40 41















U.S. Census Bureau (1990), Census 1990; U.S. Census Bureau (2000), Census 2000. U.S. Census Bureau (1990), Census 1990; U.S. Census Bureau (2000), Census 2000.















SEC 2-19















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















Exhibit 2-13 RATE OF UNEMPLOYMENT (1990 and 2000)







60 Unemployment Rate (Percent) 50 40 30 20 10 0 Lordsburg, NM Show Low, AZ Magdalena, NM Bayard, NM Eagar, AZ Deming, NM Hurley, NM Springerville, AZ Reserve, NM Greenlee Cty, AZ Apache Cty, AZ Catron Cty, NM Silver City, NM Sierra Cty, NM Grant Cty, NM McNary, AZ Clifton, AZ 1 9 9 0 Census 2 0 0 0 Census U.S. Average AZ Average NM Average















Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (1990), Census 1990; U.S. Census Bureau (2000), Census 2000.















2.6















Conclusions















The majority of counties and communities in proximity to the BRWRA exhibit weaker demographic and economic indicators than Arizona and New Mexico as a whole. The poverty and unemployment rates are, in general, higher than elsewhere in the states and nationwide. Likewise, communities in proximity to the BRWRA have lower median household incomes. Employment in the agriculture, fishing, and hunting sector remains a small percentage of total employment with no clear increasing or decreasing trend. Certain portions of the study area demonstrated particularly lower household income and higher poverty and unemployment rates. Apache County may have weaker economic indicators (i.e., lower median incomes and higher poverty and unemployment rates) in part due to the large portion of Native American-owned land in the northern part of the county (66 percent). McNary, Arizona, may demonstrate lower income and higher poverty and unemployment rates than other communities in the study area because it is a Census Designated Place (CDP) rather than an incorporated municipality. While the majority of the communities have weaker economic indicators than the state averages, Clifton's higher than average income and employment rate and a lower poverty rate may result from local mining activities. As discussed above, a nearby mine employs citizens from Clifton as well as residents in the surrounding areas, bringing economic activity to the area. As discussed, there has been some improvement in the economic indicators for the studied communities between 1990 and 2000. Many communities have experienced an increase







SEC 2-20















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















in median household income, a decrease in poverty rates, and a decrease in unemployment rates during this time period. The FEIS was accurate when predicting that the areas in proximity to the BRWRA would not experience the same population growth from 1990 to 2000 as elsewhere in Arizona and New Mexico. Similarly, the FEIS also noted that median income levels in the BRWRA were below state and national averages in 1990 (the FEIS did not project future income trends). As both the FEIS and this analysis note, lower income levels could be the result of aging populations and the movement of retirees into the study area. While some FEIS projections are similar to trends reported in this analysis, other economic indicators vary between the two studies. Most notably, 1990 poverty and unemployment rates reported in the FEIS are lower than in this analysis. This difference most likely occurs because the FEIS relies on statistics from the 1990 Census tracts that are within the BRWRA (Apache County 3901; Greenlee County 9704; all of Catron County; Grant County 9841, 9842, and 9849; and Sierra County 7824). Since the location of tracts is not consistent between Censuses, however, this analysis defines the study area as the five counties that contain portions of the BRWRA in order to compare statistics between 1990 and 2000.















SEC 2-21















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF MEXICAN WOLF REINTRODUCTION ON RANCHING ACTIVITIES















SECTION 3















This section of the analysis discusses the economic impacts of Mexican wolf reintroduction in the BRWRA on ranching activities from 1998 to 2004.42 The section first highlights categories of economic impacts on ranching activities that ranchers have identified. Estimates are then presented of the number of livestock depredations by wolves and the associated costs of these losses to ranchers, including the regional impact of decreased cattle production in the BRWRA. The analysis also compares the total economic impacts experienced by ranchers since the Reintroduction Project began with the monetary compensation that ranchers have received for livestock losses. Finally, depredation estimates are compared to projected losses reported in the FEIS.43 3.1 Economic Concerns of the Ranching Industry Utilizing the BRWRA















Ranchers and researchers have identified a number of consequences that may result from the reintroduction of wolves in proximity to ranch operations. These impacts are summarized in the following categories: Physical Effects: 1) Depredation of ranch animals: Includes cattle, sheep, horse, and dog deaths and injuries resulting from wolf attacks; and 2) Non-lethal physiological impacts on ranch animals: Includes weight loss, stress, and lower birth rates.















42















This analysis evaluates the economic impacts associated with the wolf Reintroduction Project from 1998 to 2003. However, data for 2004 is included where available. Throughout this analysis, the "impacts" refer to both (positive) benefits and (negative) costs that could result from the Mexican wolf Reintroduction Project. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1996), Reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf Within Its Historic Range in the Southwestern United States: Final Environmental Impact Statement.















43















SEC 3-1















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















Effects on Livestock Management: 3) Change in forage use: Ranchers may have to move cattle more often, or be forced to move them to alternative grazing sites to avoid depredation; 4) Need for additional labor: Ranchers must invest time to report depredation losses, and may increase herd supervision; 5) Increased expenditures on supplies: Includes purchasing replacement cattle and additional herding dogs, as well as increased wear on vehicles; and 6) Positive impacts: Includes increased predation on coyotes and/or improved forage conditions due to less competition with elk. Property Value Impacts: 7) Ranchers have expressed concern that disproportionately affected ranches may go out of business due to wolf depredation impacts. 8) Ranchers have expressed concern that the market value of their ranches may be reduced due to wolf impacts. This analysis estimates the economic costs of wolf reintroduction to ranching activities due to wolf predation on ranch animals, as well as the value of time spent by ranchers to apply for compensation. We also consider compensation received by ranchers for animal losses and estimate the annual regional economic effects of decreased livestock production. The economic impact of non-lethal physiological impacts on cattle, increased expenditures on ranch supplies, and potential impacts are also discussed in more detail but are not quantified in this analysis. To identify impacts, we interviewed cattle and sheep ranchers in the BRWRA and in Idaho, reviewed public comments submitted to the USFWS, collected data from relevant Federal and state agencies, and reviewed literature on wolf reintroductions in the U.S. 3.2 Brief Overview of Ranching Activities in the BRWRA















According to the USDA 2002 Census of Agriculture, there are 122,500 cattle, at least 300 sheep and lambs, and 9,000 horses and ponies in Apache and Greenlee counties, Arizona, and Catron, Grant, and Sierra counties, New Mexico.44 Based on acreage, this analysis estimates that 34,800 cattle, (6,900 in Arizona and 27,800 in New Mexico), at least 120 sheep (80 in Arizona and 40 in New Mexico), and 1,600 horses (800 in Arizona and 800 in New Mexico) grazed in the















Sheep and lamb data underestimate total numbers because Apache and Catron counties do not report sheep inventories in order to protect the proprietary information of the few establishments that raise sheep. U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service (2002), 2002 Census of Agriculture, accessed March 9, 2005, at <http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/>.















44















SEC 3-2















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















BRWRA in 2002 (the year of highest recorded depredations).45 While these estimates are less than half of the 82,600 cattle estimated in the FEIS to graze in the BRWRA, they are consistent with the number of cattle that are authorized to graze in the Gila and Apache National Forests.46 The difference in estimates between this analysis and the FEIS could be explained by 1) the recent decrease in the number of authorized head in the National Forests, in part due to a multiyear drought; and/or 2) the FEIS figures may have been based on permitted head, which represents the maximum number of cattle that may potentially graze in an allotment.47 Exhibit 3-1 presents the number of authorized animal unit months (AUMs) from 1986 to 2002 for cattle in the Gila National Forest, the portion of the BRWRA within New Mexico.48 As the Exhibit indicates, the number of authorized AUMs declined over the past two decades. This trend is likely to result from multiple factors, including declining forage conditions due to drought and competition for forage by other ungulates, changes in the market conditions for livestock, as well as attempts by USFS range managers to improve riparian habitat and to comply with other endangered species requirements. Death losses include deaths caused by predators (such as coyotes, dogs, mountain lions, and bobcats); digestive, respiratory, and calving problems; weather conditions; poison; theft; and unknown causes. The average death loss rate for cattle and calves in Arizona and New Mexico was four percent in 1997 (the year prior to the Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project); the average death loss rate for sheep in the two states was five percent in 1997.49 Applying these percentages to the estimated number of livestock in the BRWRA, approximately 1,310 cattle and calves and six sheep are likely to have died from causes other than slaughter in the BRWRA in 2002 (the year of highest recorded depredations).















45















In order to estimate the number of livestock in the BRWRA, this analysis multiplies the total county livestock figures by the percentage of the county that falls within the BRWRA.















The methodology employed in this analysis estimates that 27,800 cattle grazed in the Gila National Forest in 2002. According to the U.S. Forest Service, up to 30,100 cattle are permitted to graze in the forest, while in 2004 only 18,800 cattle were actually authorized to do so. This analysis of the number of cattle grazed in the BRWRA (based on acreage) yields number of estimated head that is consistent with the known number of authorized head in 2004. However, this analysis estimates that almost 900 horses and 100 sheep existed in the Gila National Forest in 2002, while the U.S. Forest Service reports that only approximately 300 horses and no sheep were authorized to graze in the forest in 2004. This is likely to be the result of assuming that livestock are grazed evenly throughout the BRWRA area, and indicates that this analysis may overestimate the number of sheep and horses in the BRWRA. The source of the 2002 authorization numbers is: U.S. Forest Service (2005), 2004 Livestock Head Estimates, received from Russell Ward, Gila National Forest, March 9, 2005.







48 47















46















Data describing AUMs in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, which contains the Arizona portion of the BRWRA, are not readily available for the same time period.















U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service (1999), Meat Animals Production, Disposition, and Income: Final Estimates 1993-1997. Statistical Bulletin Number 959a.















49















SEC 3-3















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















Exhibit 3-1















AUTHORIZED AUMs IN THE GILA NATIONAL FOREST







3 5 0 ,0 0 0 3 0 0 ,0 0 0 Authorized AUMs 2 5 0 ,0 0 0 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 1 5 0 ,0 0 0 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 5 0 ,0 0 0 0 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 An n ual AUMs AUM T r en d















Yea r















(1986 ? 2002)







Source: U.S. Forest Service, Southwestern Region (3), 2003. Summary of Region 3 Forests' AUMs, provided by Ray Suazo.















According to the USDA's 2002 Census of Agriculture, there are almost 9,700 cattle and calf ranches in New Mexico and Arizona; approximately eight percent of these ranches are within the five counties containing portions of the BRWRA.50 Exhibit 3-2 demonstrates that within the study area, the majority of cattle and calf ranches (60 percent) are Very Small, consisting of fewer than 50 head. Fourteen percent of ranches are classified as small (50 to 99 head); 20 percent are medium (100 to 499 head); and six percent are large (at least 500 head). In 2005, nearly all ranches in the study area were classified as small entities.51 The USDA also reports that livestock cash receipts in 2002 (including, but not limited to, cattle and calf establishments) in the five counties totaled $83.9 million (2004$).52 Based on acreage, this analysis estimates that approximately $17.4 million (21 percent) of this revenue is attributable to activities within the BRWRA.















50















In contrast, Section 3 of this analysis notes that the five counties contain less than two percent of Arizona and New Mexico's population. Dialog search of File 516, Dun and Bradstreet, "Duns Market Identifiers." Nov. 21, 2005. U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service (2002), 2002 Census of Agriculture, accessed March 9, 2005, at <http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/>.















51 52















SEC 3-4















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















Exhibit 3-2 CATTLE AND CALVES: NUMBER OF OPERATIONS BY SIZE GROUP, 2002 Extra Small Small Medium Large Total Operations < 50 Head 50-99 Head 100-499 Head > 500 Head Arizona 2,838 1905 278 443 212 States New Mexico 6,845 3,983 810 1388 664 Total 9,683 5,888 1,088 1,831 876 Percent 100% 61% 11% 19% 9% 227 155 38 26 8 Counties Apache, AZ Greenlee, AZ 79 59 7 10 3 Catron, NM 154 83 17 38 16 Grant, NM 192 103 32 44 13 Sierra, NM 107 54 13 31 9 Total 759 454 107 149 49 Percent 100% 60% 14% 20% 6% Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service (2002), 2002 Census of Agriculture, accessed March 9, 2005, at <http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/>. Area















3.3















Economic Impacts of Wolf Depredation of Ranch Animals















The biggest concern of the livestock industry related to wolf reintroduction is the loss of ranch animals to wolf predation. Indeed, across the U.S, wolves have attacked cattle, sheep, horses, and dogs following their reintroduction. Depredation estimates are described below and are detailed in Exhibits 3-2 through 3-8. According to ranchers' experience, depredation rates vary based on the size of wolf packs and livestock's proximity to wolf home ranges and rendezvous sites. In addition, wolves tend to return to sites where they have successfully killed prey before.53 It is therefore not surprising that in the BRWRA, certain ranchers have suffered repeated wolf attacks on livestock while neighboring ranchers have experienced few problems.54 By rancher estimates, of 25 ranches that reported cattle losses since 1998, nearly all reported more than one depredation event. In one example, one rancher noted that wolves no longer attacked her cattle when she moved the cattle to another pasture. However, the move caused her neighbor to experience more wolf attacks as the wolves began to prey on the neighbor's herd instead.55 Sources indicate that calves are most commonly killed because they are more vulnerable than adult cattle, even when cows attempt to protect them. Bjorge and Gunson (1983) report that







53 54 55















R. Loucks, Wolf Coordinator for Lemhi County, Idaho, personal communication, March 3, 2005. Repeated attacks could also be the result of other factors such as management and husbandry practices.















D. Ely, Arizona rancher, personal communication, March 4 and 24, 2005. One public commenter pointed out that ranchers, who are restricted by their permits and allotment grazing plans, may not have the option of moving cattle to another pasture when faced with depredation threats (see C/R #556).















SEC 3-5















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















of 377 cattle killed by wolves in Alberta, Canada, 62 percent were calves, 23 percent were cows, 15 percent were yearlings, and 0.2 percent were bulls.56 Oakleaf et al. (2003) found that wolves tend to kill younger calves more frequently than calves born earlier in the spring.57 Some ranchers indicate that yearlings are also commonly killed because they are more likely to approach wolves.58 While depredation estimates are often not reported by age of animal, Defenders of Wildlife (DoW) and rancher records suggest that wolves in the BRWRA kill more calves than adult cattle.59 For example, rancher estimates of cattle depredation in the BRWRA suggest that nearly ninety percent of cattle lost to wolf predation were calves.60 Because of the lack of consistent data describing age of lost livestock, this analysis does not subdivide loss estimates by age.61 In the BRWRA, the DoW Bailey Wildlife Wolf Compensation Trust compensates ranchers who have lost ranch animals to Mexican wolves. The program pays ranchers for 100 percent of the market value of a confirmed kill, 50 percent of the value of a probable kill, and 100 percent of the veterinary services to treat an injured animal or the decreased market value of the animal. A state or Federal wildlife agent (most commonly, Wildlife Services within the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) must determine whether the kill is confirmed or probable upon inspecting the carcass; if no body is recovered, DoW will not compensate ranchers.62 Ranchers are frequently unable to locate carcasses or notify wildlife agents soon enough to receive a confirmed or probable designation because of the rugged and vast terrains where livestock graze, consumption by predators and scavengers, and carcass decomposition.63 Ranchers report that when wolves kill calves, very little carcass typically remains for purposes of confirming the kill with DoW.64 Some ranchers who cannot







56















R.R. Bjorge and J.R. Gunson (1983), Wolf predation of cattle on the Simonette River pastures in northwestern Alberta, 1983, pp.. 106-111 in Ludwig N. Carbyn, ed, in Wolves in Canada and Alaska, Proceedings of the Wolf Symposium, Edmonton, Alberta, 1983, Canadian Wildlife Services Report Series, Ottawa, Canada.















John K. Oakleaf et al. (2003), Effects of wolves on livestock calf survival and movements in central Idaho, Journal of Wildlife Management 67(2): 299-306.







58















57















D. Ely, Arizona rancher, personal communication, March 4 and 24, 2005; Robert Loucks, Wolf Coordinator for Lemhi County, Idaho, personal communication, March 3, 2005. D. Ely, Arizona rancher, personal communication, March 4 and 24, 2005; Laura Schneberger, New Mexico rancher, personal communication, March 26, 2005; Defenders of Wildlife, The Bailey Wildlife Foundation Wolf Compensation Trust: Payments to Ranchers for Livestock Losses Caused by Wolves, accessed January 24, 2005, at <http://www.defenders.org/ wildlife/wolf/wolfcomp.pdf>. L. Schneberger, New Mexico rancher, personal communication, March 26, 2005. As described later in this section, calves carry a lower market value than adult cows. Thus, the analysis would overstate the value of the cattle killed if they were, in fact, all calves; C. Miller, Defenders of Wildlife, personal communication, March 20, 2005.















59















60 61















62 63















John K. Oakleaf et al. (2003), Effects of wolves on livestock calf survival and movements in central Idaho, Journal of Wildlife Management 67(2): 299-306. Personal communication with Jim Blair, New Mexico rancher, November 15, 2005. Personal communication with B. Wilson, New Mexico rancher, November 16, 2005. Personal communication with S. Luce, Arizona rancher, November 16, 2005. Personal communication with F. Galley, New Mexico rancher, November 16, 2005. Personal communication with L. Schneberger, New Mexico rancher, November 17, 2005.







64















Personal communication with F. Galley, New Mexico rancher, November 16, 2005.















SEC 3-6















Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review















December 2005















locate carcasses may not bother to report their losses. Consequently, it is likely that more ranch animal depredation has occurred than has been recorded by wildlife agencies and DoW. 3.3.1 Estimating the Number of Livestock Losses Sufficient evidence exists to indicate that ranch animal depredations have occurred as the result of Mexican wolves in the BRWRA. However, estimating the exact number of livestock that have been killed by wolves remains controversial due to difficulties associated with locating carcasses and determining cause of death. Thus, this analysis presents three estimates of the number and type of ranch animals killed by wolves since the Reintroduction Project began:65 ? Low Estimate: For cattle, sheep, horse, and dog kills, the low estimate equals the average number of kills confirmed by the USFWS, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and DoW. Probable kills are not included in this estimate. Medium Estimate:66 For cattle and sheep kills, the medium estimate represents the average number of confirmed kills (i.e., the low estimate) multiplied by a factor from published literature that estimates the ratio of total kills to confirmed kills. For horse and dog kills, the medium estimate includes probable deaths reported by USFWS, USDA, and DoW in addition to confirmed kills. High Estimate: The high estimates of cattle and horse kills are based upon estimates of total livestock losses to wolf depredation by ranchers within the BRWRA.67 These estimates are detailed in Appendix A. Ranchers in the BRWRA did not provide estimates of total sheep and dog kills in the BRWRA from 1998 to 2004. Thus, the high estimate of these kills is assumed to equal the medium estimate.















?















?















Exhibits 3-3 through 3-8 presents the low, medium, and high estimates of the number of livestock killed by Mexican wolves in the BRWRA from 1998 to 2004. We also present one estimate for ranch animal injuries that have resulted from wolf attacks (Exhibit 3-8). To be clear, assumptions for each animal are described separately below: ? Cattle: The low estimate is the average number of confirmed agency-recorded kills. To derive the medium estimates for cattle kills, the analysis multiplies the average















65















For all estimates in this analysis, the number of cattle, sheep, horse, and dog killed by wolves is separate from and does not include the number of livestock lost for other reasons such as depredations by other carnivores, consuming poisonous plants, disease, weather conditions, or other causes.















Medium estimate represents neither an average nor a "best" estimate of depredations. Rather, low, medium, and high estimates represent three separate methods for estimating livestock losses resulting from reintroduction of Mexican wolf.







67















66















Laura Schneberger, a New Mexico rancher, compiled estimates from ranchers throughout the BRWRA of losses that they believe are at