FWS Perspective on Scope of Non Essential Population Rule
Issues Related to the Scope of the NEPÂ
(a) Current management stipulations that require wolves that establish homeranges outside the
Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area (BRWRA) to be removed and re-released into the BRWRA or taken into captivity. This stipulation stemmed from the intention in the 1998 NEP final rule that wolves would not be reestablished throughout the entire Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area (MWEPA), but only within the BRWRA, which is a subarea of the MWEPA.
However, analysis indicates that removals for boundary violations due to wolves dispersing or establishing territories outside the BRWRA are not conducive to achieving the reintroduction project objective of ‘‘reestablishing a viable, self-sustaining population of at least 100 Mexican [gray] wolves’’ (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1982, p. 23). In other words, change in this aspect of the 1998 NEP final rule would provide the Service with the authority to allow wolves to establish territories outside the boundaries of the BRWRA.Â
(b) Current management stipulations allow for initial Mexican gray wolf releases from captivity only into the primary recovery zone of the BRWRA.
Management experience has demonstrated that this stipulation in the 1998 NEP final rule sets impracticallimits on available release sites and wolves that can be released into the secondary recovery zone, limits theMexican Gray Wolf Reintroduction Project’s (Project) ability to address genetic issues, and results in a misperception that the secondary recovery zone is composed largely of ‘‘problem’’ animals that have beentranslocated to the secondary zone after management removal due to livestock depredation events. In other words, a change in this aspect of the 1998 NEP final rule would possibly provide the Service the authority to release Mexican gray wolves from the captive breeding population into New Mexico.Â
(c) The definition of the White Sands MissileRange, which is within the MWEPA, as the White Sands Wolf Recovery Area.
However, the White Sands Wolf Recovery Area is not of sufficient size nor does it have sufficient
prey density to function as an independent recovery area.
(d) Limited provisions for private individuals to ‘‘harass’’ wolves engaged in nuisance behavior or livestock depredation, or which are attacking domestic pets on private, public, or Tribal lands.Current provisions in the 1998 NEP final rule allow for ‘‘opportunistic, non-injurious harassment’’ of wolves by private individuals; that is, individuals are not allowed to harass wolves in such a manner as to even potentially result in bodily injury or death of a Mexican gray wolf. Management experience in theBRWRA, as well as the Northern Rocky Mountain DPS gray wolf recovery program, suggests that a variety of harassment methods could provide an effective deterrent to problem Mexican gray wolf behavior, as well as increasing public acceptance of Mexican gray wolf recovery. All possible alternatives and remedies need to be explored.
(e) Current provisions in the 1998 NEP final rule that do not allow for ‘‘take’’ of wolves in the act of attacking domestic dogs on private or Tribal Trust lands.
However, domestic dog injuries and mortalities have occurred within the BRWRA due to interactions between wolves and dogs, primarily near people’s homes. Lack of take authority in instances where take may have been warranted has resulted in substantial negative impacts on some localresidents and visitors to the BRWRA.
(f) Among other issues, the need to clarify definitions of: ‘‘breeding pair,’’ ‘‘depredation incident,’’ and ‘‘thresholds for permanent removal.’’
In addition, there is a need to identify other possible impediments to establishing wolves, such as thelivestock carcass management and disposal issue identified in the 3-year review of the project (Paquet et al. 2001, p. 69). The authors of this report recommended that the Service ‘‘requirelivestock operators on public land to take some responsibility for carcass management/disposal to reduce the likelihood that wolves become habituated to feeding on livestock.’’ In other words, if a new final rule is promulgated that incorporates this recommendation from the 3-year review, it may result in redefining ‘‘nuisance wolves’’ and ‘‘problem wolves’ so as to exclude animals that scavenge on the carcasses of livestock that died of non-wolf causes.Â
(g) The issues addressed in this scoping process include issues addressed in a petition for Rulemaking dated March 29, 2004 provided to the Service by the Center for BiologicalDiversity. This Notice, and the subsequent public notice and comment period, will provide the public an opportunity to comment on the issues provided in the Center for BiologicalDiversity’s Petition for Rulemaking.
Issues Related to Evaluation of the Environmental Impacts. We are seeking comments on the identification of direct, indirect, beneficial, and adverse effects that might be caused by amendment of the 1998 NEP final rule that established the current NEP of Mexican gray wolf. You may wish to consider the following issues when providing comments:Â
(a) Impacts on floodplains, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically sensitive areas;
(b) Impacts on park lands and cultural or historic resources;Â
(c) Impacts on human health and safety;
(d) Impacts on air, soil, and water;Â
(e) Impacts on prime agricultural lands;
(f) Impacts to other species of wildlife, including other endangered or threatened species;Â
(g) Disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low income populations;
(h) Any other potential or socioeconomic effects; andÂ
(i) Any potential conflicts with other Federal, State, local, or Tribal environmental laws or requirements.We will give separate notice of the availability of the draft EIS when completed, so that interested andaffected people may comment on the draft and have input into the final decision
Comments