United States Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Safeguarding American Agriculture 

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Marketing and 

Regulatory 

Programs 

Animal and 

Plant Health 

Inspection 

Service 

Wildlife 

Services 

North Dakota State 

Office 

2110 Miriam Circle 

Bismarck, North 

Dakota 58501-2502 

(701) 250-4405 

(701) 250-4408 Fax 

USDA-APHIS-WILDLIFE SERVICES 

BSMARCK, NORTH DAKOTA 

ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPLEMENT 

for the 

“WILDLIFE DAMAGE MANAGEMENT in NORTH DAKOTA for the 

PROTECTION of LIVESTOCK, PUBLIC HEALTH and SAFETY, 

PROPERTY and WILDLIFE” EA 

Fiscal Year 2003 through Fiscal Year 2010 

Introduction 

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS) - Wildlife Services (WS) is a cooperatively funded, service-oriented program 

authorized by Congress and directed by law to reduce damage caused by wildlife (Act of March 

2, 1931, as amended [46 Stat. 1468; 7 U.S.C. 426-426c], and the Rural Development, 

Agriculture, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1988, as amended [Public Law 100-

202, Stat. 1329-1331]1

). The alleviation of damage or other problems caused by or related to 

the behavior of wildlife is termed wildlife damage management and is recognized as an integral 

component of wildlife management (Conover 2002, The Wildlife Society 2010). WS generally 

uses or recommends an adaptive Integrated Wildlife Damage Management (IWDM) approach 

(WS Directive 2.1052

), where a combination of methods may be implemented to reduce 

damage. IWDM is the application of safe and practical methods for the prevention and 

reduction of damage caused by wildlife based on local problem analyses and the judgment of 

trained personnel (Slate et al. 1992). The imminent threat of damage or loss of resources is 

often sufficient for actions to be initiated and the need for the reduction of human-wildlife 

conflicts is derived from the specific threats to resources. However, before any WS action is 

taken, a request must be received and an “Agreement for Control” must be signed by the 

landowner/administrator or other comparable documents must be in place3

. When requested, 

WS cooperates with land and wildlife management agencies to effectively and efficiently 

reduce human-wildlife conflicts according to applicable federal, state and local laws, 

regulations, policies, orders, and procedures, including the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

(ESA) as amended (16 USC 1531-1543) (WS Directive 2.210). None of WS’ human-predator 

conflict reduction activities have resulted in habitat modifications. 

Background 

The North Dakota WS program conducts wildlife conflict reduction activities using various 

methods, as analyzed in the “Wildlife Damage Management in North Dakota for the Protection 

of Livestock, Public Health and Safety, Property, and Wildlife” Environmental Assessment 

(EA), on various land classes (USDA 1997a). The EA addressed the need to reduce 

human/predator conflicts, known as predator damage management (PDM), and the potential 

impacts of six alternatives for responding to predator damage in North Dakota. The EA 

 

1

 WS is directed by Congress to respond to and attempt to reduce damage caused by wildlife, when funding allows. 2

 The WS Policy Manual provides WS personnel guidance in the form of program directives. Information contained in the WS Policy Manual 

(http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/WS_directives.shtml) have been used in preparation of this report, but have not been cited in the 

Literature Cited. 

3

 The majority of requests for management are for predatory species whose populations are relatively high or are considered “anthropogenic 

abundant” (Conover 2002). 
North Dakota Predator Damage Management EA Supplement - 2 -

analyzed the North Dakota WS program as it involves conflict resolution with predatory species, such as 

coyote (Canis latrans), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), raccoon (Procyon lotor), badger (Taxidea taxus), mink 

(Mustela vison), bobcat (Lynx rufus), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) to protect livestock, 

agriculture, property, and wildlife, and to reduce any predator threat to public health and safety. The 

“Integrated Wildlife Damage Management for Multiple Resources and Land Classes” Alternative was 

selected and a Decision was issued and a FONSI was signed March 20, 1997 and later supplemented on 

June 25, 2003. 

The 2003 supplement determined the analysis conducted in USDA (1997a) was still valid and monitoring 

and the supplement Decision and FONSI concluded that a new EA was not warranted (USDA 2003). 

USDA (2003) concluded that the issues addressed in the original EA were best addressed by continuing 

Alterative 3 (Integrated Wildlife Damage Management for Multiple Resources and Land Classes) and 

articulated that WS continue to coordinate with the North Dakota Game and Fish Department (NDGFD) 

to monitor the WS take of predators to insure species viability. 

In 2008 a five-year review was initiated to: 1) report the results of WS’ PDM activities conducted in 

North Dakota during FY04 to FY08 and evaluate the accuracy of the analyses, 2) determine if the 2003 

FONSI was still appropriate, and 3) take appropriate action if the affected environment or impacts have 

significantly changed from the data analyzed in USDA (1997a). It was determined, through analysis in 

the 5-year review, that a revision of USDA (1997a) was not necessary and the 2003 FONSI remained 

appropriate (USDA 2009). 

This supplement to USDA (1997a) pertains to the analyses of North Dakota WS PDM activities from 

FY03 through FY10. The issues considered in this supplemental analysis have also been analyzed in 

relation to the current program. 

Alternatives Analyzed in Detail in USDA (1997a) 

The six alternatives analyzed in detail in the North Dakota Wildlife Damage Management in North 

Dakota for the Protection of Livestock, Public Health and Safety, Property, and Wildlife EA were and 

continue to be the six alternatives for this supplement: 

1) Alternative 1 - Continue the Current North Dakota WS Program: (No Action). This alternative 

consists of the current program of technical assistance and operational IWDM (WS Directive 2.105) 

by North Dakota WS on the Sheyenne National Grasslands, Tribal, State, county, municipal, and 

private lands under Cooperative Agreement and Agreement for Control with North Dakota WS. The 

current program direction is primarily for the protection of agricultural resources and public health and 

safety. 

2) Alternative 2 - No Federal North Dakota WS Program. This alternative would terminate the Federal 

Predator Damage Management program in North Dakota. 

3) Alternative 3 - Integrated Wildlife Damage Management for Multiple Resources and Land Classes: 

(Proposed Alternative). This alternative would allow for predator damage management based on the 

needs of multiple resources (livestock, wildlife, property, and public health and safety) and would be 

implemented following consultations with the NDGF, NDDA, Federal agencies or Tribes, as 

appropriate. The alternative would allow for a program to protect multiple resources as requested on 

lands owned or managed by the USFWS, BLM, USFS, BOR, CE, Tribal, State, county, municipal or 

private lands if a Cooperative Agreement, Agreement for Control, MOU and/or Wildlife Damage 

Management Work Plans with North Dakota WS are in place, as appropriate. 
North Dakota Predator Damage Management EA Supplement - 3 -

4) Alternative 4 - Nonlethal Damage Management Required Prior to Lethal Control. This alternative 

would require that nonlethal damage management be implemented before the initiation of lethal 

predator damage management by North Dakota WS. 

5) Alternative 5 - Corrective Damage Management Only. This alternative would require that livestock 

depredation occur before the initiation of lethal damage management. No preventive lethal control 

would be allowed. 

6) Alternative 6 Technical Assistance Only. Under this alternative, North Dakota WS would not conduct 

operational predator damage management in North Dakota. The entire program would consist of only 

technical assistance. 

Purpose of this Supplement 

The purpose of this supplement is to: 1) report the results of WS’ PDM activities conducted in North 

Dakota during Federal fiscal year (FY) 03 to FY10 and evaluate the accuracy of the current analyses, 2) 

determine if the USDA (1997a, 2003, 2009) analyses are still appropriate, 3) take appropriate action if the 

affected environment or impacts have significantly changed from the data analyzed in USDA (1997a), as 

amended (USDA 2003, 2009) and 4) provide an updated report and opportunity for the public to review 

program activities. This review uses the most currently available information which in most cases is 

FY03 to FY10 data. Copies of the EA, supplements, Decisions/FONSIs and previous monitoring reports 

are available from the North Dakota WS State Office, USDA, APHIS, 2110 Miriam Circle, Bismarck, 

North Dakota 58501-2502. 

Affected Environment 

Actions under the current program could be conducted on private, federal, state, tribal, and municipal 

lands in North Dakota to protect resources from predator damage, as requested. The affected 

environment includes, but is not necessarily limited to, areas in and around agricultural and industrial 

areas, livestock facilities, rural and urban areas, and airports wherever predators are found to be causing 

damage to resources or posing threats to public health and safety. Areas may include federal, state, 

county, city, private, or other lands, where WS’ assistance has been requested by a landowner or manager 

to reduce predator damage. The areas affected by the current program may also include property adjacent 

to identified sites where predation or threats to public health and safety could occur. 

Scope of Analysis 

USDA (1997a), this supplemental analysis evaluates WS PDM activities in North Dakota. The scope 

consists of the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts considered in USDA (1997a) and supplemental 

information (40 CFR §1508.25) to reduce damage and threats to protected resources. The scope of 

USDA (1997a) and supplement recognize that USDA-APHIS is tasked with protecting American 

agriculture and WS’ mission goes beyond that to include property, public health and safety, and natural 

resources when requested. 

Actions Analyzed 

The EA and this supplement analyze the potential impacts of PDM activities conducted by North Dakota 

WS, when requested. WS uses a Decision Model (Slate et al. 1992) which involves evaluating each 

damage/threat situation, taking action, evaluating, and monitoring results of the action(s) (USDA 1997a, 
North Dakota Predator Damage Management EA Supplement - 4 -

1997b4). WS’ personnel use the Decision Model to develop the most appropriate strategy to reduce 

damage and to determine potential environmental effects from damage management actions (Slate et al. 

1992, USDA 1997a, 1997b). 

The supplement analyzes actions conducted by North Dakota WS since the FONSIs were signed. The 

supplement evaluates WS’ activities to ensure the latest FONSI is still appropriate and that activities 

conducted pursuant to the Decision do not warrant the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. 

The actions analyzed in the supplement do not replace, but are in addition to those activities described 

under the proposed action of USDA (1997a). 

PROGRAM RESULTS and ANALYSIS - FY03 through FY10 

Scope of Predator Damage 

The need for action remains as stated in USDA (1997a, 2003, 2009), that the adverse effect of predation 

on livestock can be serious for individual livestock producers5

. Livestock production in North Dakota is a 

sizeable industry, and predation on livestock represents a large financial loss; 74% of calf predation and 

most sheep predation was attributed to coyotes (NASS 2006, 2010). The most recent reports on cattle and 

sheep loss to predation document a $1.6 million loss to North Dakota’s livestock industry (Table 1). 

Nationwide, farmers and ranchers spent $199 million on non-lethal control methods to prevent predation, 

with night penning being most popular, followed by the use of guard animals, and fencing (NASS 2006). 

North Dakota sheep producers implemented proactive, non-lethal methods which increase the validity for 

taking further, possibly lethal, action to alleviate damage from predators when predation losses continue 

to occur (Table 2). 

OBJECTIVES 

In USDA (1997a), ten objectives were established by WS for the North Dakota PDM program. Those 

same objectives remained in the USDA (2003, 2009) analysis. The objectives and statewide 

accomplishments toward meeting those objectives from FY03 through in FY10 are detailed below. 

 

4

 Slate et al (1992) provides more detail on the processes used in WS’ Decision Model. USDA (1997b) provides more detail and 

examples of how the model is used. 

5

 Predator damage totaled $92.7 million in losses to ranchers nationwide. 

Table 1. Cattle and sheep losses to predators in North Dakota and the 

associated financial losses. 

Livestock type Adult Calves/Lambs Cost of damage 

Cattle (NASS 2006) 100 1,700 $1,509,000 

Sheep (NASS 2010) 500 1,400 $154,000 

Total 600 3,100 $1,663,000 

Table 2. Non-lethal methods utilized by North Dakota sheep producers to protect sheep (NASS 

2005). 

Fencing 

Guard 

dog Llama Donkey 

Shed 

lambing Herding 

Night 

penning 

Fright 

tactics 

Remove 

carrion 

21% 31% 23% 7% 5% 1% 35% 3% 2% 
North Dakota Predator Damage Management EA Supplement - 5 -

Objective A-1: Respond to requests for assistance with the appropriate action as determined by North 

Dakota WS personnel, applying the ADC Decision Model6

. 

During the analysis period, WS conducted technical assistance (TA) or operational projects after 

receiving a request for assistance from the landowner/manager with predator conflicts. TA, which 

included the distribution of information to assist land/livestock owners with the reduction or prevention of 

further damage, totaled 2,128 projects for 3,983 people (Table 3). WS conducted operational projects to 

mitigate/resolve 5,309 occurrences of predator conflicts (Table 4). 

Objective A-2: Hold lamb losses due to predation to less than 3% per year for producers who have 

signed WS agreements. 

According to the National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS), the statewide lamb crop ranged from 

70,000 head (NASS 2011a) to 100,000 head (NASS 2004a) during the analysis period. Documented 

predation on lambs protected by WS from FY 03 through FY 10 never exceeded 0.9% (Figure 1), with an 

average of about 0.6%. 

 

6

 The WS Decision Model is a cognitive process used by WS personnel to determine the best methods to address a given wildlife damage 

management problem (Figure 3-1) of the EA). 

Table 3. TA projects conducted FY03 – FY10 (MIS FY03-FY10). 

Species # of Projects Average # of 

Participants Average 

Badger 65 8 155 19 

Coyote 1,031 129 2,305 288 

Mink 16 2 54 7 

Raccoon 476 60 650 81 

Red Fox 60 8 122 15 

Striped 

Skunk 

480 60 697 87 

Total 2,128 266 3,983 498 

Table 4. Operational projects 

conducted FY03 - FY10 (MIS FY03-

FY10). 

Species # of 

Projects Average 

Badger 81 10 

Coyote 4,030 504 

Mink 20 3 

Raccoon 497 62 

Red Fox 142 18 

Skunk 539 67 

Total 5,309 663 
North Dakota Predator Damage Management EA Supplement - 6 -

Objective A-3: Hold adult sheep losses due to predation to less than 2% per year for producers who have 

signed WS agreements. 

From FY03 through FY10, the adult sheep inventory in North Dakota ranged from 61,000 (NASS 2011a) 

to 90,000 (NASS 2004a). Documented predation on adult sheep protected by WS during the analysis 

period never surpassed 0.3% (Figure 1), with an average of 0.2%. 

Objective A-4: Hold calf loss due to predation to less than 1% per year for producers who have signed 

WS agreements. 

The statewide calf crop for North Dakota ranged from 880,000 (NASS 2011b) to 1,000,000 (NASS 

2004b) during the analysis period. Documented predation on calves protected by WS between FY03 and 

FY10 never surpassed 0.3% (Figure 1). The analysis period average was 0.2%. 

Objective A-5: Provide requesting cooperators and cooperating Federal State, Tribal, and local 

agencies with information on non-lethal management techniques proven to be effective for reducing 

predation. 

Discussions of non-lethal management strategies were held with livestock producers during annual 

meetings with the North Dakota Stockmen’s Association and the North Dakota Lamb and Wool 

Producers Association. During the analysis period, WS conducted 2,128 PDM TA projects (Table 3). 

All cooperators and cooperating agencies were provided information detailing lethal and non-lethal 

methods used to protect livestock from predators. 

Objective A-6: Maintain the lethal take of non-target animals by North Dakota WS personnel during 

damage management to less than 3% of the total animals taken. 

During the analysis period 21,157 target and non-target animals were killed during PDM activities (Table 

5 and Table 6). Non-target take was 1.4%, which was below the threshold established in USDA 1997a. 

Figure 1. Annual loss (%) of lambs, adult sheep, 

and calves; FY03 – FY10 (MIS FY03-FY10). 

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10

Lamb Adult Sheep Calves
North Dakota Predator Damage Management EA Supplement - 7 -

Objective A-7: Continue to monitor the implementation of livestock producer non-lethal techniques. 

Nationwide, farmers and ranchers spent $199 million on non-lethal control to prevent predation, with 

fencing being most popular, followed by night penning and lamb sheds (NASS 2006). North Dakota WS 

files (unpubl data) show that 100% of North Dakota sheep and lamb producers that requested WS 

assistance, practice at least one non-lethal measure and 91% of the sheep and lamb producers use three or 

more non-lethal methods. In FY99, NASS (1999) reported that 83% of WS cooperating sheep and lamb 

producers in North Dakota practiced at least one non-lethal measure with expenditures of $124,040 to 

implement non-lethal methods. Producer implementing proactive, non-lethal methods increase the 

validity for taking further, possibly lethal, action to alleviate damage from predators when predation 

losses continue to occur. 

Objective B-1: Respond to requests from North Dakota Game & Fish, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and 

Tribes for protection of designated wildlife, dependent on funding and workforce. 

All requests during the 8-year analysis reporting period were addressed. 

Objective B-2: Involve the NDGF, USFWS or Tribes in wildlife damage management planning to 

consider specific wildlife to be protected and public health and safety when designating a wildlife damage 

Table 5. WS lethal take of target species, FY03 - FY10 (MIS FY03-FY10). 

Species FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 8 Yr Total 8 Yr Avg 

Coyote 2,688 2,334 2,352 2,502 1,899 2,231 2,615 2,531 19,152 2,394 

Red Fox 91 92 103 62 52 59 32 47 538 67 

Raccoon 209 208 71 74 50 25 23 24 684 86 

Badger 15 18 8 28 14 9 5 10 107 13 

Skunk 95 89 53 28 23 19 44 22 373 47 

Mink 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 60 0.8 

Total 3,102 2,742 2,588 2,694 2,038 2,343 2,719 2,634 20,860 2,608 

Table 6. WS lethal take of non-target species, FY03-FY10 (MIS FY03-FY10). 

Species FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 8 Yr Total 8 Yr Avg 

Badger 4 2 4 5 2 5 11 11 44 6 

Bobcat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 < 1 

Common Raven 0 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 6 < 1 

Feral dog 0 1 0 4 2 2 2 1 12 2 

Raccoon 7 8 1 3 7 4 19 5 54 7 

Red fox 7 9 1 9 7 31 21 4 89 11 

Striped skunk 2 1 4 4 1 3 5 5 25 3 

Swift fox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 < 1 

Feral cat 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 < 1

Gray wolf 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 4 < 1

Jackrabbit 7 0 0 1 2 6 1 6 23 3 

Porcupine 0 0 0 1 3 0 3 4 11 1 

Mule Deer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 < 1

White-tailed Deer 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 5 < 1

Woodchuck 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 < 1

Opossum 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 < 1

Pronghorn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 < 1

Bald Eagle 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 < 1

Wild Turkey 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 < 1

Total 35 23 13 30 25 53 66 42 297 37 
North Dakota Predator Damage Management EA Supplement - 8 -

management program. 

The current North Dakota WS program involves the NDGFD, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 

USDA Forest Service (Forest Service), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Tribes, as appropriate, 

in the design of WS wildlife damage management programs and the implementation of minimization 

measures to preclude adverse impacts to target and non-target species and humans. 

Objective C-1: Respond to cooperator requests for public health and safety protection from predators 

using the ADC Decision Model (Slate et al. 1992). 

WS, the North Dakota Department of Health, and the North Dakota Department of Agriculture (NDDA) 

continued their cooperative efforts in response to reports of human health and safety/wildlife conflicts 

throughout the state. During the 8-year reporting period, WS responded to 408 incidents of public health 

and safety concerns from various predatory species. 

MAJOR ISSUES ANALYZED IN DETAIL IN USDA (1997a) 

The Multi Agency Team, consisting of representatives from the lead (WS) and cooperating agencies 

(BLM, Forest Service, NDGFD, NDDA, North Dakota State University Extension Service (NDSUES), 

USFWS) determined the issues to analyze in detail in the EA should be: 

 Concerns for the North Dakota ADC7

 kill of predators to cause predator population declines, 

when added to other mortality. 

 Concerns for the North Dakota ADC kill of non-target wildlife and T&E species incidental to 

North Dakota predator damage management. 

 Concerns for the potential use of each predator damage management method. 

 Concerns about the selectivity, relative cost, and effectiveness of each predator damage 

management method. 

 Concerns about the effects of North Dakota ADC predator damage management on public health 

and safety. 

 Concerns about the economic effects of predator damage management. 

Concern for the North Dakota ADC kill of Predators to cause Predator Population declines, when 

added to other Mortality. 

A primary issue addressed in USDA (1997a) was the impact of North Dakota WS predator removal on 

the viability of target and non-target wildlife populations. The species evaluated in USDA (1997a) were 

selected for analysis because they are taken by North Dakota WS personnel in response to livestock and 

wildlife predation, property damage, and public health and safety threats. The "Magnitude" analysis for 

USDA (1997a) followed the process described in USDA (1997b: Table 4-2). Magnitude is defined in 

USDA (1997b) as ". . . a measure of the number of animals killed in relation to their abundance." 

Magnitude may be determined either quantitatively or qualitatively. Quantitative analysis is used 

whenever possible as it is more rigorous and is based on allowable harvest levels, population estimates, 

and harvest data. Qualitative analysis is based on population trends and harvest data or trends and 

modeling. Allowable harvest levels were determined from research studies cited in USDA (1997b: Table 

4-2) and from other data. 

Coyote predation continues to be the principle predator problem in the State and more coyotes were 

removed than any other species (Table 5). Many factors (including diseases, season of the year, 

geographic area, and the availability of suitable foods and habitats) contribute to the differing population 

 

7

 On August 1, 1997, the Animal Damage Control (ADC) program was officially renamed “Wildlife Services” (WS). 
North Dakota Predator Damage Management EA Supplement - 9 -

densities (Storm and Tzilkowski 1982). NDGFD coyote population models determined that about 54% of 

the North Dakota coyote population could be removed annually and still maintain a viable and healthy 

population (Allen 1999). Allowable annual harvests of red fox have been estimated to be 50%-70% of 

the total population (Pils et al. 1981, USDA 1997b). Allowable annual harvest levels for raccoons were 

established at 49% of the total population (USDA 1997b), similar to the findings of Clark et al. (1989). 

In western Illinois, Sanderson (1987) estimated that 49-59% of the total raccoon population could be 

harvested without decreasing the population. Badger populations can sustain an annual harvest rate of 30-

40% (Boddicker 1980). 

Estimating wildlife densities is not precise and often dynamic, and professional judgment is required to 

account for unknowns and variables, such as the ability of habitats to support populations and 

recruitment. The NDGFD is the state agency responsible for managing and protecting furbearer 

populations within North Dakota. Regulations established by the NDGFD are designed to provide 

harvest opportunities and to reduce conflicts between wildlife and humans, while ensuring sustainable 

populations. Trend information on the population status of coyote, red fox, raccoon, badger, and skunk 

taken by regulated harvest and by WS activities indicate that those populations are generally stable 

throughout North Dakota, with minor fluctuations from year-to-year (Tucker 2011). 

Concern for the North Dakota WS kill of Non-target Wildlife and T&E Species Incidental to North 

Dakota WS Predator Damage Management. 

WS Policy (WS Directive 2.450) states, “Non-target animals captured would be released if it is 

determined that they are physically able to survive.” From FY03 through FY10, North Dakota WS’ nontarget kill totaled 297 animals (Table 6). No non-target animals were taken by aerial gunning, calling, 

shooting, denning, or through the use of dogs. Trend information on the population status of non-target 

species taken by North Dakota WS indicates that those populations are generally stable throughout North 

Dakota, with minor fluctuations from year-to-year (S. Tucker, NDGFD Furbearer Biologist, pers comm., 

June 2011). 

Threatened & Endangered (T&E) Species Concerns:

Bald Eagle - On February 26, 2003 a bald eagle was unintentionally killed when it activated an M-44 

device that had been set to reduce coyote predation on livestock. This incident was investigated by the 

Law Enforcement Division of the USFWS and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ declined 

to prosecute the incident, but in an April 29, 2003 letter to WS, the DOJ recommended that WS and the 

USFWS consult to insure that policies and agreements were in place to address future possible take of a 

bald eagle and other species protected by the ESA. In May 2003, WS and USFWS initiated informal 

consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA for all federally listed T&E species found in North Dakota 

that could potentially be affected by WS’ PDM programs. 

On January 6, 2004, WS requested initiation of formal Section 7 consultation concerning the possible 

effects of WS PDM activities on the T&E species found in North Dakota. The USFWS issued a 

Biological Opinion (BO) in May 2004 and concluded that WS’ PDM activities would have no effect on 

the western fringed prairie orchid, pallid sturgeon, and whooping crane; and may affect, but not likely to 

adversely affect the least tern, piping plover, and black-footed ferret. 

The USFWS concurred with WS’ determination that its PDM activities may affect, likely to adversely 

affect the bald eagle. The USFWS also concluded that WS’ PDM activities would not jeopardize the 

continued existence of the bald eagle. Further, the USFWS provided detailed reasonable and prudent 

measures WS should take to minimize the incidental take of bald eagles; an incidental take statement was 

also included for the bald eagle. 
North Dakota Predator Damage Management EA Supplement - 10 -

In FY05 a bald eagle was unintentionally killed when it activated an M-44 device which had been set to 

reduce coyote depredation on sheep. The take of the bald eagle in FY05 was less than the anticipated take 

established in the incidental take statement of the 2004 BO. However, in 2006 WS and the USFWS 

mutually agreed to amend the reasonable and prudent measures (to minimize unintentional take of bald 

eagles) identified in the 2004 BO. The amendments established more restrictive reasonable and prudent 

measures than those detailed in the 2004 BO. 

In 2007 bald eagles were delisted from the ESA, however WS still complies with the reasonable and 

prudent measures established in the 2004 BO. There has been no unintentional take of bald eagles since 

the 2005 incident. 

Gray Wolf - On April 1, 2003, the USFWS released their final rule for the reclassification of the gray 

wolf in the conterminous U.S. As a result of the final rule, the gray wolf was reclassified from 

“endangered” to “threatened” in two distinct population segments (DPS), the Western DPS (50 CFR 

17.40(n)) and the Eastern DPS (50 CFR 17.40(o)). North Dakota was included in the Eastern DPS, 

therefore wolves within the state were reclassified as threatened. Section 4(d) of the ESA allows the 

USFWS to modify protections for threatened species to better address the unique conservation needs of 

the particular species. Mitigation of documented wolf predation on livestock was included in the 

provisions of Section 4(d), whereby employees of USFWS, state or tribal natural resource management 

agencies, or their agents could remove wolves responsible for livestock depredation. 

WS responded to one verified gray wolf calf depredation in FY03. Pursuant to Section 4(d) of the ESA, 

WS notified the USFWS office in Bismarck, ND of the confirmed kill. The USFWS designated WS as 

“an agent of the USFWS” to carry out damage abatement efforts utilizing lethal damage management. 

WS initiated a review of the proposed action and determined that it was categorically excluded from 

further National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis and did not require the preparation of an 

environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. WS initiated a damage management action 

for a 10 day period but no wolves were taken and management efforts were terminated. No additional 

wolf depredations occurred following the termination of the initiated efforts. 

On March 24, 2003 a gray wolf was unintentionally killed when it activated an M-44 device that had been 

set to reduce coyote predation on livestock. This incident was investigated by the Law Enforcement 

Division of the USFWS and DOJ. The DOJ declined to prosecute the incident, but in an April 29, 2003 

letter to WS, the DOJ recommended that WS and the USFWS consult to insure that policies and 

agreements are in place to address the future possible take of a gray wolf and other species protected by 

the ESA. 

As previously noted, in May 2003 WS and the USFWS initiated informal consultation pursuant to Section 

7 of the ESA for all federally listed T&E species in North Dakota that could potentially be affected by 

WS’ PDM program. On January 6, 2004, WS requested initiation of formal Section 7 consultation 

concerning the possible effects of WS PDM activities on all T&E species in North Dakota. 

The USFWS issued a BO in May 2004 and concurred with WS’ determination that its PDM activities 

may affect, likely to adversely affect the gray wolf. The USFWS also concluded that WS’ PDM activities 

would not jeopardize the continued existence of the gray wolf. Further, the USFWS provided detailed 

reasonable and prudent measures WS should take to minimize the incidental take of gray wolves; an 

incidental take statement was also included for the gray wolf. 

No gray wolves were taken by WS activities in FY04, FY07, and FY08. However, in FY05 a gray wolf 

was unintentionally killed in a neck snare which had been set to capture coyotes at a site which had a 

history of coyote predation on sheep. The USFWS investigated the incident and determined that WS had 
North Dakota Predator Damage Management EA Supplement - 11 -

complied with the reasonable and prudent measures identified in the 2004 BO and the take of one gray 

wolf in FY05 was less than the anticipated take established in the 2004 BO incidental take statement. 

In FY06 a gray wolf was unintentionally killed after activating an M-44 device which had been set for 

coyotes at a site which had a history of coyote predation on sheep. The USFWS investigated the incident 

and determined that WS had complied with the reasonable and prudent measures identified in the 2004 

BO and the take of one gray wolf in FY06 was less than the anticipated take established in the incidental 

take statement of the 2004 BO. 

In February 2007 the USFWS removed gray wolves in the eastern two-thirds of North Dakota from the 

protection of the ESA8

. Gray wolves in the western portion of North Dakota remained classified as 

federally endangered and protected by the ESA under the management authority of the USFWS. 

In September 2008 a court decision vacated the USFWS delisting of wolves in North Dakota and 

provided that wolves be provided protection under the ESA as endangered. 

In April 2009 the USFWS once again removed gray wolves in the eastern two-thirds of North Dakota 

from the protection of the ESA and they came under the regulatory authority of the NDGFD; wolves in 

the western portion of North Dakota remained classified as federally endangered and protected by the 

ESA. In May 2009 (FY09) one gray wolf was killed by a landowner at a site in eastern North Dakota 

where WS had set foothold traps in response to coyote predation on livestock. This event occurred in the 

area of the state where wolves were regulated by the NDGFD as a furbearer with a closed season. The 

NDGFD investigated the incident and did not initiate further action. 

In June 2009, as a result of a court settlement agreement between the USFWS and several plaintiffs, 

wolves throughout all of North Dakota were again relisted as federally endangered under the protection of 

the ESA. 

In April 2011, the USFWS announced a proposal to remove gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes area 

from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife because wolves have recovered in this area 

and no longer require the protection of the ESA. The proposal identifies the Western Great Lakes DPS of 

wolves, which includes a core area of Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin, as well as parts of adjacent 

states that are within the range of wolves dispersing from the core recovery area. 

WS continues to comply with the reasonable and prudent measures established in the 2004 BO. 

Concerns for the Potential Use of Each Predator Damage Management Method. 

All methods are used and would continue to be used as selectively and humanely as possible, in 

conformance with the WS Decision Model (Slate et al. 1992) and WS Program Directives. North Dakota 

WS personnel are trained in the use of each method and certified as pesticide applicators by the NDDA 

through the NDSUES’s pesticide training and certification program. Some methods may be more or less 

effective or applicable depending on weather conditions, time of year, biological considerations, 

economic considerations, legal and administrative restrictions, or other factors. Because these factors 

may at times preclude use of certain methods, it is important to maintain the widest possible selection of 

damage management tools to most effectively resolve predator damage problems. North Dakota WS has 

not received any reports of adverse incidents of methods use from the public, nor have there been any 

reports of adverse human health and safety incidents. 

 

8

 Wolves found east of Highway 83 and the Missouri River were placed under the regulatory authority of the NDGFD and classified as a 

furbearer with a closed season. 
North Dakota Predator Damage Management EA Supplement - 12 -

Concerns over the Selectivity, Relative Cost, and Effectiveness of Each Predator Damage Management 

Method. 

Chapter 4 of USDA (1997a) included discussion about the relative effectiveness and selectivity of the 

various methods used by North Dakota WS and that discussion will not be repeated here. Under the 

current program, all methods are used as selectively and effectively as possible, in conformance with the 

WS Decision Model (Slate et al. 1992) and WS Program Directives. The selectivity of each method is 

based, in part, on the application of the method and the skill of the personnel, and the direction provided 

by WS Directives. Effectiveness of the various methods can vary widely depending on local 

circumstances at the time of application. 

Several methods employed under the current program are typically 100% selective for target species. 

These methods include aerial shooting, ground shooting, denning and use of dogs. Other methods, such 

as foot-hold traps, neck snares, and the M-44 device as used by North Dakota WS are slightly less 

selective. 

North Dakota WS uses foot-hold traps with offset jaws and pan-tension devices to reduce injuries to 

captured animals and to improve selectivity (WS Directive 2.450). The selectivity of snares is largely a 

function of how and where they are set. Breakaway snare locks are used to allow the release of larger 

animals such as deer or livestock which may be caught unintentionally. In addition, North Dakota WS 

personnel often try to reduce the need for setting traps or snares by first trying to remove problem animals 

by ground shooting or aerial shooting. 

The selectivity of capture devices is defined as the total number of target species (captured/taken by a 

capture device) divided by the total of target and non-target species captured/taken by the devices. 

During the 8-year analysis period, the selectivity of foot-hold traps ranged from 85% to 100% (Figure 2). 

The selectivity of neck snares during the same time frame ranged from 88% to 99% and the selectivity of 

the M-44 device ranged from 96% to 99%. The averages over the analysis period were: foot-hold traps 

93%, neck snare 96% and M-44 98%. 

Other damage management methods used by North Dakota WS included decoy or trapline dogs which 

can be highly selective for removing target animals. Decoy and trapline dogs are relatively inexpensive 

to use in North Dakota, and they can be utilized in conjunction with aerial shooting, for finding dens, and 

for trailing target animals. 

Denning is very selective because positive identification of the species is possible. Denning, and the act 

of finding the den, can be time consuming and therefore relatively more expensive compared to other 

methods. 

Use of livestock guarding dogs by sheep producers has proven effective in preventing or reducing some 

predation losses (Gehring et al 2010), and use of guard dogs is generally perceived as a selective form of 

non-lethal damage management. However, guard dogs may also involve deaths of target and non-target 

animals and injuries to people (Timm and Schmidt 1989, Gehring et al 2010). 
North Dakota Predator Damage Management EA Supplement - 13 -

Concerns over the effects of North Dakota WS Predator Damage Management on Public Health and 

Safety. 

Effects on public health and safety include potential benefits caused by North Dakota WS fostering a 

safer environment and the potential negative effects that might result from the exposure of the public to 

PDM methods. The current program uses integrated methodologies to protect resources on public and 

private lands and the methods used for PDM in North Dakota pose low human safety risks (USDA 1997a, 

1997b), and there have been no instances of any injuries to any member of the public associated with 

PDM in North Dakota. Sodium cyanide, the active ingredient in the M-44 device, poses possible risks, 

but they are mitigated through specific direction provided by WS Program Directives and by the 

respective pesticide label. Risks identified in the evaluation process for this chemical were primarily 

environmental risks addressed by the EPA rather than safety or health risks to the public. 

Concerns over the Economic Effects of Predator Damage Management. 

Economic impacts are monetary benefits or liabilities that the current program would have on livestock 

and wildlife losses, public health and safety, and property. Costs and benefits associated with 

implementing IWDM would be considered but may be a secondary concern in relation to overriding legal 

and environmental considerations and are not the primary basis for the decision(s) to be made. A review 

of the WS Program’s Economic Impact Assessment may be found in USDA (1997b: Chapter 4) is 

incorporated by reference. 

Benefits of the current program in North Dakota can be shown by examining predation rates to lambs, 

sheep, and calves (Figure 1). Those losses are well below stated objectives of the damage abatement 

program (see Objectives A-2 through A-4). However, other measures of economic efficacy are the level 

of predation prevented by WS PDM program and the cost:benefit ratios of the program. 

Bodenchuck et al. (2002) summarized the impacts of predator-induced losses in the absence of damage 

abatement programs: average annual losses of lambs equal 18%, adult sheep average 6% loss annually, 

and calve losses average 3% annually. Applying these values to the number of animals protected by 

North Dakota WS’ PDM program provides an estimate of the potential loss of lambs, adult sheep, and 

calves to predation. Comparisons between potential loss and actual loss of these classes of livestock 

provide insight into the amount of predation prevented as a result of WS’ activities. Applying market 

Figure 2. Selectivity (%) of foothold traps, snares, and M-44s; 

FY03-FY10.
North Dakota Predator Damage Management EA Supplement - 14 -

values to the numbers of animals saved helps measure the economic benefits of the WS’ program. 

The North Dakota WS PDM program potentially prevented predator impacts to livestock on those 

properties where damage management action was taken during this analysis period. The savings not only 

benefited those livestock producers, but other segments of society as well. Recognizing the economic 

benefits of PDM extend beyond properties where WS provides assistance. Bodenchuck et al. (2002) 

applied a 3X multiplier effect to the direct savings which resulted from the prevention of livestock losses 

from predators. Using that same multiplier raises the economic benefits of the WS PDM program to 

segments of society not directly involved with livestock production in North Dakota. The gross total 

benefit (sum of direct and indirect benefits) of PDM in North Dakota varied from $6.4 million to $12 

million during FY03 through FY10 (Figure 3). 

The North Dakota WS program is cooperatively funded through a combination of federal and non-federal 

funding. Total funds during the 8-year reporting period ranged from $465,625 in FY03 to $867,625 in 

FY09 (Figure 3). The cost:benefit ratios of WS PDM program (defined as the ratio between one dollar of 

funds expended, to the amount of monetary losses saved) varied from 1:8 to 1:25 during the FY03 - FY10 

reporting period (Figure 3). The North Dakota WS Program provides a positive economic benefit to 

livestock producers and property owners, in addition to nonmonetary benefits such as increased public 

health and safety, T&E species and other wildlife protection. 

WS’ Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

WS developed a Final EIS9

 that addresses the need for wildlife damage management in the United States 

(USDA 1997b) and contains detailed discussions of potential impacts to the human environment from 

wildlife damage management methods used by WS. Pertinent information in USDA (1997b) has been 

incorporated by reference into USDA (1997a) and the supplemental information for the current program. 

 

9

 Copies of WS’ Programmatic FEIS are available from USDA/APHIS/WS-Operational Support Staff, 4700 River Road, Unit 

87, Riverdale, MD 20737-1234. 

Figure 3. Potential savings versus cost of predator damage management in North Dakota, FY03 – FY10. 

$11,600,000

$7,600,000 $6,400,000

$8,300,000 $7,900,000

$12,000,000

$10,900,000

$9,000,000

$800,200 $867,625 $837,800 $465,625 $411,000 $482,400 $559,200 $779,000

$0

$4,000,000

$8,000,000

$12,000,000

$16,000,000

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10

Savings Expenditures

Cost: Benefit Ratio: FY03 (1:18); FY04 (1:19); FY05 (1:25); FY06 (1:19); FY07 (1:12); FY08 (1:8); FY09 (1:9); FY10 (1:14).
North Dakota Predator Damage Management EA Supplement - 15 -

X. Site Specificity 

USDA (1997a) and this supplement analyze the potential impacts of PDM that could occur in North 

Dakota on lands under cooperative agreement or other comparable document, and in cooperation with the 

appropriate public land management agencies. It also addresses the impacts of damage management 

activities on areas where additional agreements may be signed in the future. Because the proposed action 

is to reduce damage and because the program’s goals and directives are to provide services when 

requested, within the constraints of available funding and workforce, it is conceivable that additional 

damage management efforts could occur. Thus, USDA (1997a) anticipated this potential expansion and 

impacts of such efforts as part of the proposed alternative. Because livestock production and human 

activity occurs throughout North Dakota and predators are found in every county in North Dakota, it is 

conceivable that WS’ activities could occur anywhere in the State. 

USDA (1997a) and supplements emphasize major issues as they relate to specific areas whenever 

possible; however, many issues apply wherever predator damage, or potential predator damage occurs 

and management actions are taken. WS personnel use the WS Decision Model (Slate et al. 1992) as the

“on the ground” site-specific procedure for each damage management action conducted by WS. The 

Decision Model is a thought process that guides WS though the analysis and development of the most 

appropriate individual strategy to reduce damages and detrimental environmental effects from damage 

management actions (USDA 1997a). The Decision Model (Slate et al. 1992) and WS Directive 2.105 

describe the site-specific thought process used by WS. 

Planning for the reduction of human/predator conflicts is conceptually similar to other agencies’ actions 

whose missions are to stop or prevent adverse consequences from anticipated future events for which the 

actual sites and locations where they will occur are unknown but could be anywhere in a defined 

geographic area. Examples of such agencies and programs include fire and police departments, 

emergency clean-up organizations, insurance companies, etc. Although some of the sites where predator 

damage will occur can be predicted, all specific locations or times where such damage will occur in any 

given year cannot be predicted. USDA (1997a) and this supplement emphasize major issues as they 

relate to specific areas whenever possible, however, many issues apply wherever predator conflicts and 

resulting management occurs, and are treated as such. The analyses are intended to apply to any action 

that may occur in any locale and at any time within North Dakota. In this way, WS believes we meet the 

intent of NEPA with regard to site-specific analysis and that this is the only practical way for WS to 

comply with NEPA, be able to meet needs for assistance with predator damage management in a timely 

fashion and accomplish its mission. Decisions made using this thought process will be in accordance 

with minimization measures and Standard Operating Procedures described in USDA (1997a) established 

as part of any FONSI. This supplement adds to the analysis in USDA (1997a) and Decision and all 

information and analyses in USDA (1997a) remains valid unless otherwise noted. 

Coordination with Federal and State Agencies 

Work plans were established with and wildlife damage management methods were used consistent with 

BLM and Forest Service land use plans when and where it was determined necessary by WS personnel to 

resolve or prevent problems. M-44s and gas cartridges were used according to the label and userestrictions, and pesticide use proposals approved by the land management agencies. Also, M-44s were 

removed during bird hunting seasons. 

Summary of Public Involvement 

Issues related to the proposed action were initially developed by an interdisciplinary team process 

involving WS, USFS, BLM, USFWS, NDDA, NDSUES, and NDGF. A Multi Agency Team of WS, 
North Dakota Predator Damage Management EA Supplement - 16 -

USFS, BLM, USFWS, NDGF, NDDA and NDSUES personnel refined these issues, prepared objectives 

and identified preliminary alternatives. Due to interest in the North Dakota WS Program, the multi 

agency team concurred that North Dakota Ws include an invitation for public involvement in the USDA 

(1997a) process. Notice of the proposed action and invitation for public involvement were placed in six 

newspapers with circulation throughout North Dakota. Public comments were documented from 26 

letters or written comments. The responses represented a wide range of opinions, both supporting and 

opposing the proposal or parts of the proposal. All comments were analyzed to identify new issues, 

alternatives, or to redirect the objectives of the program. 

As part of a public review and comment process, the Supplement is being made available through a NOA 

published for 3 consecutive days, in The Bismarck Tribune, the paper used for legal notices by WS in 

North Dakota (Fed. Reg. 72:13237-13238, March 21, 2007). The Supplement was also available at 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/regulations/ws/ws_nepa_environmental_documents.shtml and 

http://www.regulations.gov. These notices stated that WS was providing an opportunity for public review 

and comment for 30-days and copies of USDA (1997a), Supplement may be obtained from the USDAAPHIS-WS. All responses are maintained in the administrative file located at the North Dakota ADC 

State Office, 1824 N 11th Street, Bismarck, North Dakota 58501-1913. 

Compliance and Monitoring 

The WS program in North Dakota reviews program activities to ensure that program activities are within 

the scope of analysis contained in USDA (1997a, 2003, 2009). If WS’ activities identified during 

monitoring are outside the scope of the analyses in USDA (1997a, 2003, 2009) or if new issues are 

identified from available information, further analysis will occur and USDA (1997a, 2003, 2009) will be 

supplemented to the degree as identified by those processes pursuant to NEPA. WS’ PDM has been 

conducted in a manner consistent with all applicable environmental regulations, including the ESA and 

NEPA. WS representatives will continue to consult with NDFGD and USFWS regarding the conduct of 

wildlife damage management. Substantial changes in the scope of work or changes in relevant guidance 

documents or environmental regulations may trigger the need for further analysis. 

ISSUES SINCE COMPLETION OF USDA (1997a and USDA 2003) 

WS PDM activities, including aerial gunning, are only conducted on those areas where the landowner or 

lessee has signed an “Agreement for Control” or where work plans have been discussed with appropriate 

state and federal land management agencies. Analysis of North Dakota WS aerial operations have been 

analyzed in USDA (2003, 2009) and that analysis and other WS’ aerial operations analysis concluded that 

WS’ aerial gunning is not causing any significant adverse impacts to wildlife, public land and users, or 

the environment (USDA 2005). From FY03 to FY10, North Dakota WS’ aerial operations were 

conducted on less than 2% of the total North Dakota land base. Those aerial operations did not result in 

any fuel spills or fires and there were no reports of threats to public health or safety, therefore the 2003 

analysis of those issues is still valid. 

The use of aircraft increases the cost effectiveness of PDM, and in one study reduced the cost per coyote 

removed by about $700 (Wagner and Conover 1999). This reduction of cost was accompanied by a 

reduction in necessity for subsequent PDM (Wagner and Conover 1999), which further eliminates 

potential impacts, making aerial gunning the most efficient and cost effective tool available for certain 

situations. 

The amount of time spent conducting aerial operations varies depending on the severity of losses 

experienced by the cooperators and on the weather. Low-level aerial operations are restricted to visual 

flight rules and are impractical in high winds or at times when predators are not easily visible. North 
North Dakota Predator Damage Management EA Supplement - 17 -

Dakota WS spent a total of 3,135 hours conducting aerial operations from FY03 – FY10, averaging 392 

hours per year (Table 7). The aerial operations were conducted on less than 2% of the land area of North 

Dakota in any year. North Dakota WS’ aerial operations are minor in terms of geographic scope because 

more than 98% of the land area in the State is not exposed to such activity. 

Effects on Wildlife from WS Gunshot Noise 

The time spent shooting at coyotes during aerial operations is an exceedingly small proportion of the total 

time spent flying. A typical “pass,” in which shots are taken, requires only a few seconds and usually 

involves 2 to 3 shots with a 12 gauge shotgun. It is estimated that on average no more than 30-45 seconds 

of every hour spent flying are involved in shooting (L. Burraston, WS 2005 pers. comm.) which means 

that only 1-2% of the time spent aerial gunning is actually spent shooting at target animals and generating 

gunshot noises. 

Gunshot noise from WS aerial gunning operations probably has no discernable or at most only minor 

potential to adversely affect non-target wildlife because of the limited frequency of gunshot noise, 

duration of WS flights and the small proportion of geographic area involved in North Dakota (i.e., less 

than 2%) which means only small proportions of non-target wildlife populations would hear noise from 

WS gunshots. Pater (1981) reported that muzzle blast is louder in the direction toward which the weapon 

is pointed by up to 14 decibels. Additionally, shooting from an aircraft is usually at an extreme 

downward angle. Thus, shooting downward toward the ground serves to lessen the noise in lateral 

directions. WS personnel on the ground observing aerial gunning report that the gunshot noise heard at a 

distance of 150 yards or more sounds like a subtle "pop" (L. Burraston, WS 2005 pers. comm.). This 

indicates shotgun noise from the aircraft is minimal and is not loud enough to cause disturbance to nontarget wildlife. 

Summary 

North Dakota WS has reviewed the potential environmental effects and the scope of analysis contained in 

the EA and subsequent EA analyses (USDA 1997a, 2003, 2009). USDA (1997a, 2003, 2009), the 

FONSIs, and monitoring reports determined that activities conducted pursuant to USDA (1997a, 2003, 

Table 7. Time and acres flown in North 

Dakota in FY 03 through FY 10 (MIS 

FY03-FY10). 

Fiscal Year 

(FY) 

Fixed wing 

Hours 

Fixed wing 

acres* 

03 332 643,653 

04 211 315,123 

05 534 687,658 

06 459 627,893 

07 329 339,523 

08 425 526,921 

09 469 641,250 

10 376 523,429 

Total 3,135 4,305,450 

Average 392 538,181 

* Represents total acreage on agreements flown. The 

actual acreage flown is less than the total, as terrain, 

vegetation and need do not justify flying each and every
North Dakota Predator Damage Management EA Supplement - 18 -

2009) are within the scope of analyses, enhanced public safety and no substantive changes to the program 

have occurred. The analysis in USDA (1997a), subsequent monitoring reports, and the 2003 and 2009 

analyses did not identify any cumulative impacts nor are there any significant impacts to the quality of the 

human environment from the current PDM program conducted by North Dakota WS. The area (acres) 

that North Dakota WS conducts PDM continues to be a low proportion (less than 5%) of the total land 

area of the State. The effects to predator and non-target populations that North Dakota WS targets during 

PDM are low and do not have long-term adverse impact on any species, nor are there any adverse affects 

to human health and safety from WS actions (Tucker 2011). In addition, WS will continue to conduct 

PDM according to program procedures, protective measures discussed in USDA (1997a,), monitor 

activities, in compliance with relevant laws, regulations, policies, orders, and procedures, including the 

ESA, and Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and in coordination with the NDGFD. 

Based on this supplement, the issues identified in USDA (1997a, 2003) are best addressed by continuing 

the current program. The current program has the lowest overall negative environmental consequences 

combined with the highest positive effects. The current program successfully addressed: (1) PDM using a 

combination of the most effective methods and does not adversely affect the environment, property, 

and/or non-target species, including T&E species; (2) it offers the greatest chance at maximizing 

effectiveness and benefits to resource owners and managers while minimizing cumulative impacts on the 

quality of the human environment; (3) it presents the greatest chance of maximizing net benefits while 

minimizing adverse impacts to public health and safety; and (4) it offers a balanced approach to the issues 

of humaneness and aesthetics when all facets of those issues are considered. However, the foremost 

considerations are that: 1) PDM will only be conducted by WS at the request of landowners/managers, 2) 

management actions are consistent with applicable laws, regulations, policies and orders and coordinated 

with the NDGFD, and 3) no adverse impacts to the environment were identified. The North Dakota WS 

program will continue to provide effective and practical TA and direct operational management that 

reduce damage. 
North Dakota Predator Damage Management EA Supplement - 19 -

Literature Cited: 

Allen, S. H. 1999. Study No. E-I: Computer simulation of furbearer population dynamics. Project No. W-67-R-39, 

Report No. A-594, North Dakota Game and Fish Department, Bismarck, ND. 

Boddicker, M. L. 1980. Trapping Rocky Mountain furbearers. Colorado Trapper’s Assn., Littleton, CO. 

Bodenchuk, M. J., J. R. Mason., and W. C. Pitt. 2002. Economics of predation management in relation to 

agriculture, wildlife, and human health and safety. (Pages 80-90) in L. Clark, editor. Human Conflicts with 

Wildlife: Economic Considerations. 

Clark, W.R., J.J. Hasbrouck, J.M. Kienzler, and T.F. Glueck. 1989. Vital statistics and harvest of an Iowa raccoon 

population. J. Wildl. Manage. 53: 982-990. 

Conover, M. 2002. Resolving human-wildlife conflicts: The science of wildlife damage management. CRC Press 

Company, Lewis Publishers, New York, New York, USA. 

Gehring, T. M., K. C. VerCauteren, and J. Landry. 2010. Livestock protection dogs in the 21st century: Is an 

ancient tool relevant to modern conservation challenges? BioScience 60: 299-308. 

MIS FY03-FY10. Unpublished management information system data for the North Dakota Wildlife Services 

program, FY03-FY10. 

NASS (National Agricultural Statistics Service). 1999. 1999 Livestock wildlife damage survey results. USDA, 

NASS, Survey Management Division, Washington D.C. 20250. 

NASS. 2004a. Sheep and Goats. NASS, North Dakota Field Office, Fargo, ND. Released January 30, 2004. 2 

pages. 

NASS. 2004b Cattle Inventory. NASS, North Dakota Field Office, Fargo, ND. Released January 30, 2004. 2 

pages. 

NASS. 2005. Sheep and Goats Death Loss. NASS, Agricultural Statistics Board, USDA, Washington D.C. 

Released May 6, 2005. 21 pages. 

NASS. 2006. Cattle Death Loss. NASS, Agricultural Statistics Board, USDA, Washington D.C. Released May 5, 

2006. 15 pages. 

NASS. 2010. Sheep and Goats Death Loss. NASS, Agricultural Statistics Board, USDA, Washington D.C. 

Released May 27, 2010. 16 pages. 

NASS. 2011a. Sheep and Goats. NASS, North Dakota Field Office, Fargo, ND. Released January 28, 2011. 2 

pages. 

NASS. 2011b. Cattle Inventory. NASS, North Dakota Field Office, Fargo, ND. Released January 28, 2011. 2 

pages. 

Pater, L. L. 1981. Gun blast far field peak overpressure contours (Technical Report NSWC TR 79-442): Naval 

Surface Weapons Center. 

Pils, C. M., M. A. Martin, and E. L. Lange. 1981. Harvest, age structure, survivorship, and productivity of red 

foxes in Wisconsin, 1975-78. Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources Tech. Bull. 124. 

Sanderson, G. C. 1987. Raccoon. (Pages 487-400) in M. Novak, J.A. Baker, M.E Obbard, and B. Malloch eds. 

Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. Ontario Trappers Assoc., Nroth Bay, Canada. 

Slate, D. A., R. Owens, G. Connolly, and G. Simmons. 1992. Decision making for wildlife damage management. 

Trans. North Am. Wildl. Nat. Res. Conf. 57: 51-62. 
North Dakota Predator Damage Management EA Supplement - 20 -

Storm, G. L., and M. W. Tzilkowski. 1982. Furbearer population dynamics: a local and regional management 

perspective. Proc. Midwest Fish Wildl. Conf. 43:69-90. 

The Wildlife Society. 2010. TWS Position statement on wildlife damage management. The Wildlife Society, 

Bethesda, Md. 2 pp. 

Timm, R. M., and R. H. Schmidt. 1989. Management problems encountered with livestock guarding dogs on the 

University of California, Hopland Field Station. Proc.Great Plains Wildl. Damage Control Workshop 9: 54-

58. 

Tucker, S. A. 2011. Study No. E-II: Furbearer harvest regulations study. Project No. W-67-R-50, Report No. C450, North Dakota Game and Fish Department, Bismarck, ND. 

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services). 1997a. 

Wildlife damage management in North Dakota for the protection of livestock, public health and safety, 

property, and wildlife EA. USDA-APHIS-WS, North Dakota State Office, 2110 Miriam Circle, Bismarck, 

North Dakota 58501-2502. 

USDA. 1997b (revised). Final Environmental Impact Statement. USDA, APHIS, ADC Operational Support Staff, 

6505 Belcrest RD, Room 820 Federal Bldg, Hyattsville, MD 20782. 

USDA. 2003. Wildlife damage management in North Dakota for the protection of livestock, public health and 

safety, property, and wildlife EA supplement. USDA-APHIS-WS, North Dakota State Office, 2110 Miriam 

Circle, Bismarck, North Dakota 58501-2502. 

USDA. 2005. Predator damage management in Colorado EA. WS State Office, 12345 West Alameda Parkway, 

Suite 204, Lakewood, CO 80228. 

USDA. 2009. 5-year environmental monitoring review for Wildlife damage management in North Dakota for the 

protection of livestock, public health and safety, property, and wildlife EA. USDA-APHIS-WS, North Dakota 

State Office, 2110 Miriam Circle, Bismarck, North Dakota 58501-2502. 

Wagner, K. K. and M. R. Conover. 1999. Effect of preventive coyote hunting on sheep losses to coyote predation. 

J. Wildl. Manage. 63: 606-612. 
North Dakota Predator Damage Management EA Supplement - 21 -

Appendix A 

North Dakota WS Predator Damage Management EA Quality Assurance Checklist10 

Effects on Target Species Populations 

 Management actions are consistent with applicable laws, regulations, policies and orders and 

coordinated with the NDGFD. 

 Management actions were directed toward localized populations or groups and/or individual 

offending animals, depending on the species and magnitude of the problem. 

Effects on Non-target Species Populations 

 Non-target animals captured were released at the capture site unless the WS Specialist determined 

that they would not survive. 

 Traps and snares were set at least 30 feet from exposed carcasses to avoid or minimize risk of 

capturing scavenging bird species. 

Protecting Human Safety 

 Conspicuous, bilingual warning signs alerting people to the presence of damage management 

devices were placed at major access points when devices were set in the field. 

 No injuries or illnesses to members of the public occurred as a result of WS activities. 

Use of Pesticides 

 All pesticides used were registered with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and NDDA 

and label directions were followed. 

 WS employees followed label directions for pesticide use during the reporting period. 

 No violations of pesticide laws or regulations were noted or documented during field inspections 

by program or project managers or by state or federal pesticide regulators. 

 WS employees that used pesticides during the reporting period were trained and, for restricted use 

pesticides, certified to use such pesticides in accordance with EPA and NDDA approved 

programs and participate in continuing education programs to keep abreast of developments and 

to maintain their certifications. 

Historic Preservation 

 WS determined this program’s actions are not the kind of actions with potential to affect historic 

resources. 

Humaneness 

 

10 Checklist of Standard Operating Procedures to minimize or avoid adverse environmental effects. 
North Dakota Predator Damage Management EA Supplement - 22 -

 Chemical immobilization/euthanasia or other euthanasia procedures (e.g., gunshot to the brain) 

that minimize pain were used to kill captured target species slated for lethal removal and/or to kill 

captured non-target species deemed unable to survive if released. 

 Pan tension devices to minimize the likelihood of capturing non-target species that are lighter in 

weight than the target species were used on foot-hold traps. 

 Breakaway snare locks are used on all neck snares. 

 Research continued to improve the selectivity and humaneness of management devices. 

Endangered/Sensitive Species 

 “Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives” (RPAs) or “Reasonable and Prudent Measures with 

Terms and Conditions” (RPMs) from the 1992 programmatic USFWS BO and the 2004 BO from 

the USFWS Bismarck, ND office were applicable to this action. WS will investigate project 

areas for wolf sign prior to setting foothold traps, neck snares, or M-44 devices to manage coyote 

predation. If wolf sign is detected and the verified loss of livestock is attributable to coyotes but 

not wolves, WS will manage the coyote predation with methods which require positive 

identification of the target animal (aerial gunning or shooting). The use of other damage 

management methods can resume provided no additional wolf sign is detected during the next 7 

days. 

 To the best of the knowledge of the project or program’s manager, all of the RPAs and/or RPMs 

were met. 

 Foothold traps and neck snares were not set within 1 mile of known bald eagle nest locations 

from March 15 through August 1. 

 Foothold traps, neck snares, and the M-44 device were not set within 1 mile of known bald eagle 

winter roost locations from November 15 through March 30. 

 For federal lands, sensitive species were addressed during the Work Planning process. 

Native American Cultural Issues 

 No activities were conducted on Native American tribal lands and actions would only be 

conducted on tribal lands at the request of the tribe. 

Land Management Issues/Conflicts 

 WS developed work plans in coordination with the BLM and/or U.S. Forest Service (USFS) 

officials before conducting activities on BLM and USFS lands. 

 Work conducted on BLM or USFS lands was in accordance with the developed work plans 

referenced above. 

 Vehicle access was limited to existing roads unless otherwise authorized by the land management 

agency. 
North Dakota Predator Damage Management EA Supplement - 23 -

 No conflicts with public land users occurred during the reporting period. (If conflicts did occur, 

further explanation should be included in the monitoring report). 

 No work was conducted in any designated recreational areas or other special management areas. 

Additional Measures to Minimize Impacts 

 The WS Decision Model was used to identify the most appropriate wildlife damage management 

strategies and their impacts.