2512 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Species 

Historic range Vertebrate population where endangered 

or threatened Status When listed Critical habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

Highway 84 and that portion of UT 

south of Highway 80 from Echo to the 

UT/WY Stateline); and (11) Western 

WA (that portion of WA west of the 

centerline of Highway 97 and Highway 

17 north of Mesa and that portion of 

WA west of the centerline of Highway 

395 south of Mesa). Mexico 

* * * * * * * 

Wolf, Mexican ........... Canis lupus baileyi Southwestern 

United States and 

Mexico.

Entire, except where included in an experimental population as set forth in 

17.84(k).

E .......................... NA NA 

Wolf, Mexican ........... Canis lupus baileyi Southwestern 

United States and 

Mexico.

U.S.A. (portions of AZ and NM)—see 

17.84(k).

XN .......................... NA 17.84(k) 

*******

* * * * * 

Dated: January 7, 2015. 

Stephen Guertin, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00441 Filed 1–15–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2013–0056; 

FXES11130900000–156–FF09E42000] 

RIN 1018–AY46 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Revision to the 

Regulations for the Nonessential 

Experimental Population of the 

Mexican Wolf 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), revise the 

regulations for the nonessential 

experimental population of the Mexican 

wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) under section 

10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended. This action is being 

taken in coordination with our final rule 

in this Federal Register to list the 

Mexican wolf as an endangered 

subspecies. The regulatory revisions in 

this rule will improve the project to 

reintroduce a nonessential experimental 

population, thereby increasing potential 

for recovery of this species. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective 

February 17, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule, along with 

the public comments, environmental 

impact statement (EIS), and record of 

decision, are available on the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. 

FWS–R2–ES–2013–0056 or from the 

office listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sherry Barrett, Mexican Wolf Recovery 

Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, New Mexico Ecological 

Services Field Office, 2105 Osuna Road 

NE., Albuquerque, NM 87113; by 

telephone 505–761–4704; or by 

facsimile 505–346–2542. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

Further contact information can be 

found on the Mexican Wolf Recovery 

Program’s Web site at http://

www.fws.gov/southwest/es/

mexicanwolf/. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. We are 

revising the regulations under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act or ESA) that 

established the experimental population 

of the Mexican wolf (Canis lupus 

baileyi) to further its conservation by 

improving the effectiveness of the 

reintroduction project in managing the 

experimental population. We intend to 

do this by: (1) Modifying the geographic 

boundaries in which Mexican wolves 

are managed south of Interstate-40 in 

Arizona and New Mexico under section 

10(j) of the Act; (2) modifying the 

management regulations that govern the 

initial release, translocation, removal 

and take of Mexican wolves; and (3) 

issuing a permit under section 

10(a)(1)(A) of the Act for management of 

Mexican wolves both inside and outside 

of the Mexican Wolf Experimental 

Population Area (MWEPA). Revisions to 

the regulations, which were 

promulgated in 1998, and the section 

10(a)(1)(A) permit are needed because: 

(1) Under the current regulations we 

will not be able to achieve the necessary 

population growth, distribution, and 

recruitment that would contribute to the 

persistence of, and improve the genetic 

variation within, the experimental 

population; (2) there is a potential for 

Mexican wolves to disperse into 

southern Arizona and New Mexico from 

reintroduction areas in the States of 

Sonora and Chihuahua in northern 

Mexico; and (3) certain provisions lack 

clarity, are inadequate, or limit the 

efficacy and flexibility of our 

management of the experimental 

population of Mexican wolves. 

Also, this final rule is necessitated by 

a related action we are taking to classify 

the Mexican wolf as an endangered 

subspecies. The Mexican wolf has been 

listed under the Act in the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 

17.11(h) as part of the gray wolf (Canis 

lupus) listing since 1978. Therefore, 

when we designated the Mexican wolf 

experimental population in 1998 (1998 

Final Rule; 63 FR 1752, January 12, 

1998), it corresponded to the gray wolf 

listing in even though it was specific to 

our Mexican wolf recovery effort. With 

this publication of the final rule to list 

the Mexican wolf as an endangered 

subspecies, we need to revise 50 CFR 

17.11(h) such that the experimental 

population will be associated with the 

Mexican wolf subspecies listing rather 

than with the gray wolf species. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2513 

The basis for our action. The 1982 

amendments to the Act included the 

addition of section 10(j), which allows 

for reintroduced populations of listed 

species to be designated as 

‘‘experimental populations.’’ Under 

section 10(j) of the Act and our 

regulations at 50 CFR 17.81, the Service 

may designate as an experimental 

population a population of endangered 

or threatened species that has been or 

will be released into suitable natural 

habitat outside the species’ current 

natural range (but within its probable 

historical range, absent a finding by the 

Director of the Service in the extreme 

case that the primary habitat of the 

species has been unsuitably and 

irreversibly altered or destroyed). With 

the experimental population 

designation, the relevant population is 

treated as threatened for purposes of 

section 9 of the Act, regardless of the 

species’ designation elsewhere in its 

range. Treating the experimental 

population as threatened allows us the 

discretion to devise management 

programs and special regulations for 

such a population. Section 4(d) of the 

Act allows us to adopt any regulations 

that are necessary and advisable to 

provide for the conservation of a 

threatened species. When designating 

an experimental population, the general 

regulations that extend most section 9 

prohibitions to threatened species do 

not apply to that species, and the 

section 10(j) rule contains the 

prohibitions and exemptions necessary 

and advisable to conserve that species. 

We prepared an EIS. We prepared a 

final Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) to ensure that we 

considered the environmental impacts 

of the designation of the proposed 

nonessential experimental population of 

Mexican wolves. From October through 

December 2007, we conducted a public 

scoping process under NEPA based on 

our intent to modify the 1998 Final 

Rule. We developed a scoping report in 

April 2008, but we did not propose or 

finalize any modifications to the 1998 

Final Rule at that time. We again 

initiated scoping on August 5, 2013 (78 

FR 47268). We utilized all information 

collected since the 2007 scoping process 

began in the development of the draft 

EIS published in the Federal Register 

on July 25, 2014 (79 FR 43358). We used 

information from the analyses in the 

final EIS published in the Federal 

Register on November 25, 2014 (79 FR 

70154), to inform our final decision on 

the revision to the regulations for the 

experimental population of the Mexican 

wolf. 

We conducted peer review. In 

accordance with our joint policy 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we 

conducted peer review on our June 13, 

2013 (78 FR 35719), and our July 25, 

2014 (79 FR 43358), proposed rules. The 

purpose of such review is to ensure that 

our final rule for this species is based on 

scientifically sound data, assumptions, 

and analyses. We invited six peer 

reviewers to comment, during the open 

public comment period, on our use and 

interpretation of the science used in 

developing our proposed rule. We 

considered all comments and 

information we received during the 

comment periods on the proposed rules 

during preparation of this final 

rulemaking. 

Previous Federal Actions 

The Mexican wolf was listed under 

the Act as an endangered subspecies in 

1976 (41 FR 17736, April 28, 1976). In 

1978, the Service listed the entire gray 

wolf species in North America south of 

Canada as endangered, except in 

Minnesota where it was listed as 

threatened (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978). 

This 1978 listing at the species level 

subsumed the previous Mexican wolf 

subspecies listing. However, the 1978 

listing rule (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978) 

stated that we would continue to 

recognize the Mexican wolf as a valid 

biological subspecies for purposes of 

research and conservation. 

After the 1978 listing, the Service 

initiated recovery programs for the gray 

wolf in three broad geographical regions 

of the country: The Northern Rocky 

Mountains, the Western Great Lakes, 

and the Southwest. In the Southwest, a 

recovery plan was developed 

specifically for the Mexican wolf, 

acknowledging and implementing the 

regional gray wolf recovery focus on the 

conservation of the Mexican wolf as a 

subspecies (Service 1982). The 1982 

Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan did not 

provide recovery criteria, but 

recommended an initial two-pronged 

approach to recovery to establish a 

captive-breeding program and 

reintroduce captive Mexican wolves to 

the wild (Service 1982, p. 28). 

In 1996, we completed a final 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), 

‘‘Reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf 

Within Its Historic Range in the 

Southwestern United States,’’ after 

assessing potential locations for 

reintroduction of the Mexican wolf 

(Service 1996). On April 3, 1997, the 

Department of the Interior issued its 

Record of Decision on the final EIS (62 

FR 15915), and on January 12, 1998, we 

published a final rule in the Federal 

Register to establish the Mexican Wolf 

Experimental Population Area 

(MWEPA) in central Arizona and New 

Mexico (63 FR 1752; hereafter referred 

to as the 1998 Final Rule). 

On August 4, 2010, the Service 

published a 90-day finding in the 

Federal Register on two petitions to list 

the Mexican wolf as an endangered 

subspecies with critical habitat (75 FR 

46894). In the 90-day finding, we 

determined that the petitions presented 

substantial scientific information that 

the Mexican wolf may warrant 

reclassification as a subspecies or 

distinct population segment (DPS). As a 

result of this finding, we initiated a 

status review. On October 9, 2012, we 

published our 12-month finding (77 FR 

61375) stating that the listing of the 

Mexican wolf as a subspecies or DPS 

was not warranted at that time because 

Mexican wolves already receive the 

protections of the Act under the specieslevel gray wolf listing of 1978. 

On February 29, 2012, we completed 

a 5-year review of the gray wolf listed 

entity, recommending that the entity 

currently described on the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

should be revised to reflect the 

distribution and status of gray wolf 

populations in the lower 48 States and 

Mexico by removing all areas currently 

included in its range, as described in the 

CFR, except where there is a valid 

species, subspecies, or DPS that is 

threatened or endangered (Service 

2012). 

On June 13, 2013 (78 FR 35664), we 

concurrently proposed a rule in the 

Federal Register to delist the gray wolf 

and list the Mexican wolf subspecies as 

endangered. The proposal to list the 

Mexican wolf as an endangered 

subspecies necessitated that we propose 

a revision to the regulations for the 

experimental population of the Mexican 

wolf in Arizona and New Mexico in 

order to correctly document this 

population as an experimental 

population of the Mexican wolf 

subspecies rather than the gray wolf 

species found in the current CFR. We 

also proposed several changes to the 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
2514 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

section 10(j) rule and management 

regulations of Mexican wolves to 

improve the effectiveness of the 

reintroduction project in managing the 

experimental population. Therefore, on 

June 13, 2013 (78 FR 35719), we 

published a proposed rule to revise the 

regulations for the experimental 

population designation of the Mexican 

wolf. That proposal had a 90-day 

comment period ending September 11, 

2013. 

On August 5, 2013 (78 FR 47268), we 

published a notice of intent to prepare 

an EIS in conjunction with the proposed 

rule to revise the regulations for the 

experimental population designation of 

the Mexican wolf. That notice of intent 

to prepare an EIS had a 45-day comment 

period ending September 19, 2013. On 

September 5, 2013 (78 FR 54613), we 

extended the public comment period on 

the proposed rule to revise the 

regulations for the experimental 

population designation of the Mexican 

wolf to end on October 28, 2013, and 

announced public hearings. On October 

28, 2013 (78 FR 64192), we once again 

extended the public comment period on 

the proposed rule to revise the 

regulations for the experimental 

population designation of the Mexican 

wolf to end on December 17, 2013, and 

announced public hearings. 

On July 25, 2014 (79 FR 43358), we 

proposed a new revision to the 

regulations for the experimental 

population of the Mexican wolf, and 

announced the availability of a draft EIS 

on the proposal. That proposal had a 60- 

day comment period ending September 

23, 2014. 

In a July 29, 2013, stipulated 

settlement agreement between the 

Service and the Center for Biological 

Diversity, the Service agreed to submit 

to the Federal Register for publication, 

on or before January 12, 2015, a final 

determination concerning the proposed 

section 10(j) rule modification. This 

final rule revising the regulations for the 

existing experimental population of the 

Mexican wolf meets that agreement. 

Background 

Species Information 

The Mexican wolf is the smallest 

extant gray wolf subspecies in North 

America. Adults weigh 50 to 90 pounds 

(lb) (23 to 41 kilograms (kg)) with a 

length of 5 to 6 ft (1.5 to 1.8 m) and 

height at shoulder of 25 to 32 in (63 to 

81 cm) (Brown 1988, p. 119). Mexican 

wolves are typically a patchy black, 

brown to cinnamon, and cream color, 

with primarily light underparts (Brown 

1988, p. 118). Solid black or white 

coloration, as seen in other North 

American gray wolves, does not exist in 

Mexican wolves. The basic life history 

for the Mexican wolf is similar to that 

of other gray wolves (Mech 1970, entire; 

Service 1982, p. 11; Service 2010, pp. 

32–41). 

Historically, Mexican wolves were 

distributed across portions of the 

southwestern United States and 

northern and central Mexico. In the 

United States, this range included 

eastern, central, and southern Arizona; 

southern New Mexico; and western 

Texas (Brown 1983, pp. 10–11; Parsons 

1996, pp. 102–104). Maps of Mexican 

wolf historical range are available in the 

scientific literature (Young and 

Goldman 1944, p. 414; Hall and Kelson, 

1959, p. 849; Hall 1981, p. 932; Bogan 

and Mehlhop 1983, p. 17; Nowak 1995, 

p. 395; Parsons 1996, p. 106). The 

southernmost extent of the Mexican 

wolf’s range in Mexico is consistently 

portrayed as ending near Oaxaca (Hall 

1981, p. 932; Nowak 1995, p. 395). 

Depiction of the northern extent of the 

Mexican wolf’s pre-settlement range 

among the available descriptions varies 

depending on the authors’ taxonomic 

treatment of several subspecies and 

their interpretation of where 

reproductive interaction between 

neighboring wolf populations occurred 

(see this Federal Register publication of 

the final rule determining endangered 

status for the Mexican wolf (Canis lupus 

baileyi)). 

Mexican wolves were associated with 

montane woodlands characterized by 

sparsely to densely forested 

mountainous terrain consisting of 

evergreen oaks (Quercus spp.) or pinyon 

(Pinus edulus) and juniper (Juniperus 

spp.) to higher elevation pine (Pinus 

spp.), mixed-conifer forests, and 

adjacent grasslands at elevations of 

4,000 to 5,000 ft (1,219 to 1,524 m) 

where ungulate prey were abundant. 

Mexican wolves were believed to have 

preyed upon white-tailed deer 

(Odocoileus virginianus), mule deer (O. 

hemionus), elk (Cervus elaphus), 

collared peccaries (javelina) (Tayassu 

tajacu), pronghorn (Antilocapra 

americana), bighorn sheep (Ovis 

canadensis), jackrabbits (Lepus spp.), 

cottontails (Sylvilagus spp.), and small 

rodents (Parsons and Nicholopoulos 

1995, pp. 141–142); white-tailed deer 

and mule deer were believed to be the 

primary sources of prey (Brown 1988, p. 

132; Bednarz 1988, p. 29). 

Today, Mexican wolves in Arizona 

and New Mexico inhabit evergreen 

pine-oak woodlands (i.e., Madrean 

woodlands), pinyon-juniper woodlands 

(i.e., Great Basin conifer forests), and 

mixed-conifer montane forests (i.e., 

Rocky Mountain, or petran, forests) that 

are inhabited by elk, mule deer, and 

white-tailed deer (Service 1996, pp. 3– 

5; AMOC and IFT 2005, p. TC–3). 

Mexican wolves in the Blue Range Wolf 

Recovery Area (BRWRA) show a strong 

preference for elk compared to other 

ungulates (Adaptive Management 

Oversight Committee (AMOC) and 

Interagency Field Team (IFT) 2005, p. 

TC–14, Reed et al. 2006, pp. 56, 61; 

Merkle et al. 2009, p. 482). Other 

documented sources of prey include 

deer and occasionally small mammals 

and birds (Reed et al. 2006, p. 55). 

Mexican wolves are also known to prey 

and scavenge on livestock (Merkle et al. 

2009, p. 482; Breck et al. 2011, entire; 

Reed et al. 2006, p. 1129; AMOC and 

IFT 2005, p. TC–15)). 

Recovery Efforts 

By the early 1970s, the Mexican wolf 

was extirpated in the United States, and 

by the 1980s, it was also considered 

extirpated in Mexico. The United States 

and Mexico signed the Mexican Wolf 

Recovery Plan in 1982 (Service 1982). 

The recovery plan did not contain 

objective and measurable recovery 

criteria for delisting as required by 

section 4(f)(1) of the Act because the 

status of the Mexican wolf was so dire 

that the recovery team could not foresee 

full recovery and eventual delisting 

(Service 1982, p. 23). Instead, the 

recovery plan contained a ‘‘prime 

objective’’ to ensure the immediate 

survival of the Mexican wolf. The prime 

objective of the 1982 recovery plan was: 

‘‘To conserve and ensure the survival of 

Canis lupus baileyi by maintaining a 

captive breeding program and 

reestablishing a viable, self-sustaining 

population of at least 100 Mexican 

wolves in the middle to high elevations 

of a 5,000-square-mi area (12,950- 

square-km) within the Mexican wolf’s 

historic range’’ (Service 1982, p. 23). 

In the June 2013 proposed revision 

(78 FR 35719), we stated that the 

purpose of the experimental population 

is to accomplish the prime objective of 

the 1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan to 

establish a viable, self-sustaining 

population of at least 100 Mexican 

wolves in the wild. That number was 

derived solely to prevent the Mexican 

wolf from going extinct, not to recover 

the species. We acknowledge that a 

scientifically based population goal is 

needed as part of the measurable 

recovery criteria in order to determine 

when removing the Mexican wolf from 

the endangered species list is 

appropriate. We intend to establish a 

population goal as part of the recovery 

criteria for delisting in a future revision 

to the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan as 

soon as feasible. The population 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2515 

objective of 300 to 325 Mexican wolves 

in the MWEPA established in this final 

rule would provide for the persistence 

of this population and enable it to 

contribute to the next phase of working 

toward full recovery of the Mexican 

wolf and its removal from the 

endangered species list. In other words, 

the Mexican wolves in the MWEPA 

population will contribute to the 

delisting criteria, in addition to other 

populations, as necessary. 

A binational captive-breeding 

program between the United States and 

Mexico, referred to as the Mexican Wolf 

Species Survival Plan (SSP), was 

initiated in 1977 to 1980 with the 

capture of the last remaining Mexican 

wolves in the wild in Mexico and 

subsequent addition of wolves from 

captivity in Mexico and the United 

States. Through the breeding of the 7 

founding Mexican wolves and 

generations of their offspring, the 

captive population has expanded to 

approximately 248 wolves in 55 

facilities, including 37 facilities in the 

United States and 18 facilities in Mexico 

(Siminski and Spevak 2014, p. 2). 

The primary purpose of the SSP is to 

maintain a healthy captive population 

of Mexican wolves for the Service and 

the Direccio ́n General del Vida Silvestre 

(in Mexico) for reintroduction into the 

wild. This program is an essential 

component of Mexican wolf recovery. 

Specifically, the purpose of the SSP is 

to reestablish the Mexican wolf in the 

wild through captive breeding, public 

education, and research. This captive 

population is the sole source of Mexican 

wolves available to reestablish the 

species in the wild and is imperative to 

the success of reintroduction efforts in 

the United States and Mexico. 

Reintroduction efforts to reestablish 

the Mexican wolf in the wild have taken 

place in both the United States and 

Mexico. Mexico initiated a 

reintroduction program with the release 

of five captive-bred Mexican wolves 

into the San Luis Mountains just south 

of the United States-Mexico border in 

October 2011. Through August 2014, 

Mexico released a total of 14 adult 

Mexican wolves, of which 11 died or are 

believed dead, and 1 was removed for 

veterinary care. The remaining two 

adult Mexican wolves were documented 

with five pups in 2014, marking the first 

successful reproductive event in Mexico 

since their extirpation in the 1980s. We 

expect the number of Mexican wolves in 

Mexico to fluctuate from zero to several 

wolves or packs of wolves during 2015 

and into the future in or around Sonora 

and Chihuahua or other Mexican States. 

In the United States, we have focused 

our recovery efforts on the 

reestablishment of Mexican wolves as 

an experimental population under 

section 10(j) of the Act in Arizona and 

New Mexico. We established the 

experimental population of Mexican 

wolves in 1998 to pursue the prime 

objective of the 1982 Mexican Wolf 

Recovery Plan. 

(Figure 1). The reintroduction project 

is a collaborative effort conducted by 

the Service, Forest Service, Arizona 

Game and Fish Department, White 

Mountain Apache Tribe, and U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
2516 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

In the years 1998 through 2002, we 

conducted a high number of initial 

releases and translocations (n = 110) 

and a moderate number of removals (n 

= 58), which contributed to a net gain 

of 38 wolves in the overall population 

and the highest average population 

growth rate (1.003) (e.g., the average 

population growth was approximately 

100 percent per year: Calculated as the 

population count at year two minus the 

population count at year one divided by 

the population at year one) experienced 

by the population. From 2003 through 

2007, we conducted a moderate number 

of initial releases and translocations (n 

= 68) and a high number of removals (n 

= 84), resulting in a net gain of 10 

wolves in the overall population and an 

average population growth rate that was 

relatively flat (0.069). Between 2008 and 

2013, which was characterized by a low 

number of releases and translocations (n 

= 19), but also a low number of 

removals (n = 17), we observed a net 

gain of 31 wolves and a higher average 

population growth rate (0.095) than the 

previous phase (Service 2014, Appendix 

D, p. 1). 

We expect to pursue additional 

recovery efforts for the Mexican wolf 

outside of the MWEPA in the future. In 

the meantime, we expect that managing 

this experimental population in 

accordance with this revised rule will 

contribute to future recovery. We 

initiated the revision of the 1982 

Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan in 2010. 

The revised plan will provide 

information about suitable habitat and 

population sizes for Mexican wolf 

recovery in the United States and 

Mexico. A draft plan will be provided 

for public and peer review before being 

finalized. 

More information about the life 

history, decline, and current status of 

the Mexican wolf in the southwestern 

United States can be found in the final 

rule determining endangered status for 

the Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) 

(published elsewhere in this Federal 

Register), the 1982 Mexican Wolf 

Recovery Plan (Service 1982, pp. 5–8, 

11–12), the 1996 final EIS (Service 1996, 

pp. 1–7), the 1998 Final Rule (63 FR 

1752, January 12, 1998), the Mexican 

Gray Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction 

Project 5-Year Review (Mexican Wolf 

Blue Range Adaptive Management 

Oversight Committee and Interagency 

Field Team 2005, pp. TC–1 to TC–2), 

the Mexican Wolf Conservation 

Assessment (Service 2010, pp. 7–15, 20– 

42), the Mexican Wolf Recovery 

Program Progress reports from 2001 to 

2013, and the 2014 final EIS (Service 

2014). These documents are available 

on-line at http://www.fws.gov/

southwest/es/mexicanwolf/. 

Population Objective for Mexican 

Wolves in the MWEPA 

As noted above, this experimental 

population represents just one 

component of Mexican wolf recovery 

based on our understanding that 

multiple Mexican wolf populations may 

be necessary for recovery. However, for 

purposes of this final rule, we are 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER16JA15.015</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2517 

establishing a population objective for 

the experimental population throughout 

the MWEPA in both Arizona and New 

Mexico based on the best available 

information until future recovery 

planning efforts are able to determine a 

population goal for range-wide recovery. 

We intend for the experimental 

population objective for this population 

to contribute to the future population 

goal established for the range-wide 

recovery of the Mexican wolf. 

Several studies in the scientific 

literature helped inform our 

establishment of a population objective 

for the MWEPA. For instance, Wayne 

and Hedrick (2010, p. 3) recommend 

Mexican wolf recovery criteria to 

include 3 connecting populations of at 

least 250 Mexican wolves in each 

population. Their recommendation was 

based on the genetic aspects (effective 

population size) of the Mexican wolf 

relative to that of the gray wolf in the 

Northern Rocky Mountains and the 

recovery goals established for the 

Northern Rocky Mountains population. 

They suggest that the recovery goals of 

the Northern Rocky Mountains 

population (300 wolves, 30 breeding 

pairs, in 3 populations, with some level 

of connectivity) should serve as a 

starting point for Mexican wolf recovery 

goals because of the degree of 

inbreeding, higher level of humancaused mortality, and lower likelihood 

of persistence of Mexican wolves 

compared with wolves in the Northern 

Rocky Mountains. They conclude that 3 

connected populations of 250 wolves in 

each population would likely be 

necessary to achieve recovery 

rangewide, suggesting that if natural 

gene flow does not occur between these 

populations then artificial movement 

may be necessary (Wayne and Hedrick 

2010, p. 3). 

Carroll et al. (2014) performed more 

sophisticated analyses of potential 

recovery scenarios for the Mexican wolf 

using a population viability model, 

pedigree analyses of Mexican wolves 

currently in the BRWRA or captivity, 

and habitat models related to 

connectivity. Carroll et al. (2014, entire) 

analyzed the variation of mortality and 

dispersal metrics relative to 

probabilities for extinction and quasiextinction (i.e., the probability of being 

relisted to threatened) in a 

metapopulation structure consisting of 

three populations that were connected 

via dispersal. Because two of these 

populations were assumed to have been 

founded using a more genetically 

diverse group of animals than is 

currently present in the experimental 

population in the BRWRA, the average 

viability of the populations was 

significantly higher than predicted for 

the experimental population. 

The population extinction threshold 

was established as a 5 percent 

population extinction risk, as is 

commonly used in recovery plans 

(Carroll et al. 2014, p. 81). The risk of 

extinction varied by both population 

size and the number of effective 

migrants per generation (an effective 

migrant is an animal that comes from 

outside a population and successfully 

reproduces within the population). The 

risk of extinction for population sizes 

below 200 was affected by the number 

of migrants exchanging genetic 

information with the population. When 

located within a metapopulation of 

three equally sized populations, 

populations of 100 had a greater than 5 

percent extinction risk, even with 3 

effective migrants per generation per 

population. Populations of 125 were 

more resilient with 2.5 to 3.0 effective 

migrants per generation. Populations of 

150 with greater than 0.5 effective 

migrants per generation showed 

extinction risk below the 5% threshold 

(Carroll et al. 2014, p. 81). This effect 

occurred in part because the migrants 

provided genetic exchange between the 

populations, which reduced the 

relatedness within each population and, 

therefore, increased persistence for each 

population. 

Carroll et al. (2014, entire) also 

examined a quasi-extinction threshold. 

Quasi-extinction represents the 

likelihood that a population, once it 

exceeds a certain population size, will 

again drop below that size in the future 

(e.g., due to the effects of accumulation 

of genetic inbreeding). In this analysis, 

they demonstrated that certain 

population sizes with higher levels of 

effective migration reduced the 

probability of quasi-extinction (Carroll 

et al. 2014, p. 82). A population 

comprising between 175 and 200 wolves 

had a less than 50 percent probability of 

quasi-extinction depending on whether 

the population had 0.5 to 1.0 effective 

migrants per generation. Population 

sizes of 300 to 325 achieved closer to a 

10 percent probability of quasiextinction regardless of whether the 

population had 0.5 or 1.0 effective 

migrants per generation, suggesting that 

at larger population sizes (above 300) 

increasing migration beyond 0.5 

effective migrants per generation is a 

less important factor, when each 

population is present within a larger 

metapopulation (Carroll et al. 2014, p. 

82). 

Based on Carroll et al. (2014 entire), 

a population objective of at least 300 

Mexican wolves with some number of 

effective migrants would be appropriate 

for a single population objective, 

recognizing that the number of effective 

migrants per generation greatly affects 

population persistence at various 

population sizes. We recommend a 

population objective of 300 to 325 

Mexican wolves within the MWEPA 

throughout both Arizona and New 

Mexico with a minimum of 1 to 2 

effective migrants per generation 

entering the population, depending on 

its size, over the long term. Further 

information on the minimum number of 

effective migrants per generation needed 

per population size is discussed in 

Section 1.2.2 of the final EIS (Service 

2014). In the more immediate future, we 

may conduct additional releases in 

excess of 1–2 effective migrants per 

generation to address the high degree of 

relatedness of wolves in the current 

BRWRA. We will continue to refine this 

information through a revised recovery 

plan. It will be important to ensure that 

a specific number of effective migrants 

are incorporated into the population, in 

this case from captivity, until such time 

as other wild populations are 

established within the context of a 

metapopulation as defined in a Serviceapproved recovery plan (Carroll et al. 

2014, entire). Prior to the establishment 

of other wild Mexican wolf populations 

outside of the MWEPA and 

documentation of effective migrants 

between wild populations, we will need 

to use the captive population as a source 

of migrants for the experimental 

population. 

Why We Need To Revise the 1998 Final 

Rule 

We are revising the regulations to the 

experimental population to further the 

conservation of the Mexican wolf by 

improving the effectiveness of the 

reintroduction project in managing the 

experimental population. We intend to 

do this by: (1) Modifying the geographic 

boundaries in which Mexican wolves 

are managed south of Interstate-40 in 

Arizona and New Mexico under section 

10(j) of the Act; (2) modifying the 

management regulations that govern the 

initial release, translocation, removal, 

and take of Mexican wolves; and (3) 

issuing a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit for 

management of Mexican wolves both 

inside and outside of the MWEPA. 

Revisions to the 1998 Final Rule and the 

section 10(a)(1)(A) permit are needed 

because: (1) Under the current 

regulations we will not be able to 

achieve the necessary population 

growth, distribution, and recruitment 

that would contribute to the persistence 

of, and improve the genetic variation 

within, the experimental population; (2) 

there is a potential for Mexican wolves 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
2518 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

to disperse into southern Arizona and 

New Mexico from reintroduction areas 

in the States of Sonora and Chihuahua 

in northern Mexico; and (3) certain 

provisions lack clarity, are inadequate, 

or limit the efficacy and flexibility of 

our management of the experimental 

population of Mexican wolves. 

Over time and through project 

reviews, annual reports, monitoring, 

and communication with our partners 

and the public, we recognize that 

elements of the 1998 Final Rule 

designation need to be revised to help 

us enhance the growth, stability, and 

success of the experimental population. 

Specifically, the 1998 Final Rule 

currently restricts initial releases of 

Mexican wolves to the Primary 

Recovery Zone, which constitutes only 

16 percent of the BRWRA. This 

provision has constrained the number 

and location of Mexican wolves that can 

be released from captivity into the wild, 

which limits our ability to improve the 

genetic status of the population. Also, 

the 1998 Final Rule has a requirement 

that Mexican wolves stay within the 

BRWRA, which does not allow for 

natural dispersal movements from the 

BRWRA or occupation of the MWEPA. 

This requirement constrains the growth 

of the wild population. Under the 1998 

Final Rule, we are required to 

implement management actions that 

disrupt social structure or lead to 

removal of wolves from the wild when 

a Mexican wolf naturally disperses from 

the BRWRA into the MWEPA. 

Therefore, we are revising a number of 

provisions that were established in the 

1998 Final Rule to further the 

conservation of the Mexican wolf by 

improving the effectiveness of the 

reintroduction project in managing the 

experimental population. 

Statutory and Regulatory Framework 

The Act provides that species listed as 

endangered are afforded protection 

primarily through the prohibitions of 

section 9 and the requirements of 

section 7. Section 9 of the Act, among 

other things, prohibits the take of 

endangered wildlife. ‘‘Take’’ is defined 

by the Act as harass, harm, pursue, 

hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, 

or collect, or attempt to engage in any 

such conduct. Section 7 of the Act 

outlines the procedures for Federal 

interagency cooperation to conserve 

federally listed species and protect 

designated critical habitat. It mandates 

that all Federal agencies use their 

existing authorities to further the 

purposes of the Act by carrying out 

programs for the conservation of listed 

species. It also states that Federal 

agencies must, in consultation with the 

Service, ensure that any action they 

authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

a listed species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. Section 7 of 

the Act does not affect activities 

undertaken on private land unless they 

are authorized, funded, or carried out by 

a Federal agency. 

The 1982 amendments to the Act 

included the addition of section 10(j), 

which allows for the designation of 

reintroduced populations of listed 

species as ‘‘experimental populations.’’ 

Under section 10(j) of the Act and our 

regulations at 50 CFR 17.81, the Service 

may designate as an experimental 

population a population of endangered 

or threatened species that has been or 

will be released into suitable natural 

habitat outside the species’ current 

natural range, but within its probable 

historical range. With the experimental 

population designation, the relevant 

population is treated as threatened, 

regardless of the species’ designation 

elsewhere in its range. Threatened 

status allows us discretion in devising 

management programs and special 

regulations for such a population 

through the use of section 4(d) of the 

Act. Section 4(d) allows us to adopt any 

regulations that are necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation of a threatened species. In 

these situations, the general regulations 

that extend most section 9 prohibitions 

to threatened species do not apply to 

that species, and the rule issued under 

section 10(j) of the Act (hereafter 

referred to as a 10(j) rule) contains the 

prohibitions and exemptions necessary 

and appropriate to conserve that 

species. 

Before authorizing the release as an 

experimental population of any 

population (including eggs, propagules, 

or individuals) of an endangered or 

threatened species, and before 

authorizing any necessary 

transportation to conduct the release, 

the Service must find, by regulation, 

that such release will further the 

conservation of the species. In making 

such a finding, the Service uses the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

to consider: (1) Any possible adverse 

effects on extant populations of a 

species as a result of removal of 

individuals, eggs, or propagules for 

introduction elsewhere; (2) the 

likelihood that any such experimental 

population will become established and 

survive in the foreseeable future; (3) the 

relative effects that establishment of an 

experimental population will have on 

the recovery of the species; and (4) the 

extent to which the introduced 

population may be affected by existing 

or anticipated Federal or State actions or 

private activities within or adjacent to 

the experimental population area. 

Furthermore, as set forth in 50 CFR 

17.81(c), all regulations designating 

experimental populations under section 

10(j) must provide: (1) Appropriate 

means to identify the experimental 

population, including, but not limited 

to, its actual or proposed location, 

actual or anticipated migration, number 

of specimens released or to be released, 

and other criteria appropriate to identify 

the experimental population(s); (2) a 

finding, based solely on the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available, and the supporting factual 

basis, on whether the experimental 

population is, or is not, essential to the 

continued existence of the species in the 

wild; (3) management restrictions, 

protective measures, or other special 

management concerns of that 

population, which may include but are 

not limited to, measures to isolate and 

contain the experimental population 

designated in the regulation from 

natural populations; and (4) a process 

for periodic review and evaluation of 

the success or failure of the release and 

the effect of the release on the 

conservation and recovery of the 

species. 

Under 50 CFR 17.81(d), the Service 

must consult with appropriate State 

game and fish agencies, local 

governmental entities, affected Federal 

agencies, and affected private 

landowners in developing and 

implementing experimental population 

rules. To the maximum extent 

practicable, section 10(j) rules represent 

an agreement between the Service, the 

affected State and Federal agencies, and 

persons holding any interest in land that 

may be affected by the establishment of 

an experimental population. 

Based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available, we must 

determine whether the experimental 

population is essential or nonessential 

to the continued existence of the 

species. The regulations (50 CFR 

17.80(b)) state that an experimental 

population is considered essential if its 

loss would be likely to appreciably 

reduce the likelihood of survival of that 

species in the wild. All other 

populations are considered 

nonessential. 

For the purposes of section 7 of the 

Act, we treat a nonessential 

experimental population as a threatened 

species when it is located within a 

National Wildlife Refuge or unit of the 

National Park Service, and Federal 

agency conservation requirements under 

section 7(a)(1) and the Federal agency 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2519 

consultation requirements of section 

7(a)(2) of the Act apply. Section 7(a)(1) 

requires all Federal agencies to use their 

authorities to carry out programs for the 

conservation of listed species. Section 

7(a)(2) requires that Federal agencies, in 

consultation with the Service, ensure 

that any action authorized, funded, or 

carried out is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of a listed species 

or adversely modify its critical habitat. 

When a nonessential experimental 

population is located outside a National 

Wildlife Refuge or National Park Service 

unit, then, for the purposes of section 7, 

we treat the population as proposed for 

listing and only section 7(a)(1) and 

section 7(a)(4) apply. 

In these instances, a nonessential 

experimental population provides 

additional flexibility because Federal 

agencies are not required to consult 

with us under section 7(a)(2). Section 

7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to 

confer (rather than consult) with the 

Service on actions that are likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

species proposed to be listed. The 

results of a conference are in the form 

of conservation recommendations that 

are optional as the agencies carry out, 

fund, or authorize activities. Because 

the nonessential experimental 

population is, by definition, not 

essential to the continued existence of 

the species, the effects of proposed 

actions affecting the nonessential 

experimental population will generally 

not rise to the level of jeopardizing the 

continued existence of the species. As a 

result, a formal conference will likely 

never be required for Mexican wolves 

established within the experimental 

population area. Nonetheless, some 

agencies voluntarily confer with the 

Service on actions that may affect a 

proposed species. Activities that are not 

carried out, funded, or authorized by 

Federal agencies are not subject to 

provisions or requirements in section 7. 

Section 10(j)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act states 

that critical habitat shall not be 

designated for any experimental 

population that is determined to be 

nonessential. Accordingly, we cannot 

designate critical habitat in areas where 

we establish a nonessential 

experimental population. 

Revisions to the Geographic Area of the 

Mexican Wolf Experimental Population 

We are expanding the MWEPA by 

moving the southern boundary from 

Interstate Highway 10 to the United 

States–Mexico international border 

across Arizona and New Mexico (Figure 

2). Expanding the MWEPA was a 

recommendation in the Mexican Wolf 

Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5- 

Year Review (AMOC and IFT 2005, p. 

ARC–3). We are making this 

modification because the reintroduction 

effort for Mexican wolves now being 

undertaken by the Mexican Government 

has established a need to manage 

Mexican wolves that may disperse into 

southern Arizona and New Mexico from 

reestablished Mexican wolf populations 

in Mexico. An expansion of the MWEPA 

south to the international border with 

Mexico would allow us to manage all 

Mexican wolves in this area, regardless 

of origin, under the experimental 

population 10(j) rule. The regulatory 

flexibility provided by our revisions to 

the 1998 Final Rule would allow us to 

take management actions within the 

MWEPA that further the conservation of 

the Mexican wolf while being 

responsive to needs of the local 

community in cases of problem wolf 

behavior. 

Figure 2—Revised geographic 

boundaries for the Mexican wolf 

experimental population area 

(MWEPA). 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER16JA15.016</GPH>
2520 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Also, we are identifying Zones 1, 2, 

and 3 as different management areas 

within the MWEPA and discontinuing 

the use of the term BRWRA. Zone 1 is 

where Mexican wolves may be initially 

released or translocated, and includes 

all of the Apache, Gila, and Sitgreaves 

National Forests; the Payson, Pleasant 

Valley, and Tonto Basin Ranger Districts 

of the Tonto National Forest; and the 

Magdalena Ranger District of the Cibola 

National Forest. Zone 2 is where 

Mexican wolves will be allowed to 

naturally disperse into and occupy, and 

where Mexican wolves may be 

translocated. On Federal land in Zone 2, 

initial releases of Mexican wolves are 

limited to pups less than 5 months old, 

which allows for the cross-fostering of 

pups from the captive population into 

the wild, and it enables translocationeligible adults to be re-released with 

pups born in captivity. On private and 

tribal land in Zone 2, Mexican wolves 

of any age, including adults, can also be 

initially released under a Service- and 

State-approved management agreement 

with private landowners or a Serviceapproved management agreement with 

tribal agencies. Translocations in Zone 2 

will be focused on suitable Mexican 

wolf habitat that is contiguous to 

occupied Mexican wolf range. Zone 3 is 

where neither initial releases nor 

translocations will occur, but Mexican 

wolves will be allowed to disperse into 

and occupy. Zone 3 is an area of less 

suitable Mexican wolf habitat where 

Mexican wolves will be more actively 

managed under the authorities of this 

rule to reduce conflict with the 

potentially affected public. 

Further, we have included a phased 

approach to translocations, initial 

releases, and occupancy of Mexican 

wolves west of Highway 87. In 

consultations with officials of the 

Arizona Game and Fish Department, 

they expressed concern that elk 

populations west of Highway 87 are 

generally smaller in number and 

isolated from each other compared to 

elk populations east of Highway 87. 

Also, areas west of Highway 87 tend to 

be drier, and, therefore, elk herds have 

greater fluctuations in population size 

than herds in more mesic areas to the 

east. As such, Arizona’s most dense and 

productive elk populations are found in 

the eastern part of the State, generally 

east of Highway 87. Therefore, we have 

included a phased approach to 

translocations, initial releases, and 

occupancy of Mexican wolves west of 

Highway 87. 

As part of the phased-approach, Phase 

1 will be implemented for the first 5 

years following the effective date of this 

rule (see DATES). During this phase, 

initial releases and translocation of 

Mexican wolves can occur throughout 

Zone 1 with the exception of the area 

west of State Highway 87 in Arizona 

(Figure 3). No translocations can be 

conducted west of State Highway 87 in 

Arizona in Zone 2. Mexican wolves can 

disperse naturally from Zones 1 and 2 

into, and occupy, the MWEPA (Zones 1, 

2, and 3). However, during Phase 1, 

dispersal and occupancy in Zone 2 west 

of State Highway 87 will be limited to 

the area north of State Highway 260 and 

west to Interstate 17. 

Figure 3—Phase 1 management 

boundaries for the Mexican wolf 

experimental population in Arizona. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2521 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 

If determined to be necessary by the 

5-year evaluation, we will initiate Phase 

2 (Figure 4). In Phase 2, initial releases 

and translocation of Mexican wolves 

can occur throughout Zone 1 including 

the area west of State Highway 87 in 

Arizona. No translocations can be 

conducted west of Interstate Highway 

17 in Arizona. Mexican wolves can 

disperse naturally from Zones 1 and 2 

into, and occupy, the MWEPA (Zones 1, 

2, and 3) with the exception of those 

areas west of State Highway 89 in 

Arizona. 

Figure 4—Phase 2 management 

boundaries for the Mexican wolf 

experimental population in Arizona. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER16JA15.017</GPH>
2522 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

If determined to be necessary by the 

8-year evaluation and Phase 2 has 

already been implemented, Phase 3 will 

be initiated (Figure 5). In Phase 3, initial 

release and translocation of Mexican 

wolves can occur throughout Zone 1; 

Mexican wolves can disperse naturally 

from Zones 1 and 2 into, and occupy, 

the MWEPA (Zones 1, 2, and 3). 

However, no translocations can be 

conducted west of State Highway 89 in 

Arizona. 

The phasing may be expedited with 

the concurrence of participating State 

game and fish agencies. Regardless of 

the phase implemented, by the 

beginning of year 12 from the effective 

date of this rule (see DATES), we will 

move to full implementation of this rule 

throughout the MWEPA, and the phased 

management approach will no longer 

apply (Figure 2). Full implementation 

means that initial release and 

translocation of Mexican wolves can 

occur throughout entire Zone 1; 

Mexican wolves can disperse naturally 

from Zone 1 into and within the 

MWEPA (Zones 2 and 3) and occupy the 

MWEPA (Zones 1, 2 and 3); and 

translocations can be conducted at 

selected translocation sites on Federal 

land within Zones 1 and 2 of the 

MWEPA. 

Figure 5—Phase 3 management 

boundaries for the Mexican wolf 

experimental population in Arizona. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER16JA15.018</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2523 

Additionally, we are eliminating the 

BRWRA designation along with the 

primary and secondary recovery zones 

provided for in the 1998 Final Rule in 

accordance with recommendations in 

the Mexican Wolf Blue Range 

Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review 

(AMOC and IFT 2005, p. ARC–4). We 

are designating Zone 1 as the area where 

initial releases can occur, which 

includes the entire Apache and 

Sitgreaves National Forests and the 

Payson, Pleasant Valley, and Tonto 

Basin Ranger Districts of the Tonto 

National Forest in Arizona; and the Gila 

National Forest and the Magdalena 

Ranger District of the Cibola National 

Forest in New Mexico (Figure 2). This 

revision will provide additional area 

and locations for initial releases of 

Mexican wolves to the wild from 

captivity beyond that currently allowed 

by the 1998 Final Rule. 

With this final rule, we have removed 

the small portion of the MWEPA in 

Texas. This area is not likely to 

contribute substantially to our 

population objective and is not suitable 

for the conservation of Mexican wolves 

because of the lack of a sufficient 

amount of suitable habitat for the 

Mexican wolf. We do not expect 

Mexican wolves to occupy the small 

portion of Texas that was previously in 

the MWEPA because ungulate 

populations are inadequate to support 

Mexican wolves there. 

Lastly, we are removing the White 

Sands Wolf Recovery Area as a possible 

reintroduction site for Mexican wolves 

(Figure 2), although Mexican wolves 

will still be able to disperse to and 

occupy this area. Under the 1998 Final 

Rule, initial releases and reintroduction 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER16JA15.019</GPH>
2524 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

of Mexican wolves into the White Sands 

Wolf Recovery Area was authorized if 

the Service found it necessary and 

feasible in order to achieve the recovery 

goal of at least 100 Mexican wolves 

occupying 5,000 square mi (12,950 

square km) (Service 1998). While this 

recovery area lies within the probable 

historical range of the Mexican wolf, 

and could be an important 

reestablishment site if prey densities 

increased substantially, it is now 

considered a marginally suitable area for 

Mexican wolf release and 

reestablishment primarily due to the 

low density of prey. For this reason the 

Mexican Wolf Blue Range 

Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review 

recommended that an amended or new 

experimental population rule not 

include White Sands Missile Range as a 

Mexican Wolf Recovery Area or as a 

reintroduction zone (AMOC and IFT 

2005, p. ARC–3). 

Reintroduction Procedures 

In our 1998 Final Rule, we stated that 

we would release 14 family groups of 

Mexican wolves into the BRWRA over 

a period of 5 years to achieve our 

objective of establishing a population of 

at least 100 wild Mexican wolves. 

Selection criteria for Mexican wolves 

that are released include genetics, 

reproductive performance, behavioral 

compatibility, response to the adaptive 

process, and other factors (63 FR 1754, 

January 12, 1998). Since the end of that 

initial 5-year period in 2003, we have 

continued to conduct initial releases of 

Mexican wolves from captivity into the 

BRWRA and to translocate wolves with 

previous wild experience back into the 

BRWRA. 

We have considerable experience 

conducting initial releases and resulting 

data upon which to guide our actions. 

We consider a successful initial release 

to be any Mexican wolf that ultimately 

breeds and produces pups in the wild. 

Between 1998 and 2013, our initial 

release success rate has been about 21 

percent (Service 2014, Appendix D, p. 

4). In other words, for every 100 wolves 

we release, only 21 of them survive, 

breed, and produce pups, therefore 

becoming effective migrants. Based on 

this success rate, and during the first 20 

years of management under this final 

rule, we expect that each time we 

initially release wolves we will need to 

release 10 wolves to achieve 2 effective 

migrants, one component of our 

population objective for the MWEPA. 

Migrants are important to the 

conservation of the species to help 

alleviate genetic threats to the 

population including reducing kinship 

(the relatedness of animals to one 

another) and reducing loss of genetic 

variation. Based on assessment of the 

initial release success of various 

historical release strategies (single 

wolves, pairs, packs, etc.), we would 

expect to achieve this target by releasing 

2 packs, each with an adult pair and 

several pups, during years 1 to 4 and 4 

to 8, and 1 or 2 packs during the next 

three successive generations until year 

20, or for 5 generations. We may 

conduct several additional releases in 

the immediate future in excess of 2 

effective migrants per generation to 

specifically address the high degree of 

relatedness of wolves in the current 

BRWRA. The number of effective 

migrants needed to alleviate genetic 

threats to the population could decrease 

in the third and subsequent generations, 

assuming the population is above 250, 

as a population of that size is more 

robust. We may also conduct infrequent 

initial releases over time for other 

management purposes such as replacing 

wolves that have been removed from the 

wild. This number of effective migrants 

(7 to 10 wolves over 5 generations) is 

negligible from a population size 

standpoint, but should be significant 

from a genetic standpoint assuming 

animals selected for initial release are 

genetically desirable contributions to 

the population (Carroll et al. 2014, p. 

81). 

We expect to have adequate 

availability of initial release sites for the 

initial releases during future 

generations. That is, we would need 7 

to 10 sites available (unoccupied by 

established wolf packs) for the release of 

packs. Zone 1 of the MWEPA provides 

for at least 7 release sites (see Figure D– 

2, Service 2014, Appendix D, p. 9). 

However, the ability to conduct initial 

releases of packs in these areas will also 

depend on the natural recolonization of 

the area. Coordination with State and 

Federal agencies, counties, Tribes, and 

the public would be needed prior to 

identifying specific release sites in Zone 

1. 

Management of the Experimental 

Population of Mexican Wolves 

The prime objective of the 1982 

recovery plan was to conserve and 

ensure the survival of the Mexican wolf 

by maintaining a captive-breeding 

program and reestablishing a viable, 

self-sustaining population of at least 100 

Mexican wolves in the wild (Service 

1982, p. 23). Based on the 1982 recovery 

plan, we established a captive-breeding 

population, starting with 7 founding 

wolves, of 240 to 300 Mexican wolves 

in 55 breeding facilities in the United 

States and Mexico. The 1998 Final Rule 

enabled us to release Mexican wolves 

from this captive population into the 

wild to determine if it was possible to 

establish a wild population following 

the extirpation of the species in the 

early 1970s. Since 1998, we have 

demonstrated success in establishing a 

wild population (e.g., a minimum of 83 

Mexican wolves in the wild, all of 

which are wildborn as of December 

2013). However, we are now revising 

the 1998 Final Rule so that we can 

improve the effectiveness of the 

reintroduction project to achieve the 

necessary population growth, 

distribution, and recruitment, as well as 

genetic variation within the Mexican 

wolf experimental population so that it 

can contribute to recovery in the future. 

Following this phase of improving the 

existing experimental population 

regulation, we intend to revise the 

Mexican wolf recovery plan so that it 

provides a recovery goal and objective 

and measurable recovery criteria, which 

may require further revision to this 

regulation for the experimental 

population in the future including any 

necessary analysis pursuant to NEPA. 

We are implementing this rule to 

further the conservation of the Mexican 

wolf by improving the effectiveness of 

the reintroduction project in managing 

the experimental population. The 

experimental designation enables the 

Service to develop measures for 

management of the population that are 

less restrictive than the mandatory 

prohibitions that protect species with 

endangered status. This includes 

allowing limited take of individual 

Mexican wolves under narrowly defined 

circumstances (50 CFR 17.84(k)(6)). 

Management flexibility is needed to 

make reintroduction compatible with 

current and planned human activities, 

such as livestock grazing and hunting. It 

is also critical to obtaining needed State, 

tribal, local, and private landowner 

cooperation. The Service believes this 

flexibility has and will continue to 

improve the likelihood of success of this 

reestablishment effort. Management of 

the experimental population may 

include any of the provisions herein or 

provided for in Service-approved 

management plans, protocols, and 

permits. 

Upon the effective date of this rule 

and as described under paragraph 

(k)(9)(iv) in the regulations at the end of 

this document and in accordance with 

management phasing in Arizona, we are 

allowing initial release of Mexican 

wolves throughout the entire Zone 1; 

allowing Mexican wolves to disperse 

naturally from Zones 1 and 2 into, and 

occupy, the MWEPA (Zones 1, 2, and 3). 

We are allowing translocation of 

Mexican wolves at selected 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2525 

translocation sites on Federal land 

within Zones 1 and 2 of the MWEPA, 

and we can develop management 

agreements with private landowners, 

with the concurrence of State game and 

fish agencies, and with tribal 

governments, for management of 

Mexican wolves in Zone 2. Under this 

rule, we are allowing Mexican wolves to 

occupy Federal and non-Federal land in 

the MWEPA, except in the case of 

depredation, other nuisance behavior, or 

an unacceptable impact to a wild 

ungulate herd that cannot be effectively 

managed through non-removal 

techniques. In addition, Mexican wolves 

will be captured and removed from 

tribal trust land if requested by the tribal 

government. 

In order to maximize our management 

flexibility, we have revised the 

regulations for the take of Mexican 

wolves on Federal and non-Federal land 

within the entire MWEPA (Zones 1, 2, 

and 3) by: 

(1) Modifying the conditions that 

determine when we would issue a 

permit to allow livestock owners or 

their agents to take (including 

intentional harassment or kill), in 

conjunction with a control action, any 

Mexican wolf that is in the act of biting, 

wounding, or killing livestock on 

Federal land, where specified in the 

permit; allowing domestic animal 

owners or their agents to take (including 

kill or injure) any Mexican wolf that is 

in the act of biting, wounding or killing 

domestic animals on non-Federal land 

anywhere within the MWEPA; 

(2) Providing that the Service or a 

designated agency may, in conjunction 

with a removal action authorized by the 

Service, issue permits to allow domestic 

animal owners or their agents (e.g., 

employees, land manager, local 

officials) to take (including intentional 

harassment or kill) any Mexican wolf 

that is present on non-Federal land 

where specified in the permit; and 

(3) Revising the conditions under 

which take will be authorized in 

response to an unacceptable impact of 

Mexican wolf predation on a wild 

ungulate herd. 

Additionally, subject to Service and 

State approved management 

agreements, the Service or a designated 

agency may develop and implement 

management actions on private land in 

management Zones 1 and 2 within the 

MWEPA in voluntary cooperation with 

private landowners, including but not 

limited to initial release and 

translocation of wolves onto such lands 

if requested by the landowner. 

Subject to agreements with tribal 

governments, the Service may develop 

and implement management actions on 

tribal trust land in management Zones 1, 

2, and 3 within the MWEPA in 

voluntary cooperation with tribal 

governments including but not limited 

to initial release and translocation. No 

agreement with a Tribe is necessary for 

the capture and removal of Mexican 

wolves from tribal trust land if 

requested by the tribal government. 

Further, we have included a phased 

approach to translocations, initial 

releases, and occupancy of Mexican 

wolves west of Highway 87. As part of 

the phased-approach, Phase 1 will be 

implemented for the first 5 years 

following the effective date of this rule 

(see DATES). During this phase, we will 

conduct initial releases of Mexican 

wolves throughout Zone 1 with the 

exception of the area west of State 

Highway 87 in Arizona (Figure 3). No 

translocations can be conducted west of 

State Highway 87 in Arizona in Zone 2. 

Mexican wolves can disperse naturally 

from Zones 1 and 2 into and occupy the 

MWEPA (Zones 1, 2 and 3). However, 

during Phase 1, dispersal and 

occupancy in Zone 2 west of State 

Highway 87 will be limited to the area 

north of State Highway 260 and west to 

Interstate 17. 

If determined to be necessary by the 

5-year evaluation, we will initiate Phase 

2 (Figure 4). In Phase 2 initial releases 

of Mexican wolves can occur 

throughout Zone 1 including the area 

west of State Highway 87 in Arizona. No 

translocations can be conducted west of 

Interstate Highway 17 in Arizona. 

Mexican wolves can disperse naturally 

from Zones 1 and 2 into, and occupy, 

the MWEPA (Zones 1, 2, and 3) with the 

exception of those areas west of State 

Highway 89 in Arizona. 

If determined to be necessary by the 

8-year evaluation and Phase 2 has 

already been implemented, Phase 3 will 

be initiated (Figure 5). In Phase 3, initial 

release of Mexican wolves can occur 

throughout Zone 1. No translocations 

can be conducted west of State Highway 

89 in Arizona. Mexican wolves can 

disperse naturally from Zones 1 and 2 

into and occupy the MWEPA (Zones 1, 

2, and 3). 

While implementing this phased 

approach, two evaluations will be 

conducted: (1) Covering the first 5 years 

and (2) covering the first 8 years after 

the effective date of this rule in order to 

determine if we will move forward with 

the next phase. Each phase evaluation 

will consider adverse human 

interactions with Mexican wolves, 

impacts to wild ungulate herds, and 

whether or not the Mexican wolf 

population in the MWEPA is achieving 

a population number consistent with a 

10 percent annual growth rate based on 

end-of-year counts, such that 5 years 

after the effective date of this rule the 

population of Mexican wolves in the 

wild is at least 150, and 8 years after the 

effective date of this rule the population 

of Mexican wolves in the wild is at least 

200. If we have not achieved this 

population growth, we will move 

forward to the next phase. Regardless of 

the outcome of the two evaluations, by 

the beginning of year 12 from the 

effective date of this rule, we will move 

to full implementation of this rule 

throughout the MWEPA, and the phased 

management approach will no longer 

apply. The phasing may be expedited 

with the concurrence of participating 

State game and fish agencies. 

Also, we are revising and reissuing 

the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program’s 

section 10(a)(1)(A) research and 

recovery permit (TE–091551–8 dated 

04/04/2013) so that it applies to 

management of Mexican wolves both 

within and outside of the MWEPA. 

Under this permit we will authorize 

removal of Mexican wolves that can be 

identified as coming from the 

experimental population that disperse 

and establish territories in areas outside 

of the MWEPA. We will make a 

determination, based in part on their 

genetic value relative to the Mexican 

wolf population, to maintain these 

wolves in captivity, translocate them to 

areas of suitable habitat within the 

MWEPA, or transfer them to Mexico. 

Identification and Monitoring 

Prior to release from captivity into the 

wild, Mexican wolves will receive 

permanent identification marks and 

radio collars, as appropriate. While not 

all Mexican wolves are radio-collared, 

we attempt to maintain at least two 

radio collars per pack in the wild. Radio 

collars allow the Service to monitor 

reproduction, dispersal, survival, pack 

formation, depredations, predation, and 

a variety of other important biological 

metrics. We do not foresee a scenario 

where we would not continue an active 

monitoring strategy for Mexican wolves 

while they are listed under the Act. 

However, we also recognize that a 

majority of wild Mexican wolves may 

not have radio collars as the population 

grows. 

The Service will measure the success 

or failure of releases, translocations, and 

other management actions by 

monitoring, researching, and evaluating 

the status of Mexican wolves and their 

offspring. Using adaptive management 

principles, the Service will continue to 

modify subsequent management actions 

depending on what is learned. We will 

prepare periodic progress reports, 

annual reports, and publications, as 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
2526 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

appropriate, to evaluate release 

strategies and other management 

actions. 

The 1998 Final Rule contained 

requirements to conduct full evaluations 

of the status of the experimental 

population after 3 and 5 years. As part 

of the evaluations, a recommendation 

was made for continuation, 

modification, or termination of the 

reintroduction project. Both evaluations 

were conducted and recommendations 

were made to continue the experimental 

population with modifications. These 

reviews were intensive efforts that 

included Service staff, other Federal, 

State, and tribal agencies, independent 

experts, and public involvement. We 

will conduct a one-time full evaluation 

of this final rule 5 years after it becomes 

effective; the evaluation will focus on 

modifications needed to improve the 

efficacy of reestablishing Mexican 

wolves in the wild and the contribution 

the experimental population is making 

toward the recovery of the Mexican 

wolf. We do not consider a 3-year 

review to be necessary, as we included 

this provision in the 1998 Final Rule to 

address the substantial uncertainties we 

had with reestablishing captive Mexican 

wolves to the wild. Therefore, a onetime program review conducted 5 years 

after our final determination will 

provide an appropriate interval to assess 

the effectiveness of the project. This 

one-time program review is separate 

from the status review of the listed 

species that we will conduct once every 

5 years as required by section 4(c)(2) of 

the Act. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

From October through December 

2007, we conducted a public scoping 

process under NEPA based on our intent 

to modify the 1998 Final Rule. We 

developed a scoping report in April 

2008, but we did not propose or finalize 

any modifications to the 1998 Final 

Rule at that time. We again initiated 

scoping on August 5, 2013 (78 FR 

47268), when we published a notice of 

intent to prepare an EIS in conjunction 

with the proposed rule to revise the 

regulations for the experimental 

population designation of the Mexican 

wolf. That notice of intent to prepare an 

EIS had a 45-day comment period 

ending September 19, 2013. We 

requested written comments from the 

public on the proposed revision to the 

regulations for the experimental 

population of the Mexican wolf during 

two comment periods: June 13, 2013, to 

December 17, 2013, and July 25, 2014, 

to September 23, 2014. Additionally 

four public hearings were held: 

November 20, 2013, in Albuquerque, 

New Mexico; December 3, 2013, in 

Pinetop, Arizona; August 11, 2014, in 

Pinetop, Arizona; and August 13, 2014, 

in Truth or Consequences, New Mexico. 

We also contacted appropriate Federal, 

tribal, State, county, and local agencies, 

scientific organizations, and other 

interested parties and invited them to 

comment on the proposed rule during 

these comment periods. 

Over the course of the two comment 

periods, we received approximately 

48,131 comment submissions. All 

substantive information provided 

during these comment periods, 

including the public hearings, has either 

been incorporated directly into this final 

determination or addressed below. 

Comments from peer reviewers and 

State game and fish agencies are 

grouped separately. In addition to the 

comments, some commenters submitted 

for our consideration additional reports 

and references, which were reviewed 

and incorporated into this final rule as 

appropriate. 

Peer Reviewer Comments 

In accordance with our peer review 

policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), we solicited expert opinions 

from six knowledgeable individuals 

with scientific expertise that included 

familiarity with the species, the 

geographic region in which the species 

occurs, and conservation biology 

principles. We received responses from 

four of the six peer reviewers we 

contacted during the first comment 

period. During the second comment 

period, we received responses from one 

of the six peer reviewers. 

We reviewed all comments received 

from the peer reviewers regarding the 

proposed revision to the regulations for 

the experimental population 

designation of the Mexican wolf. The 

peer reviewers generally concurred with 

our methods and conclusions, and 

provided additional information, 

clarifications, and suggestions to 

improve this final rule. Peer reviewer 

comments are addressed in the 

following summary and incorporated 

into the final rule, as appropriate. 

(1) Comment: The wording ‘‘based on 

established ungulate management 

goals’’ and ‘‘unacceptable impact’’ in 

the take provision for unacceptable 

impacts to wild ungulates is 

problematic in being so loosely worded 

and unqualified as to allow a wide 

variety of interpretations. 

Our response: Based on information 

that we received from the Arizona Game 

and Fish Department and agreed upon 

by the New Mexico Department of Game 

and Fish, an unacceptable impact to a 

wild ungulate herd will be determined 

by a State game and fish agency based 

upon ungulate management goals, or a 

15 percent decline in an ungulate herd 

as documented by a State game and fish 

agency, using their preferred 

methodology, based on the 

preponderance of evidence from bull to 

cow ratios, cow to calf ratios, hunter 

days, and/or elk population estimates. 

The rule also includes the process that 

the State game and fish agencies must 

follow to demonstrate that the decline 

in the ungulate population was 

influenced by Mexican wolves. 

(2) Comment: There needs to be some 

justification presented why 100 

Mexican wolves was once determined to 

be biologically warranted or why that 

number rather than 50 or 200 is not the 

goal for Mexican wolf restoration in its 

historical range of the purported 

subspecies in Arizona and New Mexico. 

There needs to be some link to how 100 

Mexican wolves will help achieve 

recovery for the subspecies as defined 

under the Act. 

Our response: As of the early 1970s, 

the Mexican wolf was extirpated in the 

United States. The prime objective of 

the 1982 recovery plan was to conserve 

and ensure the survival of the Mexican 

wolf by maintaining a captive-breeding 

program and reestablishing a viable, 

self-sustaining population of at least 100 

Mexican wolves in the wild (Service 

1982, p. 23). This number was not 

intended to be a recovery goal. It was a 

starting point to determine whether or 

not we could successfully establish a 

population of Mexican wolves in the 

wild that would conserve the species 

and lead to its recovery. Based on the 

1982 recovery plan, we have now 

established a captive-breeding program 

and a wild population; however, we 

recognize the need to revise the 1998 

Final Rule so that we can improve the 

effectiveness of the reintroduction 

project to achieve the necessary 

population growth, distribution, and 

recruitment, as well as genetic variation 

within the Mexican wolf experimental 

population so that it can contribute to 

recovery in the future. We acknowledge 

that a scientifically based population 

goal, as a component of future objective 

and measurable recovery criteria, is 

needed in order to help determine when 

removing the Mexican wolf from the 

endangered species list is appropriate. 

Following this phase of improving the 

existing experimental population 

regulation, we intend to revise the 

Mexican wolf recovery plan so that it 

provides a recovery goal and objective 

and measurable recovery criteria, which 

may require further revision to this 

regulation for the experimental 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2527 

population in the future including any 

necessary analysis pursuant to NEPA. 

In the meantime, this experimental 

population represents just one phase of 

Mexican wolf recovery. Based on Carroll 

et al. (Carroll et al. 2014, pp. 81–82)), a 

population objective of at least 300 

Mexican wolves with some number of 

effective migrants would be appropriate 

for a single population objective, 

recognizing that the number of effective 

migrants per generation greatly affects 

population persistence at various 

population sizes. We have established a 

population objective of 300–325 wolves 

for the MWEPA. 

(3) Comment: The June 2013 proposed 

rule suggests that any landowner can 

request translocation and the Service 

will attempt to do that. I believe this 

concept would be a huge mistake and 

will lead to the very problems that have 

occurred, to the detriment of Mexican 

wolf recovery, with the agency removal 

of non-problem Mexican wolves outside 

the primary recovery area. If Mexican 

wolves cause a problem, then deal with 

them. If not, leave them alone and let 

them assist with achieving population 

objectives. That type of provision 

invites conflict, public demands that 

cannot be satisfied, bad public relations, 

and waste of agency resources. The rule 

should be crystal clear for the public to 

understand. 

Our response: We clarified many of 

the provisions in our revised proposed 

rule that published in the Federal 

Register on July 25, 2014. We will not 

remove a Mexican wolf if a landowner 

(other than tribes on tribal trust lands) 

requests removal and the wolf is not 

engaging in activities that fit the 

definition of a ‘‘problem wolf.’’ We have 

clarified the language to allow the initial 

release and translocation of Mexican 

wolves onto private lands if there is an 

agreement with the landowner and 

concurrence with the State game and 

fish agency. 

(4) Comment: Take of a Mexican wolf 

by a pet owner is not an issue and 

should be allowed. It is not going to be 

a significant issue either way, as very 

few Mexican wolves will ever be taken, 

but might give pet owners some 

recourse and peace of mind. 

Our response: We have included a 

provision in this final rule to allow for 

take of Mexican wolves by owners of 

domestic animals, which include pet 

dogs and dogs working livestock or 

being lawfully used to trail or locate 

wildlife on non-Federal lands. Domestic 

animal means livestock as defined in 

the regulations at the end of this final 

rule and non-feral dogs. On non-Federal 

lands, domestic animal owners or their 

agents may take (including kill or 

injure) any Mexican wolf that is in the 

act of biting, killing, or wounding a 

domestic animal, as defined in the 

regulations, provided that evidence of 

freshly wounded or killed domestic 

animals by Mexican wolves is present. 

In addition, anyone may use 

opportunistic harassment of any 

Mexican wolf at any time provided that 

Mexican wolves are not purposefully 

attracted, tracked, searched out, or 

chased and then harassed. 

Comments From Other Federal Agencies 

(5) Comment: The potential expansion 

of the BRWRA to include the Lakeside 

and Black Mesa Districts of the 

Sitgreaves National Forest and the 

Payson, Pleasant Valley, and Tonto 

Basin Ranger Districts of the Tonto 

National Forest will bring additional 

issues that must be considered and 

addressed by the Service. Of particular 

concern is the heavy interspersion of 

inholdings of private lands, towns and 

numerous unincorporated areas, and the 

adjacency of the Black Mesa, Tonto, 

Payson, and Pleasant Valley Ranger 

Districts to the Phoenix metropolitan 

area. These Districts also have extensive 

open road and motorized trail networks 

with extremely high recreational use. 

Our response: We acknowledge that 

there are areas within the MWEPA that 

are of less suitable Mexican wolf habitat 

and where Mexican wolves will be more 

actively managed under the authorities 

of this rule to reduce human conflict. 

Initial releases of Mexican wolves will 

be well away from towns and dwellings. 

We expect Mexican wolves to occupy 

areas of suitable habitat where ungulate 

populations are adequate to support 

them and conflict with humans and 

their livestock would be low. If Mexican 

wolves move outside areas of suitable 

habitat, such as the areas described by 

the commenter, they will be more 

actively managed. 

(6) Comment: One Federal agency 

suggested that expanding the MWEPA 

boundary to include areas south of 

Interstate 10 to the United StatesMexico international border is 

problematic because there are few deer 

or elk in this area and this expansion 

would likely lead to increased livestock 

predation. Because the area contains 

more people than remote forested areas 

of Arizona and New Mexico, there 

would likely be more interaction and 

conflict with both people and pets. 

Our response: The area of Arizona 

and New Mexico south of Interstate 10 

may provide stepping stone habitat and 

dispersal corridors for wolves 

dispersing north from Mexico and south 

from the experimental population. 

Management of all Mexican wolves in 

this area under this final rule will 

improve the effectiveness of the 

reintroduction project in minimizing 

and mitigating wolf-human conflict by 

providing more management flexibility. 

Without the experimental population 

designation, wolves that disperse north 

from Mexico would currently be 

considered fully endangered, which 

allows for only limited management and 

runs counter to the management 

allowed by the nonessential 

experimental population designation. 

(7) Comment: One Federal agency 

recommended clarifying whether the 

revised 10(j) rule constituted a change 

in the way depredation losses have been 

counted in the past. It was 

recommended that the Service gather 

information on the total number of 

livestock killed by wolves, not just the 

number of incidents, because the actual 

number of livestock involved is still 

important and needs to be accounted for 

and reported. 

Our response: In this final rule, we do 

not change the way depredation losses 

have been counted in the past. We do 

not use the term depredation incident 

and only use the term depredation in 

our definition of problem wolves. We 

define depredation as the confirmed 

killing or wounding of lawfully present 

domestic animals by one or more 

Mexican wolves. Also, we define 

problem wolves as Mexican wolves that 

are individuals or members of a group 

or pack (including adults, yearlings, and 

pups greater than 4 months of age) that 

were involved in a depredation on 

lawfully present domestic animals; or 

habituated to humans, human 

residences, or other facilities regularly 

occupied by humans. 

(8) Comment: The proposed rule 

provides for unintentional take coverage 

for Federal, State, or tribal agency 

employees or their contractors while 

engaging in the course of their official 

duties, such as military training and 

testing. Some military bases support a 

robust recreation program as part of its 

mission in accordance with the Sikes 

Act. Unintentional take should cover 

users of Federal lands that are not 

agency employees or their contractors, 

such as recreational users and hunters. 

Our response: The provision for 

unintentional take allows for the take of 

a Mexican wolf by any person if the take 

is unintentional and occurs while 

engaging in an otherwise lawful activity. 

Such take must be reported as specified 

in accordance with paragraph (k)(6) of 

the regulations. Hunters and other 

shooters have the responsibility to 

identify their quarry or target before 

shooting, thus shooting a wolf as a 

result of mistaking it for another species 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
2528 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

will not be considered unintentional 

take. Take by poisoning will not be 

considered unintentional take. 

(9) Comment: The Marine Corps 

conducts military and associated 

activities adjacent to and within 

restricted airspace overlying the Cabeza 

Prieta National Wildlife Refuge. As such 

activities may affect Mexican wolves 

that may be present on the refuge, the 

Federal agency recommended that the 

rule clarify how exclusions, specifically 

use of lands within the National 

Wildlife Refuge System as safety buffer 

zones for military activities, apply to 

military activities adjacent to and over 

the refuge. 

Our response: The Cabeza Prieta 

National Wildlife Refuge occurs within 

Zone 3 of the MWEPA, which is an area 

of less suitable Mexican wolf habitat. 

We expect very few Mexican wolves to 

occupy these areas of less suitable 

habitat because ungulate populations 

are inadequate to support them. In any 

case, Federal, State, or tribal agency 

employees or their contractors may take 

a Mexican wolf or wolf-like animal if 

the take is unintentional and occurs 

while engaging in the course of their 

official duties. This includes, but is not 

limited to, military training and testing 

and Department of Homeland Security 

border security activities. Further, the 

use of lands within the National Park or 

National Wildlife Refuge Systems as 

safety buffer zones for military activities 

and Department of Homeland Security 

border security activities are specifically 

excluded from the definition of 

‘‘disturbance-causing land-use activity.’’ 

Comments From States 

Section 4(i) of the Act states, ‘‘the 

Secretary shall submit to the State 

agency a written justification for his 

failure to adopt regulations consistent 

with the agency’s comments or 

petition.’’ Comments received from the 

States regarding the proposal to revise 

the regulations to the experimental 

population of the Mexican wolf are 

addressed below. 

(10) Comment: The June 2013 

proposed revision classifies State Game 

Commission-owned lands as public 

without any discussions with the States. 

Because the proposed classification 

would limit Mexican wolf management 

flexibility on Commission-owned 

properties, the Service should exclude 

State Game Commission-owned lands. 

Our response: In this final rule, we 

have separate provisions for take of 

Mexican wolves based on whether they 

occur on Federal or non-Federal lands. 

Non-Federal land means any private, 

State-owned, or tribal trust land. In this 

final rule, State Game Commissionowned lands are considered nonFederal lands. 

(11) Comment: One State agency 

requested that the Service explain how 

increased impacts to ranchers, rural 

families, property owners, recreational 

users, and local communities will be 

mitigated under the proposed rule 

change to allow direct release 

throughout the BRWRA. 

Our response: We have included 

several provisions in the final rule that 

will mitigate the potential impacts of 

Mexican wolves on landowners, 

recreational users, and local 

communities. Under the final rule, on 

non-Federal lands, domestic animal 

owners or their agents may take 

(including kill or injure) any Mexican 

wolf that is in the act of biting, killing, 

or wounding a domestic animal, as 

defined in the regulations, provided that 

evidence of freshly wounded or killed 

domestic animals by Mexican wolves is 

present; on Federal land, livestock 

owners may be permitted to take a wolf 

that is in the act of biting, killing, or 

wounding livestock. We have also 

included a provision for issuance of take 

permits on non-Federal land for 

domestic animal owners to assist the 

Service or its designated agency in 

completing wolf control actions. In 

addition, after the Service or its 

designated agency has confirmed 

Mexican wolf presence on any land 

within the MWEPA, the Service or its 

designated agency may issue permits 

valid for not longer than 1 year, with 

appropriate stipulations or conditions, 

to allow intentional harassment of 

Mexican wolves. 

(12) Comment: Clarify how 

depredation compensation, incentive, 

and mitigation programs will be funded 

and administered. 

Our response: This rule does not fund 

or administer depredation 

compensation and mitigation programs. 

However, the Service, in cooperation 

with the National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation, established the Mexican 

Wolf/Livestock Interdiction Trust Fund 

(Trust Fund), in 2009. The objective of 

the Trust Fund is to generate long-term 

funding for prolonged financial support 

to livestock operators within the 

framework of cooperative conservation 

and recovery of Mexican wolf 

populations in the Southwest. The Trust 

Fund is overseen by the Mexican Wolf/ 

Livestock Coexistence Council, an 11- 

member group of ranchers, Tribes, 

county coalitions, and environmental 

groups that may identify, recommend, 

and approve conservation activities, 

identify recipients, and approve the 

amount of the direct disbursement of 

Trust Funds to qualified recipients. The 

Coexistence Council completed the 

Mexican Wolf/Livestock Coexistence 

Plan in March 2014. It is the current 

policy of the Coexistence Council to pay 

100 percent of the market value of 

confirmed depredated cattle and 50 

percent market value for probable kills. 

In addition, the Coexistence Council 

distributed $85,500 for a pay-forpresence program to ranchers in the 

BRWRA in 2014. The Payment for 

Presence program mitigated other 

uncompensated costs (i.e., unconfirmed 

wolf kills that are never found) that 

ranchers experience with the presence 

of wolves. The Payment for Presence 

program uses a formula, based on wolf 

utilization of allotments, the number of 

pups that are alive at the end of the year 

from a wolf pack utilizing an allotment, 

the ranchers’ implementation of conflict 

avoidance methods, and the number of 

livestock exposed to wolves, to 

equitably distribute available funds 

among ranchers applying to the 

program. Continued funding under the 

Coexistence Plan will depend on 

obtaining funding from private and 

public sources. 

(13) Comment: The Mexican Wolf/

Livestock Coexistence Council is 

underfunded and significantly 

challenged to fund losses and conflictavoidance measures by currently 

participating livestock producers within 

the BRWRA and MWEPA. Under its 

current financial limitations, it has no 

ability to provide significant (if any) 

financial support for broad-scale 

conservation actions rather than 

compensation for local losses. Neither 

the proposed rule nor the draft EIS shed 

adequate light on anticipated costs of 

interdiction, incentives, etc. 

Our response: Start-up funding for the 

Coexistence Council has been provided 

by the Fish and Wildlife Service and 

Non-Governmental Organizations. It is 

our understanding that the Coexistence 

Council will continue to seek private 

and public funding into the future. 

(14) Comment: The Service must 

identify and analyze methods and 

means of avoiding, reducing, or 

mitigating Mexican wolf depredation on 

livestock and pets, including 

identification of realistic methods by 

which to fund and implement such 

programs over the long term, preferably 

over a 20-year planning horizon. 

Our response: As the total number of 

Mexican wolves in the experimental 

population increases, the Service will 

increasingly manage problem wolves by 

means authorized in this final rule in a 

way that furthers the conservation of the 

Mexican wolf while being responsive to 

the needs of the local community in 

cases of depredation or nuisance 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2529 

behavior by wolves. This final rule 

includes several provisions by which 

depredation on livestock and pets can 

be avoided and reduced. For instance, 

anyone may conduct opportunistic 

harassment of any Mexican wolf at any 

time provided that Mexican wolves are 

not purposefully attracted, tracked, 

searched out, or chased and then 

harassed. Also, after the Service or its 

designated agency has confirmed 

Mexican wolf presence on any land 

within the MWEPA, the Service or its 

designated agency may issue permits 

valid for not longer than 1 year, with 

appropriate stipulations or conditions, 

to allow intentional harassment of 

Mexican wolves. 

(15) Comment: The proposed 

amendments to the experimental 

population rules are unnecessary to 

achieve the population objective for the 

Mexican wolf. The purpose and need for 

the original 1998 Mexican wolf section 

10(j) rule was to establish a population 

of at least 100 Mexican wolves in the 

BRWRA. Currently, 75 wolves occupy 

this area, and the 100 individual 

population objective will be met in the 

near future. Based on population growth 

over the past several years, the proposed 

amendments are not necessary for the 

population objective to be achieved. 

Our response: Section 2 of the Act 

requires the Service to conserve 

endangered and threatened species and 

utilize its authorities in furtherance of 

the purposes of the Act. According to 

Section 3 of the Act, conserve means to 

use and the use of all methods and 

procedures which are necessary to bring 

any endangered or threatened species to 

the point at which the measures 

provided pursuant to the Act are no 

longer necessary. The 1982 Mexican 

Wolf Recovery Plan contained a ‘‘prime 

objective’’ to ensure the immediate 

survival of the Mexican wolf—that 

‘‘prime objective’’ to ensure immediate 

survival was 100 wolves. That number, 

100 wolves, was not enough, and still is 

not enough, to delist the Mexican wolf. 

The purpose of our action is to improve 

the effectiveness of the reintroduction 

project in managing the experimental 

population in order to ensure 

conservation of the Mexican wolf. 

Conservation of this species certainly 

requires more than 100 wolves in the 

wild. It is our expectation that the new 

population objective for the MWEPA 

will help to ensure a stable population 

of Mexican wolves in the MWEPA in 

the future. This stable population will 

then contribute to the range-wide 

recovery of the species, the goal of 

which will be determined in a future 

revision to the Mexican wolf recovery 

plan. 

(16) Comment: One State agency 

requested that the Service add language 

to the rule that explicitly requires State 

review and approval prior to any release 

on private lands or non-trust tribally 

owned lands under the jurisdiction of 

the State. Further, they requested that 

we establish a minimum set of factors 

that must be considered in this review. 

These factors include: 

• The presence of sufficient native 

prey within a 10- to 15-mile (16- to 24- 

kilometer) radius of proposed release 

site (as determined by the State); 

• the State’s evaluation of probable 

impacts to State trust species both on 

the private property where the release is 

being proposed as well as adjoining 

lands; 

• zones of potential dispersal; 

• both spatial and temporal density 

and distribution of livestock in the 

adjoining area; 

• livestock depredation removal 

thresholds; and 

• pre-release confirmation from the 

Service of the timely availability of 

sufficiently trained and competent 

Service personnel and the associated 

fiscal resources and equipment needed 

to effectively monitor, manage, and 

remove released Mexican wolves should 

the removal threshold be met. 

Our response: In this final rule, we 

have included provisions for 

management on private land within 

Zones 1 and 2 of the MWEPA, so that 

the Service or designated agency may 

develop and implement management 

actions to benefit Mexican wolf recovery 

in cooperation with willing private 

landowners, and with the concurrence 

of the State game and fish agency. These 

actions include: Occupancy by natural 

dispersal; initial release; and 

translocation of Mexican wolves onto 

private lands in Zones 1 or 2 if 

requested by the landowner and with 

the concurrence of the State game and 

fish agency. We have also included 

provisions for management on tribal 

trust land within Zones 1 and 2 in the 

MWEPA, where the Service or a 

designated agency may develop and 

implement management actions in 

cooperation with willing tribal 

governments, including: Occupancy by 

natural dispersal; initial release; 

translocation onto tribal trust land; and 

capture and removal of Mexican wolves 

from tribal trust land if requested by the 

tribal government. 

(17) Comment: The specifications for 

releases of Mexican wolves on private 

land should be included in the 

proposed rule. Releases on private lands 

require Federal action and will have 

direct impacts on other surrounding 

private landowners, wildlife, livestock, 

and Federal and State public land. Also, 

surrounding landowners should be 

consulted prior to any such release 

being made. Livestock producers 

adjacent to private land release sites 

must be made aware of these releases in 

order to implement measures to avoid 

depredation. The Service should 

develop a set of specific criteria for 

private land releases prior to any 

revision to the final 10(j) rule or EIS. 

Our response: On private land within 

Zones 1 and 2 of the MWEPA, the 

Service or designated agency may 

develop and implement management 

actions to benefit Mexican wolf recovery 

in cooperation with willing private 

landowners, including: Occupancy by 

natural dispersal; initial release; and 

translocation of Mexican wolves onto 

such lands in Zones 1 or 2 if requested 

by the landowner and with the 

concurrence of the State game and fish 

agency. Specifications for releases may 

be different for different landowners, so 

these specifications will be developed 

as part of the management actions rather 

than in the final rule, and with the 

concurrence of State game and fish 

agencies. 

(18) Comment: As they relate to 

allowable take, the differences between 

what is allowed on public land and 

what is allowed on private land have 

been a continuing source of confusion 

under the 1998 Final Rule and will 

continue to be a source of confusion 

under the proposed rule. The problem is 

best remedied by making take 

provisions for individuals the same on 

public land as on private land. It was 

suggested that the language in the 

proposed rule be modified to allow for 

owners of livestock on public lands 

allotted for livestock grazing the same 

ability that livestock owners or their 

agents have on private or tribal lands to 

take any Mexican wolf in the act of 

killing, wounding, or biting livestock, 

regardless of the number of breeding 

pairs or the most recent population 

count. 

Our response: This final rule has been 

modified to clarify take provisions on 

Federal and non-Federal land. It is our 

intent that the regulatory burden of 

Mexican wolf recovery rest on Federal 

land; therefore, we have provided 

additional take provisions on nonFederal land to allow for more 

flexibility in the management of 

problem wolves. The differences in 

allowable take on Federal and nonFederal land will help us effectively 

manage Mexican wolves within the 

MWEPA in a manner that furthers its 

conservation while being responsive to 

the needs of the local community in 

cases of depredation or nuisance 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
2530 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

behavior by wolves on non-Federal 

lands. We expect that modifying the 

provisions governing the take of 

Mexican wolves to provide clarity and 

consistency will contribute to our efforts 

to find the appropriate balance between 

enabling wolf population growth and 

minimizing nuisance and depredation 

impacts on local stakeholders. 

(19) Comment: It was suggested that 

the Service develop and publish for 

review a set of criteria for removal of 

Mexican wolves based on certain 

situational elements such as the number 

of livestock killed or injured, the 

frequency of wolf depredation, and the 

individual economic impacts to the 

livestock producer. 

Our response: We did not include a 

set of specific criteria for removal of 

problem wolves in this final rule in 

order to maximize our flexibility in 

effectively managing Mexican wolves in 

a manner that furthers the conservation 

of the Mexican wolf while being 

responsive to the needs of local 

communities. These criteria will be 

developed in a management plan, which 

will provide for adaptive management 

as we gain more information on 

Mexican wolf management and 

techniques to minimize conflicts 

between Mexican wolves and livestock. 

(20) Comment: Several State agencies 

suggested that allowable take by 

authorized personnel would be subject 

to Service approval, presumably on a 

case-by-case basis, which has often been 

highly problematic when cooperating 

agencies have tried to take aggressive, 

timely action to address problem wolf 

incidents. In addition, the Service has 

not been willing, since 2007, to use 

lethal take as a tool in managing 

problem wolves. The Service must 

enable agencies and stakeholders to 

directly and effectively address 

problem-wolf issues while they are 

occurring. Maintaining effective 

Mexican wolf management tools is 

critical to building agency and 

stakeholder confidence in the process of 

reintroducing Mexican wolves to 

historical range. Limitations that 

prevent timely deployment of available 

tools undermine State agency and 

stakeholder confidence in the 

reintroduction project. 

Our response: The final rule 

authorizes the Service or designated 

agency to carry out intentional or 

opportunistic harassment, nonlethal 

control measures, translocation, 

placement in captivity, or lethal control 

of problem wolves. The Service or a 

designated agency may take any 

Mexican wolf in the experimental 

population in a manner consistent with 

a Service-approved management plan, 

special management measure, biological 

opinion pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act, conference opinion pursuant to 

section 7(a)(4) of the Act, section 6 of 

the Act as described in 50 CFR 17.31 for 

State game and fish agencies with 

authority to manage Mexican wolves, or 

a valid permit issued by the Service 

through 50 CFR 17.32. 

(21) Comment: The revised 10(j) rule 

and associated EIS should analyze an 

alternative that allows issuing permits 

on a case-by-case basis, to enable 

consideration of geographic variation in 

depredation activity or breeding status 

of Mexican wolves. Situation-specific 

approaches to managing chronic 

depredation behavior by specific 

Mexican wolves that generate adverse 

economic and social impacts should not 

be superseded by general thresholds 

working independently of the 

undesirable Mexican wolf behaviors 

that cause such conflict. 

Our response: The final rule 

authorizes the issuance of permits to 

domestic animal owners or their agents 

on non-Federal lands to assist the 

Service or designated agency in 

completing a control action. The final 

rule also authorizes the issuance of 

permits to livestock owners or their 

agents to take any Mexican wolf that is 

in the act of biting, killing, or wounding 

livestock on Federal land where 

specified in the permit, to assist the 

Service or designated agency in 

completing control actions. Issuance of 

these permits will be at the Service’s 

discretion and thus analyzed on a caseby-case basis. Also, we realize that 

geographic variation throughout the 

MWEPA requires different management 

approaches. That is why we have 

identified Zones 1, 2, and 3 as different 

management areas within the MWEPA. 

We identified these Zones in order to 

improve the effectiveness of our 

reintroduction project while minimizing 

and mitigating Mexican wolf-human 

conflict. 

(22) Comment: One State agency 

suggested modifying the language to set 

the minimum population size to at least 

100 Mexican wolves within the MWEPA 

as documented by the most recent endof-year count, and strike any reference 

to other established populations. The 

new provision would require that the 

minimum population level of 100 

wolves within the BRWRA must be met 

before the Service would issue take 

permits to producers on public lands to 

address wolves that are in the act of 

killing their livestock. 

Our response: The suggested 

modification will not allow us to 

improve the effectiveness of the 

reintroduction project to achieve the 

necessary population growth, 

distribution, and recruitment, as well as 

genetic variation within the Mexican 

wolf experimental population so that it 

can contribute to recovery in the future. 

In recognition that the MWEPA will 

include a variety of land ownership 

types, our provision to issue a permit for 

take of a Mexican wolf in the act of 

wounding, biting, or killing livestock on 

Federal land will allow us to better 

consider the site specific circumstances 

associated with the event compared to 

establishing a minimum population 

level of 100 wolves prior to being able 

to issue such permits; this flexibility 

will also contribute to our ability to 

conserve the Mexican wolf by allowing 

us to integrate information about the 

current population, including genetic 

issues, into our permit decisions. 

(23) Comment: Several State agencies 

suggested that the language in the rule 

be modified to allow pet owners, 

regardless of where they are, to take 

Mexican wolves that are in the act of 

attacking or killing pets. Pets, like 

livestock, are considered by most 

owners to be private property, and 

restricting a person’s ability to protect 

their private property, regardless of 

where, may be contrary to their 

constitutional rights. 

Our response: We have included a 

provision in this final rule to allow for 

take of Mexican wolves by domestic 

animal owners, which includes pet dog 

owners, on non-Federal lands. 

Specifically, on non-Federal lands, 

domestic animal owners or their agents 

may take (including kill or injure) any 

Mexican wolf that is in the act of biting, 

killing, or wounding a domestic animal, 

as defined in the regulations, provided 

that evidence of freshly wounded or 

killed domestic animals by Mexican 

wolves is present. Domestic animal 

means livestock as defined in the 

regulations and non-feral dogs. In 

addition, anyone may conduct 

opportunistic harassment of any 

Mexican wolf at any time provided that 

Mexican wolves are not purposefully 

attracted, tracked, searched out, or 

chased and then harassed. Pet owners 

on Federal lands can protect their pets 

via opportunistic harassment. 

(24) Comment: One State agency 

suggested clarifying whether working 

dogs and tracking hounds, etc., are 

considered pets or protected in some 

similar manner. The rule revision 

should appropriately address protecting 

working and tracking dogs on public as 

well as private land. 

Our response: Take of Mexican 

wolves by livestock guarding dogs, 

when used in the traditional manner to 

protect livestock on Federal and nonVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Jan 15, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JAR2.SGM 16JAR2

rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2531 

Federal lands, is allowed. Dogs that are 

working livestock or being lawfully 

used to trail or locate wildlife are 

excluded from the definition of feral 

dogs, and are thus included as domestic 

animals. See comment above where we 

discuss allowable forms of take for 

domestic animal owners on non-Federal 

lands. 

(25) Comment: One State agency 

requested that they not be required to 

develop a Service-approved Mexican 

Wolf Management Plan or become party 

to any wolf-related memorandum of 

agreement or understanding to lawfully 

take Mexican wolves by any means the 

State agency deems necessary when it 

has been determined by the State that 

Mexican wolf impacts on State trust 

species are unsustainable and 

jeopardizing an ungulate population, or 

when a Mexican wolf has dispersed 

outside of the MWEPA and the Service 

is unable to capture the disperser in a 

timely manner. 

Our response: Participation in the 

conservation of Mexican wolves by 

States is voluntary. Pursuant to this 

final rule, no State will be required to 

develop a Service-approved Mexican 

Wolf Management Plan or become party 

to any wolf-related memorandum of 

agreement or understanding. In this 

final rule, we have provided a definition 

of unacceptable impact to a wild 

ungulate herd and process for State 

game and fish agencies to follow to 

demonstrate that any decline in an 

ungulate herd was influenced by 

Mexican wolf predation. The final rule 

provides that the Service or a designated 

agency may take any Mexican wolf in 

the experimental population in a 

manner consistent with a Serviceapproved management plan, special 

management measure, biological 

opinion pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act, conference opinion pursuant to 

section 7(a)(4) of the Act, as described 

in 50 CFR 17.31 for State game and fish 

agencies with authority to manage 

Mexican wolves, or a valid permit 

issued by the Service through 50 CFR 

17.32 If a Mexican wolf or wolves 

disperse outside the MWEPA, the Act 

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) prohibits 

activities with endangered and 

threatened species unless a Federal 

permit allows such activities. As part of 

this rulemaking process, we have issued 

a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit to allow for 

certain activities with Mexican wolves 

that occur outside the MWEPA. Under 

this permit we will authorize removal of 

Mexican wolves that can be identified 

as coming from the experimental 

population that disperse and establish 

territories in areas outside of the 

MWEPA. Also, in compliance with 

NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), we have 

included analysis of the environmental 

effects of the permit as part of our EIS. 

(26) Comment: One State agency 

requested that we clarify, by an 

affirmative statement, that State 

regulators and other officials cannot be 

held liable for causing a take of a 

Mexican wolf simply by their regulation 

of trapping, or lack thereof. 

Our response: Whether or not any 

person or entity will be held liable for 

the take of Mexican wolves in the future 

will be made on a case-by-case basis. 

Therefore, the Service cannot give the 

commenter the clarification requested. 

However, the final rule provides for 

unintentional take within the MWEPA. 

Unintentional take means take that 

occurs despite the use of due care, is 

coincidental to an otherwise lawful 

activity, and is not done on purpose. 

Take of a Mexican wolf by any person 

is allowed if the take is unintentional 

and occurs while engaging in an 

otherwise lawful activity. In addition, 

taking a Mexican wolf with a trap, 

snare, or other type of capture device 

within occupied Mexican wolf range is 

prohibited and will not be considered 

unintentional take, unless due care was 

exercised to avoid injury or death to a 

wolf. With regard to trapping activities, 

due care is further defined in the final 

rule. 

(27) Comment: The Service should 

allow State game and fish agencies to 

issue ‘‘Incidental Take Permits’’ (section 

10(a)(1)(B) of the Act) to individuals 

involved in lawful activities where 

Mexican wolves might be adversely 

affected by those activities. 

Our response: The Act prohibits the 

‘‘take’’ of listed species through direct 

harm or habitat destruction. In the 1982 

amendments to the Act, Congress 

authorized the Service, not State 

wildlife agencies, to issue permits for 

the ‘‘incidental take’’ of endangered and 

threatened wildlife species in section 

10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Thus, permit 

holders can proceed with an activity 

that is legal in all other respects, but 

results in the ‘‘incidental’’ taking of a 

listed species. These incidental take 

permits could be issued to address the 

incidental take of Mexican wolves 

associated with otherwise legal 

activities. However, the Service has not 

been granted legal authority to allow 

State game and fish agencies to issue 

Federal permits in accordance with the 

Act. States have the ability to apply for 

section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take 

permits and issue certificates of 

inclusion to individuals who comply 

with the provisions of the State’s 

conservation plan and permit. 

(28) Comment: One State agency 

requested that the rule be modified to 

indicate that Mexican wolves will be 

allowed to disperse outside Zone 1, but 

will only be allowed to remain and 

occupy those areas within Zone 2 that 

provide sufficient and sustainable prey 

populations as determined by the State. 

The same rationale used by the Service 

in justifying the proposal to remove a 

small portion of Texas from the MWEPA 

can also be applied to areas in New 

Mexico within the MWEPA that also 

support marginal habitat for Mexican 

wolves and native prey. 

Our response: Criteria for initial 

releases of Mexican wolves will include 

adequate prey abundance (e.g., elk, deer, 

and other native ungulates), based on 

the best available information from the 

State or tribal game and fish agency. 

Dispersal of Mexican wolves is likely to 

include areas within the MWEPA that 

have less suitable habitat, such as in 

Zone 3. However, Mexican wolves will 

be more actively managed under the 

authorities of this rule to reduce human 

conflicts in these areas. Furthermore, in 

this final rule, we have defined 

unacceptable impact to a wild ungulate 

herd and provide the States with the 

ability to manage Mexican wolves if 

they demonstrate predation by Mexican 

wolves is influencing a decline in the 

wild ungulate herd. 

(29) Comment: The proposed revision 

to allow Mexican wolves to disperse 

outside the BRWRA and occupy new 

areas within the MWEPA is improper at 

this time because a primary 

consideration regarding suitable wolf 

habitat is presence of adequate prey 

densities. The proposed change would 

allow Mexican wolves to travel to and 

use areas within the extended MWEPA 

that might not support adequate levels 

of native ungulate populations. Primary 

examples would include State trust 

lands north of the Apache Sitgreaves 

National Forests and other portions of 

National Forests supporting lowproductivity elk and deer populations. If 

Mexican wolves were allowed to occupy 

these areas, native ungulate populations 

would be at risk of significant reduction, 

causing wolves to prey more 

predominantly on livestock and creating 

other adverse economic impacts. 

Our response: The Service has 

analyzed the habitat within the 

MWEPA, and although there are patches 

of poor-quality habitat, we expect 

Mexican wolves to occupy areas of 

suitable habitat where ungulate 

populations are adequate to support 

them and conflict with humans and 

livestock will be low. The final rule 

provides States the authority to take 

Mexican wolves in response to 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
2532 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

unacceptable impacts to wild ungulate 

herds, as we recognize that localized 

reduction in ungulate herds due to wolf 

predation could occur. 

(30) Comment: Many areas within the 

MWEPA are not appropriate for 

Mexican wolf colonization or 

occupancy, due to high levels of human 

occupancy, high road densities, high 

levels of public activity (including 

recreation), high potential for 

interaction with domestic dogs (i.e., 

depredation and hybridization), and 

increased potential for human-caused 

mortality. The EIS and rule revision 

should use these types of predictable 

conflicts to identify areas within the 

MWEPA and recognized subunits in 

which Mexican wolf dispersal and 

reestablishment are not appropriate or 

necessary for sustaining a Mexican wolf 

population and outline practical 

mechanisms for managing wolves that 

disperse to these conflict zones. 

Our response: We recognize that there 

are areas within the MWEPA where 

there is limited suitable habitat for 

Mexican wolves and increased potential 

for human-related conflict. Thus, we 

identified Zones 1, 2, and 3 as different 

management areas within the MWEPA 

in order to improve the effectiveness of 

our reintroduction project while 

minimizing and mitigating Mexican 

wolf-human conflict. We have included 

a phased approach to Mexican wolf 

management in western Arizona, where 

elk populations west of Highway 87 are 

generally smaller in number and 

isolated from each other compared to 

elk populations east of Highway 87. 

Also, we have increased take provisions 

on non-Federal lands to allow domestic 

animal owners or their agents to take 

any Mexican wolf that is in the act of 

biting, killing, or wounding a domestic 

animal, as defined in the rule. 

(31) Comment: The proposed revision 

to remove Texas from the MWEPA is 

biologically appropriate based on 

Service review of existing habitat, prey 

base, historical range and 

metapopulation connectivity within 

Arizona and New Mexico. However, the 

same rationale used by the Service to 

justify that proposal could also be 

applied in Arizona, west of the Mohave 

and La Paz Counties from Interstate 40 

south to Interstate 10; and in New 

Mexico, east of Interstate 25 and 

Interstate 10 from Interstate 40 south to 

the United States-Mexico international 

border. Our point in noting this 

disparity is not to advocate such 

changes at this time but to emphasize 

that the Service proposals are not 

logically consistent. 

Our response: Texas was removed 

from the MWEPA because this area is 

not likely to contribute substantially to 

our purpose and need, and it is very 

unlikely that Mexican wolves will 

disperse into Texas because of the lack 

of suitable habitat. However, we have 

identified portions of western Arizona 

and eastern New Mexico that do not 

have substantial amounts of suitable 

habitat as Zone 3 of the MWEPA so that 

we can actively manage Mexican wolves 

that disperse there to reduce human 

conflict under the authorities of this 

rule. In any case, we do not expect 

Mexican wolves to occupy these areas of 

less-suitable habitat because ungulate 

populations are inadequate to support 

them. 

(32) Comment: The Service must 

include a provision that Mexican 

wolves that disperse outside the 

MWEPA will be captured. The proposed 

rule affirms that commitment in 

prefatory text, but does not include it in 

the proposed regulations. 

Our response: We can only include 

language in the regulations for 

management of Mexican wolves within 

the MWEPA. However, we intend to 

capture Mexican wolves that establish 

territories outside the MWEPA under a 

section 10(a)(1)(A) permit. We are 

issuing a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit to 

allow for certain Mexican wolf 

management activities that occur 

outside the MWEPA. Under this permit 

we have the ability to authorize removal 

of Mexican wolves that can be identified 

as coming from the experimental 

population that disperse and establish 

territories in areas outside of the 

MWEPA. Also, in compliance with 

NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), we have 

included analysis of the environmental 

effects of the permit as part of our EIS. 

(33) Comment: The Service needs to 

consider delegating management 

authority of Mexican wolves within the 

MWEPA through this revised rule or a 

State and/or Tribal Cooperative 

Agreement with the Service and/or 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 

with the Secretary of the Interior. The 

revised rule needs to enable willing 

State game and fish agencies and Tribes 

to assume lead roles in wolf 

management within their respective 

areas of lawful jurisdiction. 

Our response: Neither the Act nor its 

implementing regulations allow the 

Service to delegate its management 

authority over Mexican wolves to a 

State. However, in accordance with this 

final rule, a State game and fish agency 

can become a designated agency, which 

is a Federal, State, or tribal agency 

designated by the Service to assist in 

implementing this rule, all or in part, 

consistent with a Service-approved 

management plan, special management 

measure, conference opinion pursuant 

to section 7(a)(4) of the Act, section 6 of 

the Act, as described in 50 CFR 17.31 

for State game and fish agencies with 

authority to manage Mexican wolves, or 

a valid permit issued by the Service 

through 50 CFR 17.32. 

(34) Comment: The Service needs to 

consider delegating management 

authority to Wildlife Services (a 

division of the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (USDA–APHIS)) for 

such things as investigating reported 

depredations on livestock or other 

domestic animals and reports of 

nuisance or problem wolves; 

determining whether and which wolf or 

wolves depredated on livestock or other 

domestic animals; and capturing, 

translocating, and removing Mexican 

wolves. 

Our response: Neither the Act nor its 

implementing regulations allow the 

Service to delegate its management 

authority over Mexican wolves to a 

State or another Federal agency, in this 

case, USDA–APHIS. In this final rule, 

Wildlife Services is one of the lead 

agencies that will confirm cases of wolf 

depredation on lawfully present 

domestic animals. Also, Wildlife 

Services can become a designated 

agency to assist in implementing this 

rule (see response to comment above). 

(35) Comment: The Service needs to 

clarify who verifies legal presence of 

grazing livestock and how they verify it 

(relative to confirming depredation). 

Also, the Service needs to clarify which 

agency or agencies would conduct 

investigations to confirm or refute 

claims of livestock depredation. 

Our response: It is the responsibility 

of the land management agency to verify 

the legal presence of grazing livestock 

on their land. In regard to investigating 

livestock depredation, the Service, 

Wildlife Services, or other Servicedesignated agencies will confirm cases 

of wolf depredation on lawfully present 

livestock or domestic animals. 

(36) Comment: Define thresholds and 

methods for temporary and permanent 

removal of depredating and nuisance 

Mexican wolves; clearly describe how 

Mexican wolf mortalities and livestock 

or domestic animal depredation will be 

investigated and documented while 

ensuring that State, Federal, and tribal 

law enforcement interests are not 

compromised by non-commissioned 

employees of the Service and its 

designated agents; and clearly delineate 

the laws and regulations pertaining to 

ownership and removal or destruction 

of livestock carcasses on public, State, 

tribal, and private lands. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2533 

Our response: Immediately following 

publication of this final rule, the Service 

will begin working with partner 

agencies on an interagency management 

plan that will include standard 

operating procedures for management of 

Mexican wolves, discuss flexible 

thresholds for removal of problem 

Mexican wolves, and describe how 

Mexican wolf mortalities and livestock 

depredations will be investigated. This 

process of following a Mexican wolf 

10(j) rule with an interagency 

management plan that includes 

standard operating procedures was done 

with the 1998 rule and the 1998 

Interagency Management Plan. The laws 

and regulations pertaining to ownership 

and removal or destruction of livestock 

carcasses on public, State, tribal, and 

private lands are outside the purview of 

the Mexican wolf management plan. 

(37) Comment: The Service must 

propose a modification to give the States 

and Tribes authority to control Mexican 

wolves when the population reaches a 

predetermined objective, before 

Mexican wolves have an unacceptable 

impact on wild ungulate populations. 

Our response: Neither the Act nor its 

implementing regulations allow the 

Service to delegate its management 

authority over Mexican wolves to a 

State or Tribe. In this final rule, we have 

included a population objective of 300 

to 325 Mexican wolves. We have also 

included provisions for take in response 

to unacceptable impacts to wild 

ungulates. The final rule allows Tribes 

to request the removal of Mexican 

wolves from their tribal trust lands. 

(38) Comment: One State agency 

requested that the definition of 

occupied Mexican wolf range be 

changed to tie occupied range to the 

presence of breeding populations of 

Mexican wolves only. 

Our response: We have changed the 

definition of occupied Mexican wolf 

range to mean an area of confirmed 

presence of Mexican wolves based on 

the most recent map of occupied range 

posted on the Service’s Mexican Wolf 

Recovery Program Web site at http://

www.fws.gov/southwest/es/

mexicanwolf/. Specific to the 

prohibitions in paragraph (k)(5)(iii) of 

this rule, Zone 3 and tribal trust lands 

are not considered occupied range. 

(39) Comment: Mexican wolves are 

highly mobile (especially young males) 

and will move great distances crossing 

unsuitable habitat in order to expand 

their range. The presence of a single 

Mexican wolf over the period of 1 

month does not denote occupied range. 

Implicit in the term ‘‘occupied’’ is to 

possess or hold a place or to take up 

residence. A single Mexican wolf by 

nature is transient. Mexican wolves are 

pack animals. In order to occupy or take 

up residence in a home range, a family 

group must be established through 

breeding and successful production of 

offspring. The definition of occupied 

Mexican gray wolf range should be 

changed to tie occupied range to the 

presence of breeding populations of 

Mexican wolves only. 

Our response: See response to 

comment above. 

(40) Comment: One State agency 

recommended that Mexican wolves 

involved in depredations on private 

land be classified as problem wolves. 

Failure of the Service to include private 

lands in this definition demonstrates the 

lack of consideration given to private 

landowners and livestock producers. 

Our response: In this final rule, 

problem wolves are defined as Mexican 

wolves that, for purposes of 

management and control by the Service 

or its designated agent(s), are 

individuals or members of a group or 

pack (including adults, yearlings, and 

pups greater than 4 months of age) that 

were involved in a depredation on 

lawfully present domestic animals; or 

habituated to humans, human 

residences, or other facilities regularly 

occupied by humans. This definition of 

problem wolf applies to both Federal 

and non-Federal land within the 

MWEPA. 

(41) Comment: The entire purpose for 

the revision has changed ‘‘to the 

conservation of the Mexican wolf by 

improving the effectiveness of the 

Reintroduction Project in managing the 

experimental population.’’ Utah was not 

consulted about this change in emphasis 

and purpose, nor was it consulted about 

any of the newest provisions contained 

within the experimental population rule 

revision and associated draft EIS. 

Our response: In accordance with 50 

CFR 17.81(d), to the maximum extent 

practicable, this rule represents an 

agreement between the Service, the 

affected State and Federal agencies, and 

persons holding any interest in land that 

may be affected by the establishment of 

this experimental population. The 

Service is limiting the revised MWEPA 

to areas south of Interstate 40 in Arizona 

and New Mexico. Also, we intend to 

capture and return any Mexican wolves 

that disperse outside the MWEPA. 

Because Utah is not a State affected by 

this rule, we did not consult separately 

with that State. We are willing to meet 

with Utah or any other State at any time. 

(42) Comment: One State agency 

suggested the Service include 

prescriptions for when and how a 

Mexican wolf that exhibits unacceptable 

behaviors, such as persistent 

depredation or signs of habituation 

would be removed from the wild. 

Our response: Mexican wolves 

described by the requestor may meet the 

definition of ‘‘problem wolves.’’ The 

rule explains how problem wolves will 

be managed in general. Immediately 

following publication of this final rule, 

the Service will begin working with 

partner agencies on an interagency 

management plan that will include 

standard operating procedures, discuss 

flexible thresholds for removal of 

problem Mexican wolves, and describe 

how Mexican wolf mortalities and 

livestock depredations will be 

investigated. The interagency 

management plan and its standard 

operating procedures will fully comply 

with this rule. 

(43) Comment: The Service should 

include a mechanism for active 

inclusion of and support for 

reintroductions in Mexico. 

Our response: We can only include 

language in the regulations for 

management of Mexican wolves within 

the MWEPA. Furthermore, the Service 

only has regulatory authority within the 

United States. However, we continue to 

support Mexico’s reintroduction 

program. 

(44) Comment: The Service should 

include a dispute resolution in the event 

of a non-economic impasse that cannot 

be resolved at any level between the 

State wildlife management agency and 

the Service. 

Our response: Immediately following 

publication of this final rule, the Service 

will begin working with partner 

agencies on a revised interagency 

management plan that will include an 

addendum for a dispute resolution 

process. The revised interagency 

management plan and its standard 

operating procedures will fully comply 

with this rule. 

(45) Comment: The revised rule 

should identify how and when wolf 

releases will be made and that there 

must be concurrence between the State 

wildlife agencies and the Service. 

Our response: Information on how 

and when Mexican wolf releases will be 

made will be included in an interagency 

management plan, which the Service 

will begin working with partner 

agencies on immediately following 

publication of this final rule. The 

interagency management plan and its 

standard operating procedures will fully 

comply with this rule. 

(46) Comment: The Service proposal 

asserts that under no circumstances 

would shooting a Mexican wolf be 

considered incidental take. This 

approach predetermines the outcomes 

of investigations that in many cases to 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
2534 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

date, in Arizona, New Mexico, and 

elsewhere in gray wolf range, have 

resulted in findings that private citizens 

and wildlife agency officials have on 

occasion incidentally (inadvertently) 

taken a wolf by shooting. The Service 

fails to analyze adequately the impacts 

of this strategy on agency wolf 

management efforts and on private 

citizens who might kill a wolf when 

protecting their livestock against coyote 

depredation. 

Our response: The Service does not 

make this assertion. Under certain 

circumstances incidental take of a 

Mexican wolf by shooting might be 

allowable (i.e., take in defense of human 

life). Each incident of take will be 

investigated and determinations 

regarding those investigations will be 

made on a case-by-case basis. Nothing 

in this rule predetermines the outcome 

of an investigation into the take of a 

Mexican wolf. 

(47) Comment: The proposed rule 

fails to include any portion of the 

cooperating agencies’ alternative 

(proposal) in violation of 50 CFR 

17.81(d), which requires that any 

regulation promulgated pursuant to 

section 10(j) of the ESA shall, to the 

maximum extent practicable, represent 

an agreement between the Service, an 

affected State, Federal agencies, and 

affected landowners. The omission of 

any significant element of the 

Cooperating Agencies’ proposal in the 

proposed rule is clear evidence the 

Service has failed to provide meaningful 

cooperation or make a good faith effort 

to reach an agreement with the 

cooperating agencies. 

Our response: In accordance with 50 

CFR 17.81(d), to the maximum extent 

practicable, this rule represents an 

agreement between the Service, the 

affected State, and Federal agencies, and 

persons holding any interest in land that 

may be affected by the establishment of 

this experimental population. We 

invited 84 Federal and State agencies, 

local governments, and tribes to 

participate as cooperating agencies in 

the development of the EIS, 27 of which 

signed memoranda of agreements. We 

have maintained a list of individual 

stakeholders, as well as a Web site, 

since the initiation of the EIS 

development to ensure that interested 

and potentially affected parties received 

information on the EIS and notices of 

opportunities for public involvement. 

We met with the Arizona Game and 

Fish Department and the New Mexico 

Department of Game and Fish to collect 

data and develop the analyses of effects 

to native species, particularly ungulates 

and economic impacts associated with 

hunting in Arizona and New Mexico. 

We also met with the two State game 

and fish agencies to discuss issues and 

recommendations they may have with 

the proposed rules. To the maximum 

extent practicable, the Service has 

provided meaningful cooperation and 

made a good faith effort to reach an 

agreement with cooperating agencies. 

Parts of this final rule that the States 

requested, and that the Service has 

agreed to, include: a population 

objective of 300–325 wolves in the 

MWEPA, a phased management 

approach in western Arizona, 

clarifications to various definitions, and 

the definition and take provision related 

to unacceptable impacts to native 

ungulates. The final EIS (Service 2014) 

addressed other portions of the Arizona 

Cooperating Agency’s alternative in 

Chapter 2 that did not meet our purpose 

and need. 

(48) Comment: The proposed rule 

unlawfully shifts the burden to the 

States to monitor Mexican wolf 

predation and the impacts to prey 

populations. The Tenth Amendment to 

the Constitution prohibits a Federal 

agency from compelling a State to 

administer a Federal regulatory 

program. Requiring the States to 

document impacts to the ungulate 

population forces the States to 

undertake expensive scientific studies 

to determine what impact wolf 

predation has on prey populations. 

Monitoring impacts to ungulate 

populations will help understand the 

relationship between wolf predation 

and ungulate management goals, and it 

will also provide valuable information 

on the relationship between prey 

populations and wolf conservation. 

Our response: This rule does not 

require the States to do anything that 

they have not asked to do. Nothing in 

this rule compels a State to administer 

this program because the Act does not 

allow the Service to delegate its 

authority in such a manner. We met 

with the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department and the New Mexico 

Department of Game and Fish, and, 

pursuant to their request, we defined 

unacceptable impact to a wild ungulate 

herd. According to the definition that 

the States created, an unacceptable 

impact to a wild ungulate herd will be 

determined by a State game and fish 

agency based upon ungulate 

management goals, or a 15 percent 

decline in an ungulate herd as 

documented by a State game and fish 

agency, using their preferred 

methodology, based on the 

preponderance of evidence from bull to 

cow ratios, cow to calf ratios, hunter 

days, and/or elk population estimates. 

Because the State game and fish 

agencies conduct annual monitoring of 

their wild ungulate herds regardless of 

this final rule, we do not believe this 

final rule unlawfully shifts the burden 

to the States to monitor Mexican wolf 

predation and the impacts to prey 

populations. 

(49) Comment: The Service must 

provide a definition for the term 

‘‘domestic animals’’ to clarify the 

reference and distinguish it from 

‘‘livestock.’’ The definition for ‘‘Problem 

wolves’’ includes a reference to impacts 

on ‘‘domestic animals,’’ but it is not 

clear what animals are included under 

this reference for purposes of affecting 

associated management responses to 

problem wolves. 

Our response: Paragraph (k)(3) of the 

Definitions section of the regulations 

includes definitions for both domestic 

animals and livestock. Domestic animal 

means livestock as defined in paragraph 

(k)(3) and non-feral dogs. Livestock 

means domestic alpacas, bison, burros 

(donkeys), cattle, goats, horses, llamas, 

mules, and sheep, or other domestic 

animals defined as livestock in Serviceapproved State and tribal Mexican wolf 

management plans. Poultry is not 

considered livestock under this rule. 

(50) Comment: The Service must 

clarify that the reintroduction project is 

a collaborative project among multiple 

jurisdictions that is guided by an 

overarching MOU, and that 

accompanying management has been 

implemented through an Interagency 

Field Team staffed and supported by 

resource management agencies that are 

signatories to the MOU. 

Our response: The clarification 

requested in this comment is not 

required by the Act or its implementing 

regulations. Immediately following 

publication of this final rule, the Service 

will begin working with partner 

agencies on an interagency management 

plan that will include standard 

operating procedures. 

(51) Comment: One State agency 

suggested removing proposed 

paragraphs (k)(5)(iii)(B) through (E) 

because the State laws and guidelines 

encompass standards for minimizing 

any harm or fatalities that might occur 

once a Mexican wolf becomes 

incidentally trapped. 

Our response: With regard to due care 

and trapping activities, we have left 

paragraphs (k)(5)(iii)(B) through (E) in 

the final rule because these due care 

provisions allow for trapping to occur in 

a way that reduces harm to Mexican 

wolves. 

(52) Comment: As a result of our 

perspective that the Service has 

demonstrated a lack of commitment to 

various aspects of the Mexican wolf 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2535 

program, we suggest that the new final 

rule include a provision that rescinds 

the new experimental population rule 

and immediately reinstates the 1998 

Final Rule. This change would include 

using all means necessary to return the 

population to the 1998 objective of at 

least 100 wolves but no more than the 

number of wolves that are present 

within the current BRWRA if the 

Service initiates any Federal process to 

change the experimental population 

status of Mexican wolves or designate 

critical habitat for the experimental 

population. 

Our response: The provision 

requested in the comment is not legally 

required by the Act or its implementing 

regulations. Therefore, we will not 

insert such a provision into this rule. 

Any change to the status of the Mexican 

wolf will require further public review 

and comment. 

(53) Comment: The definition of 

depredation should exclude the words 

‘‘confirmed’’ and ‘‘lawfully present.’’ 

Depredation occurs anytime a Mexican 

wolf attacks domestic animals. 

Inclusion of these qualifiers would 

result in reported depredations lower 

than what actually occurs. 

Our response: In this final rule, we 

have defined as Depredation the 

confirmed killing or wounding of 

lawfully present domestic animals by 

one or more Mexican wolves. The 

Service, USDA–APHIS (Wildlife 

Services), or other Service-designated 

agencies will confirm cases of wolf 

depredation on lawfully present 

domestic animals. The ‘‘confirmed’’ 

killing or wounding of lawfully present 

domestic animals by a Mexican wolf is 

needed to ensure that the depredation 

was caused by a Mexican wolf and not 

some other predator. The words 

‘‘lawfully present’’ are part of the 

depredation definition because we do 

not want to influence Mexican wolf 

management for a depredation where 

the domestic animal was trespassing. 

For example, cattle trespassing on 

Federal lands are not considered 

lawfully present domestic animals. 

(54) Comment: The proposed 

definition for livestock represents an 

inconsistency with the New Mexico 

Livestock Code at 77–2–1.1 NMSA 

1978. Any kind or class of livestock 

represents a significant investment by 

owners and should be included in the 

rule’s definition. 

Our response: We recognize that there 

are various definitions for ‘‘livestock’’ in 

the multiple jurisdictions across the 

States of Arizona and New Mexico. We 

have defined livestock for purposes of 

this final rule, which may not be 

consistent with the purposes of the 

various jurisdictions. 

(55) Comment: Paragraph 

(k)(7)(viii)(C) of the proposed rule 

provides that, ‘‘Take of Mexican wolves 

by Wildlife Services employees while 

conducting official duties associated 

with predator damage management 

activities for species other than Mexican 

wolves may be considered unintentional 

if it is coincidental to a legal activity 

and the Wildlife Services employees 

have adhered to all applicable Wildlife 

Services’ policies, Mexican wolf 

standard operating procedures, and 

reasonable and prudent measures or 

recommendations contained in Wildlife 

Service’s biological and conference 

opinions.’’ These exemptions and 

exclusions from the take provisions 

need to be extended to local government 

agents and licensed livestock producers 

that use M–44 devices for predator 

damage management. 

Our response: We have included a 

provision in this final rule prohibiting 

Wildlife Services from using M–44’s 

and choking-type snares in occupied 

Mexican wolf range and that Wildlife 

Services may restrict or modify other 

predator control activities pursuant to a 

Service-approved management 

agreement or a conference opinion 

between Wildlife Services and the 

Service. The provision for unintentional 

take allows for the take of a Mexican 

wolf by any person if the take is 

unintentional and occurs while the 

person is engaging in an otherwise 

lawful activity. Such take must be 

reported as specified in accordance with 

paragraph (k)(6) of the regulations. 

Hunters and other shooters have the 

responsibility to identify their quarry or 

target before shooting, thus shooting a 

wolf as a result of mistaking it for 

another species will not be considered 

unintentional take. Take by poisoning 

will not be considered unintentional 

take. 

(56) Comment: Another problem with 

take by poisoning not being included as 

unintentional take exists with the use of 

livestock protection collars (LPCs) that 

use Compound 1080 or some other 

poisoning agent. LPCs are licensed and 

approved for use in New Mexico as a 

predator damage management tool. 

Livestock producers and government 

employees can be licensed to use these 

devices. The poisoning agent in LPCs is 

released when a predator physically 

bites the collar. Thus, for these devices 

to take a Mexican wolf, the wolf would 

have to be engaged in the act of biting 

the animal wearing the LPC. The 

Service should include provisions for 

the use of LPCs in the experimental 

population rule. 

Our response: Take by poisoning will 

not be considered unintentional take. 

Poisoning is nondiscriminatory, and if 

allowed, LPCs on livestock that died for 

reasons other than Mexican wolf 

predation could result in Mexican wolf 

mortalities for those that were 

scavenging on dead carcasses. 

Comments From Tribes 

(57) Comment: Any changes to the 

rule must include assurances that 

funding from the Service will continue, 

which will allow Tribes to effectively 

manage Mexican wolves that enter tribal 

trust lands. If changes result in a 

significant increase in Mexican wolves 

on tribal trust lands, funding from the 

Service should increase 

correspondingly. The Service needs to 

provide assurances to the tribes that any 

Mexican wolves moving onto tribal trust 

lands will be managed according to 

tribal authorities and increased funding 

for the Tribe to manage these additional 

wolves. 

Our response: The Service’s funding 

is allocated annually by Congress; 

therefore, we are not able to provide 

assurances in a final rule regarding 

funding to Tribes for management of 

Mexican wolves. However, it is our 

intent to continue to provide funding to 

Tribes as it is available for the 

management of Mexican wolves on their 

tribal lands. 

(58) Comment: Further information 

was requested on the total number of 

reintroduced Mexican wolves that will 

be needed to achieve a viable and selfsustaining population goal. Further, the 

projected timeframe was requested for 

when the Service has considered 

achieving an adequate population in 

which the Mexican wolf will no longer 

be considered endangered and require 

special designation. 

Our response: The Service has not yet 

completed a revised recovery plan that 

would describe the total number of 

Mexican wolves, and the timeframe, 

needed to achieve a viable and selfsustaining population such that the 

protections of the Act would no longer 

be needed. However, we have provided 

for a population objective of 300–325 

Mexican wolves within the MWEPA in 

this final rule. 

(59) Comment: Clarify which Mexican 

wolves on which lands will contribute 

toward reintroduction and recovery 

objectives. The 1998 Final Rule speaks 

to a population objective of at least 100 

wolves within the MWEPA. The 

MWEPA defined by the current 

proposed rule revision does not include 

tribal lands, thus the significant 

contribution of the White Mountain 

Apache Tribe to Mexican wolf 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
2536 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

conservation is masked on the front end, 

even as the total number of wild 

Mexican wolves counted each year 

includes those on tribal lands and thus 

masks how short the Service is falling 

in achieving its objective of establishing 

a population of at least 100 wolves on 

non-tribal lands. 

Our response: The 1998 Final Rule 

included tribal lands within the 

MWEPA, although they were not 

included in the BRWRA. At the request 

of the White Mountain Apache Tribe, 

we do not identify the number of 

Mexican wolves or packs on the Fort 

Apache Indian Reservation; however, 

those numbers are included in the 

overall Arizona population count, as 

they are important contributions to the 

experimental population. We will 

develop recovery criteria in a revised 

Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan, which 

will include a determination of how 

many Mexican wolves are needed for 

recovery as well as other measures of 

threat alleviation; we intend for the 

experimental population in the MWEPA 

(including wolves on participating tribal 

lands) to function as a population 

contributing to the delisting criteria. 

However, as provided in this final rule, 

the Service or a designated agency may 

develop and implement management 

actions in cooperation with willing 

tribal governments on tribal trust land 

within Zones 1 and 2 of the MWEPA, 

including: Occupancy by natural 

dispersal; initial release; translocation of 

Mexican wolves onto such lands; and 

capture and removal of Mexican wolves 

from tribal trust land if requested by the 

tribal government. Thus, we recognize 

that even a participating tribe may 

request the removal of Mexican wolves 

from their tribal trust lands at any time. 

(60) Comment: The Service has not 

provided a revised draft copy of the 

1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan, 

which will impact the proposed 

revision to the regulations for the 

experimental population of the Mexican 

wolf. The proposed revisions would 

have more validity and it would be 

easier to understand the impacts if there 

was a clear recovery goal. 

Our response: We have not yet 

completed a revised recovery plan that 

would articulate objective and 

measurable recovery criteria for the 

species. We intend to revise the 

recovery plan as soon as feasible. 

(61) Comment: Make it explicit that 

tribal-acquired lands that have not been 

reserved by Congress cannot be 

included in the ‘‘tribal lands’’ for which 

the Service intends to allow tribal 

development of management plans and/ 

or execution of other wolf management 

activities. Clearly, tribal trust lands 

(which include, but may not be limited 

to, designated Reservation lands) are 

different than fee-simple lands acquired 

by Tribes. State wildlife management 

authorities do not extend to 

Reservations, but they do extend to 

private lands that Tribes acquire 

through purchase or lease, and which 

are not held in trust by the Federal 

Government. 

Our response: In this final rule, we 

have defined tribal trust land to mean 

any lands title to which is either: (1) 

Held in trust by the United States for the 

benefit of any Indian tribe or individual; 

or (2) held by any Indian tribe or 

individual subject to restrictions by the 

United States against alienation. For 

purposes of this rule, tribal trust land 

does not include land purchased in fee 

title by a Tribe. We consider fee simple 

lands purchased by Tribes to be private 

land for purposes of development and 

implementing management actions to 

benefit Mexican wolf recovery, under 

paragraph (k)(9)(ii) of the regulations. 

(62) Comment: The Service needs to 

evaluate impacts to the Tribe’s trophy 

elk program and subsequent loss of 

revenue if Mexican wolves from the 

Tonto National Forest move onto 

Reservation lands. The proposed 

revisions’ failure to separately identify 

big game depredation is a major flaw. 

The San Carlos Apache Tribe’s elk 

hunts are recognized worldwide as 

exceptional big game hunting 

experiences. The Tribe and its member 

outfitters benefit economically from elk 

and deer hunts on the Reservation. The 

proposed revision, by concentrating on 

livestock depredation, fails to recognize 

the importance of big game hunting to 

the Tribe and the importance of harvest 

of game by hunters on the Reservation. 

Our response: The Service has done 

this evaluation. As part of the economic 

analysis associated with the EIS, we 

utilized available information in our 

impact analysis for biological resources 

and the hunting economic sector in the 

project area. We found that trends in 

hunter visitation and success rates since 

1998 in the areas occupied by Mexican 

wolves are stable or increasing based on 

the number of licensed hunters and 

hunter success rates. Further, Tribes 

that do not want Mexican wolves on 

their tribal trust land can request 

removal of wolves, and our final rule 

allows for the take of Mexican wolves 

due to unacceptable impacts to wild 

ungulate herds as defined by State 

management objectives, which will 

serve as mitigation for any herds that 

may suffer heavier predation impacts. 

Therefore, we do not foresee a 

significant economic impact to a 

substantial number of small entities 

associated with hunting activities. 

(63) Comment: Provisions for take of 

Mexican wolves on the Reservation 

should exist and should not be equated 

with private land take. Tribes are 

sovereign and should not be viewed as 

the equivalent to private or public land. 

Our response: The Service recognizes 

the unique government-to-government 

relationship between Indian Tribes and 

the United States. Furthermore, the 

Service recognizes that Indian lands are 

not Federal public lands or part of the 

public domain, and are not subject to 

Federal public land laws. They were 

retained by Tribes or were set aside for 

tribal use pursuant to treaties, statutes, 

judicial decisions, executive orders, or 

agreements. These lands are managed by 

Indian Tribes in accordance with tribal 

goals and objectives, within the 

framework of applicable laws. Mexican 

wolves on all land, including tribal 

reservations, within the MWEPA will be 

managed under the proposed 10(j) rule. 

Under their sovereign authority Tribes 

have the option of allowing Mexican 

wolves to occupy tribal trust land or to 

request their removal. Tribes will also 

have the option to enter into voluntary 

agreements with the Service for the 

management of Mexican wolves on 

tribal trust land. No agreement is 

necessary for the capture and removal of 

Mexican wolves from tribal trust land if 

requested by the tribal government. In 

this final rule, tribal members can 

harass a wolf (considered nonlethal 

take) exhibiting nuisance behavior or 

habituation; take (including kill or 

injure) any Mexican wolf in the act of 

killing, wounding, or biting domestic 

animals (specifically livestock and pet 

dogs) on tribal land, and take (which 

includes killing as well as nonlethal 

actions such as harassing, harming, and 

wounding) a Mexican wolf in selfdefense or defense of the lives of others. 

Also, in conjunction with a removal 

action authorized by the Service, the 

Service or a designated agency may, 

under certain circumstances, issue 

permits to allow domestic animal 

owners or their agents to take (including 

kill or injure) any Mexican wolf that is 

present on non-Federal land anywhere 

within the MWEPA. 

(64) Comment: The proposed revision 

fails to address the Tribe’s concerns and 

objections pertaining to livestock and 

game depredation by the Mexican wolf 

on Tribal trust land. Any attempts to 

compare the effects of depredations on 

the Reservation with the effects of 

depredations that have occurred in the 

MWEPA are unavailing to the Tribe’s 

view, because of the disproportionate 

economic impact upon the Tribe and its 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2537 

members. The Service’s lack of Federal 

funding to compensate State and Tribal 

livestock operators for depredation 

issues is a concern for Tribal livestock 

operators. 

Our response: The Service evaluated 

the impacts of livestock and game 

depredation by Mexican wolves within 

the economic analyses associated with 

the EIS pursuant to the NEPA process, 

including an environmental justice 

analysis to consider impacts to Native 

American tribes. In addition, a 

document was developed by a Tribal 

subgroup of the Mexican Wolf Recovery 

Team, titled, ‘‘Tribal Perspectives on 

Mexican Wolf Recovery.’’ This 

document presents the various 

perspectives that Tribes may have 

regarding the Mexican Wolf Recovery 

Program. Perspectives include cultural, 

traditional, economic, legal, and social 

considerations that are important for the 

Service and other agencies to 

understand when implementing 

Mexican wolf recovery on or near Tribal 

lands. As sovereign nations, Tribes have 

authority over their lands and, thus, 

have a unique relationship with federal 

agencies. Regarding compensation for 

livestock depredations, both the San 

Carlos Apache Tribe and the White 

Mountain Apache Tribe have 

participated on the Mexican Wolf/

Livestock Coexistence Council to 

develop compensation guidelines and a 

long-term coexistence plan. The 

Coexistence Council is now in the 

process of seeking funding from private 

and public sources. 

(65) Comment: No additional 

reintroductions of Mexican wolves 

should take place in Arizona or New 

Mexico until reintroduction in prime 

areas in Mexico is ongoing and Mexico 

is fully committed to the program; the 

Arizona Game and Fish Department has 

primary control of the program in 

Arizona; the Service provides Tribes 

with adequate funds; and section 10(j) 

of the Act has been utilized to allow 

take of Mexican wolves killing, 

wounding, biting, chasing, threatening, 

or harassing humans, pets, or livestock 

on private land, subject to reasonable 

notice and reporting requirements. 

Our response: Currently, Mexico is 

reintroducing Mexican wolves from the 

captive population into their historical 

range in Mexico, in accordance with 

their laws and their recovery plan for 

the Mexican wolf. The Service only has 

regulatory authority within the United 

States, and it is our mission to work 

with others to conserve, protect, and 

enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and 

their habitats for the continuing benefit 

of the American people. In this final 

rule, we allow for: (1) Designated 

agencies, including the Arizona Game 

and Fish Department and tribes, to 

assist in implementing this rule, (2) 

Take in defense of human life (Under 

section 11(a)(3) of the Act and 50 CFR 

17.21(c)(2), any person may take (which 

includes killing as well as nonlethal 

actions such as harassing or harming) a 

Mexican wolf in self-defense or defense 

of the lives of others.); and (3) on nonFederal lands anywhere within the 

MWEPA, domestic animal owners or 

their agents may take (including kill or 

injure) any Mexican wolf that is in the 

act of biting, killing, or wounding a 

domestic animal, as defined in 

paragraph (k)(3) of this section. 

(66) Comment: Describe how Mexican 

wolf management on Tribal and nonTribal lands in both Arizona and New 

Mexico will be coordinated to ensure 

that neither positive nor negative 

impacts of Mexican wolf reintroduction 

will fall disproportionately on Tribes or 

on non-Tribal interests. 

Our response: Because the regulatory 

burden of Mexican wolf recovery rests 

on Federal land, this final rule has been 

modified to allow for separate take 

provisions on Federal and non-Federal 

land (which includes tribal land) to 

allow for more flexibility in 

management of problem wolves on nonFederal land. The Service will continue 

to communicate with local communities 

and Tribes regarding the management of 

wolves on tribal and non-tribal lands in 

both Arizona and New Mexico through 

our Web site, conference calls, 

webinars, and face-to-face meetings. The 

Service is committed to ensuring that 

negative impacts of Mexican wolf 

reintroduction will not fall 

disproportionately on tribes. To this 

end, we have included a provision for 

the development of management 

agreements with any tribe that wishes to 

participate in the reintroduction and 

host Mexican wolves on their land. 

Tribes that do not want Mexican wolves 

on their tribal trust land can request 

removal of wolves. We have excluded 

tribal land in our definition of occupied 

Mexican wolf range related to due care 

for trapping activities. 

(67) Comment: Some tribes 

acknowledged that the Mexican wolf 

plays an integral predatory role in the 

ecosystem and was once a traditional 

species. It was the Tribe’s opinion that 

the current experimental population of 

the Mexican wolf should remain at the 

current designation. 

Our response: With this final rule, we 

revise the 1998 Final Rule to improve 

the effectiveness of our reintroduction 

project. Over time and through input 

from our partners, we recognized the 

need to revise the 1998 Final Rule to 

help us enhance the growth, stability, 

and success of the experimental 

population. The revisions include 

allowing Mexican wolves to be released 

in a larger area as well as allowing them 

to disperse throughout and occupy the 

MWEPA. 

(68) Comment: One Tribe stated that 

the proposed revision to the regulations 

for the experimental population of the 

Mexican wolf expansion and 

reintroduction efforts of the Service on 

tribal trust lands is against traditional 

beliefs and further consultation on 

Traditional Ecological Knowledge 

regarding wolves with the Tribes is 

warranted. 

Our response: The Service would 

appreciate invitations from Tribes for 

consultation on Traditional Ecological 

Knowledge regarding wolves. The 

reintroduction program would benefit 

from incorporating Traditional 

Ecological Knowledge of Mexican 

wolves that historically occurred in 

Arizona and New Mexico into our 

knowledge base. For example, a study 

on the cultural aspects of Mexican 

wolves was recently completed in 2009 

with White Mountain and San Carlos 

Apache Tribes. As noted in responses to 

comments above, tribes have the ability 

under this final rule to request the 

removal of Mexican wolves from their 

tribal trust lands. 

(69) Comment: The Service has not 

disclosed the number of Mexican 

wolves proposed to be released and the 

location of release sites within the State 

of Arizona. 

Our response: Chapter 1 and 

Appendix D of the EIS describe the 

number of initial releases we expect to 

conduct in order to improve the genetic 

composition of the experimental 

population (one to two packs of 

Mexican wolves every 4 years). We will 

work with Tribes and partner agencies 

to identify appropriate release sites 

based on criteria that address adequate 

prey and avoidance of human conflicts; 

Appendix D of the EIS provides more 

information on current initial release 

sites and our process for selecting sites 

in the future in the discussion of 

Alternative One. 

(70) Comment: One Tribe expressed 

concerns regarding the Service’s 

justification of further introduction of 

the Mexican wolf in Arizona. They 

stated that according to the Service’s 

current data, the State of Arizona 

accounts for only 15 to 18 percent of 

suitable habitat for the Mexican wolf in 

its entire historical range. The Tribe 

recommended that reintroduction 

efforts be concentrated and focused on 

historical home range in Mexico. It is 

the Tribe’s opinion that the Mexican 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
2538 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

wolf should be reintroduced in Mexico 

and allowed to naturally disperse from 

its historical habitat and range. 

Our response: Maps of the Mexican 

wolf’s historical range are available in 

the scientific literature (Young and 

Goldman 1944, p. 414; Hall and Kelson, 

1959, p. 849; Hall 1981, p. 932; Bogan 

and Mehlhop 1983, p. 17; Nowak 1995, 

p. 395; Parsons 1996, p. 106). Depiction 

of the northern extent of the Mexican 

wolf’s historical range among the 

available descriptions varies depending 

on the authors’ taxonomic treatment of 

several subspecies that occurred in the 

Southwest and their related treatment of 

intergradation zones. There is evidence 

indicating that the Mexican wolf may 

have ranged north into southern Utah 

and southern Colorado within zones of 

intergradation where interbreeding with 

other gray wolf subspecies may have 

occurred (Leonard et al. 2005, pp. 11 

and 15). In any case, the Service is 

currently working with the Mexican 

Government on Mexican wolf 

conservation and reintroduction in 

northern Mexico. However, the 

southwestern United States is also an 

important area for the recovery of the 

Mexican wolves, and, thus, we will 

continue with the reintroduction and 

management of Mexican wolves in the 

MWEPA. 

(71) Comment: The Service has 

indicated there is no Federal funding for 

future Mexican wolf recovery efforts 

and Tribes can develop their own 

Mexican Wolf Management Plans, with 

Federal approval, including take 

measures with certain restrictions. 

Based on tribal sovereignty and the 

tribes’ rights to manage their natural 

resources, it was the opinion of one 

tribe that they have the right to develop 

their own wolf management plan, 

including take measures that are in the 

best interest of the Tribe. If Federal 

funding is available to tribes, the tribe 

will comply with Federal requirements 

and comply with Federal approval of 

tribe’s proposed wolf management 

plans. 

Our response: The Service will 

explore Statements of Relationship with 

individual Tribes as well as assist with 

the development of Tribal Wolf 

Management Plans. Such plans, once 

approved by the Service, would provide 

the Tribe with authorization for 

implementation of take measures, as 

provided for in this final rule. 

(72) Comment: Expand the MWEPA 

from the United States-Mexico border to 

the border of Utah and Colorado, 

throughout the entire States of Arizona 

and New Mexico. This would eliminate 

the need for a special management plan 

in areas outside the MWEPA in Arizona 

and New Mexico. 

Our response: The 1998 Final Rule 

enabled us to release Mexican wolves 

from the captive population into the 

wild to determine if it was possible to 

establish a wild population following 

the extirpation of the species in the 

early 1970s. Since 1998, we have 

demonstrated success in establishing a 

wild population (e.g., a minimum of 83 

Mexican wolves in the wild, all of 

which are wild born as of December 

2013). However, we are now expanding 

the MWEPA and revising the 

regulations to the 1998 Final Rule so 

that we can improve the effectiveness of 

the reintroduction project to achieve the 

necessary population growth, 

distribution, and recruitment, as well as 

genetic variation within the Mexican 

wolf experimental population so that it 

can contribute to recovery in the future. 

Following this phase of improving the 

existing experimental population, we 

intend to revise the Mexican wolf 

recovery plan so that it provides a 

recovery goal and objective recovery 

criteria. Implementation of the revised 

recovery plan may necessitate revision 

to this regulation for the experimental 

population in the MWEPA or the 

development of regulations associated 

with the establishment of one or more 

populations in other areas in the future, 

which will include any necessary 

analysis pursuant to NEPA. If these 

actions took place north of I–40, 

coordination with the States of Colorado 

and Utah, in addition to Arizona and 

New Mexico, would be required. 

Because we do not have a revised 

recovery plan at this time to guide us on 

where Mexican wolves are needed to 

reach full recovery (i.e., delisting), we 

are limiting the revised MWEPA to areas 

south of Interstate 40 in Arizona and 

New Mexico. 

(73) Comment: Identify the region 

north of Interstate 40 as a ‘‘no go’’ or 

‘‘relocate’’ zone, and relocate Mexican 

wolves that enter this area back to the 

MWEPA, retaining the 10(j) flexibility to 

harass, and otherwise manage wolves 

moving north. This would help all 

entities manage Mexican wolves moving 

north; would help maintain the 

separation between the northern gray 

wolf populations and the reintroduced 

Mexican wolf; expand the flexibility of 

the Service in working with Pueblos, 

Tribes, private landowners and States; 

and avoid the abrupt shift in 

management between areas. 

Our response: We discuss our 

rationale for not including the region 

north of Interstate 40 as part of the 

MWEPA in our discussion of 

Alternatives Eliminated from Further 

Consideration in Chapter 2 of the EIS 

(Service 2014, Chapter 2, p. 5–7). While 

we recognize the importance of natural 

dispersal and colonization/

recolonization of unoccupied habitat, 

which expands the species’ range, our 

purpose in proposing changes to the 

1998 Final Rule is to improve the 

effectiveness of the reintroduction 

project to achieve the necessary 

population growth, distribution, and 

recruitment, as well as genetic variation 

within the Mexican wolf experimental 

population so that it can contribute to 

recovery in the future. Following this 

phase of improving the existing 

experimental population, we intend to 

revise the Mexican wolf recovery plan 

so that it provides a recovery goal and 

objective recovery criteria, which may 

require further revision to this 

regulation for the experimental 

population in the future including any 

necessary analysis pursuant to NEPA. 

Future revisions may include an 

expansion of the MWEPA north of I–40, 

and such a revision would require 

coordination with the States of Colorado 

and Utah. Because we do not have a 

revised recovery plan at this time to 

guide us on where Mexican wolves are 

needed to reach full recovery (i.e., 

delisting), we are limiting the revised 

MWEPA to areas south of Interstate 40 

in Arizona and New Mexico. 

(74) Comment: Establish clear 

relocation guidelines. 

Our response: We currently have 

criteria for initial releases and 

translocations of Mexican wolves for the 

BRWRA, which include distance from 

towns and dwellings that are occupied 

year-round and adequate prey 

abundance. We will continue to use 

these criteria pending completion of a 

new management plan, which will 

include similar provisions. 

(75) Comment: On maps of potential 

habitat or of expanded areas, include 

tribal lands and possibly indicate those 

with resolutions that permit Mexican 

wolves or demand removal as separate 

categories. For example, Fort Apache 

Indian Reservation is often indicated, 

and permits Mexican wolves, whereas 

San Carlos Indian Reservation demands 

removal, but is not indicated separately 

from other 10(j) populations. 

Our response: The Fort Apache Indian 

Reservation is included in the map of 

our revised 10(j) rule because they have 

been an important partner in Mexican 

wolf reintroductions and we wanted to 

show the public where this Reservation 

is located in relation to the rest of our 

initial release areas (Zone 1). We 

include a map (Figure 3–5 in the final 

EIS) of tribal land and suitable habitat 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2539 

in the project area (Service 2014, 

Chapter 3 p. 33). 

Comments From the Public 

Comments on Legal Compliance With 

Laws, Regulations, and Policies 

(76) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that Mexican wolves should be 

considered essential rather than 

nonessential under the revised 10(j) 

designation. When the current rule 

declared Mexican wolves in the wild 

‘‘nonessential,’’ there were only 11 

wolves, recently released from a 

captive-breeding program, and they 

made up only 7 percent of all Mexican 

wolves in the world. Now the 75 wolves 

in the wild have up to four generations 

of experience in establishing packs and 

raising pups and make up more than 22 

percent of all of the Mexican wolves in 

the world. After four generations of 

captive breeding with few releases, 

scientists warn that there may be serious 

genetic problems making captive wolves 

less able to thrive in the wild. The 

fourth generation of wild lobos is not 

expendable and is essential to 

recovering this unique subspecies of 

wolf. Mexican wolves should have full 

protection under the Endangered 

Species Act. 

Our response: This experimental 

population was originally designated in 

1998, including the determination that 

it was nonessential. Nothing in this rule 

changes the scope of that designation. 

The Mexican wolf population that is in 

the wild in Arizona and New Mexico 

today is the experimental population 

that was designated in the 1998 Final 

Rule. This rule revises only the 

management regulations that apply to 

the population. Therefore, 

reconsideration of whether the 

population is essential or nonessential 

is outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

See also, Designation of Experimental 

Population as Essential or Nonessential, 

below. 

(77) Comment: Some commenters 

suggested that designation of the 

Mexican wolf as nonessential means 

that it is not endangered, and, therefore, 

there is no reason to reintroduce it. 

Our response: The Mexican wolf 

remains an endangered species under 

the Act. The nonessential experimental 

population designation is a 

classification for a geographic area 

designed to make the reintroduction and 

management of endangered species 

more flexible and responsive to public 

concerns to improve the likelihood of 

successfully recovering the Mexican 

wolf. 

(78) Comment: Many commenters 

were concerned that the Service did not 

use the best available science. 

Our response: As required by section 

4(b) of the Act, we used the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

in making this final determination. We 

solicited peer review on the proposed 

revision to the regulations for the 

experimental population of the Mexican 

wolf from knowledgeable individuals 

with scientific expertise that included 

familiarity with the species, the 

geographic region in which the species 

occurs, and conservation biology 

principles to ensure that our final 10(j) 

rule is based on scientifically sound 

data, assumptions, and analysis. 

Additionally, we requested comments 

or information from other concerned 

governmental agencies, Native 

American Tribes, the scientific 

community, industry, and any other 

interested parties concerning the 

proposed rule. Comments and 

information we received helped inform 

this final rule. We used multiple sources 

of information including: Results of 

numerous surveys, peer-reviewed 

literature, unpublished reports by 

scientists and biological consultants, 

geospatial analysis, monitoring data 

from the BRWRA, and expert opinion 

from biologists with extensive 

experience studying wolves and their 

habitat. 

In addition, we have complied with 

our policy on information standards 

under the Act (published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), 

the Information Quality Act (section 515 

of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 

5658)), and our associated Information 

Quality Guidelines, which provide 

criteria, establish procedures, and 

provide guidance to ensure that our 

decisions are based on the best scientific 

data available. Information sources may 

include the recovery plan for the 

species, peer-reviewed journals, 

conservation plans developed by States 

and counties, scientific status surveys 

and studies, biological assessments, 

other unpublished materials, or experts’ 

opinions or personal knowledge. 

Although some of these documents were 

not published in peer-reviewed 

journals, they still contain credible 

scientific information and represent the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available. 

(79) Comment: The proposed rule 

does not address the social and 

economic impacts with the proposal to 

introduce, reintroduce, or translocate 

wolves. 

Our response: We have addressed the 

various benefits and costs associated 

with this rulemaking as required by the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act, and NEPA in the Required 

Determinations section. Our EIS 

assesses economic impacts associated 

with this rule on livestock production, 

hunting, and tourism. 

(80) Comment: Eliminate the 

requirement for a 5-year review and 

replace it with a provision requiring 

annual monitoring and evaluation 

presented in annual reports released 

within 3 months of the annual 

population count conducted in January 

of each year. This is the current practice 

of the Interagency Field Team. 

Our response: We put the reporting 

requirement in the regulations of this 

revised 10(j) designation because it is a 

requirement under 50 CFR 17.81(c)(4), 

which says that any regulation 

promulgated under paragraph (a) of the 

section shall provide a process for 

periodic review and evaluation of the 

success or failure of the release and the 

effect of the release on the conservation 

and recovery of the species. We are not 

replacing the 5-year review provision 

with one requiring annual monitoring 

and evaluation presented in annual 

reports because the annual reports do 

not evaluate the success or failure of the 

10(j) designation in relation to the 

conservation and recovery of the 

Mexican wolf as required by 50 CFR 

17.81(c)(4). 

Comments on Geographic Boundaries of 

the Revised Mexican Wolf Experimental 

Population Area 

(81) Comment: The Interstate 40 

boundary of the MWEPA is arbitrary 

and inconsistent with best science. 

Mexican wolves should be able to 

disperse freely outside of the MWEPA, 

consistent with other 10(j) populations 

(including wolves in the Northern 

Rocky Mountains experimental 

population). Where Mexican wolf 

conservation is in desperate need of 

additional areas to establish territories, 

there is no rationale for such removals 

here. 

Our response: While we recognize 

that Mexican wolf conservation is in 

need of additional areas to establish 

territories, we have expanded the 

MWEPA to allow natural dispersal and 

colonization/recolonization of 

unoccupied habitat, which expands the 

species’ range. Our purpose in 

proposing changes to the 1998 Final 

Rule is to improve the effectiveness of 

the reintroduction project to achieve the 

necessary population growth, 

distribution, and recruitment, as well as 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
2540 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

genetic variation within the Mexican 

wolf experimental population so that it 

can contribute to recovery in the future. 

Following this phase of improving the 

existing experimental population, we 

intend to revise the Mexican wolf 

recovery plan so that it provides a 

recovery goal and objective recovery 

criteria, which may require further 

revision to this regulation for the 

experimental population in the future 

including any necessary analysis 

pursuant to NEPA. Because we do not 

have a revised recovery plan at this time 

to guide us on where Mexican wolves 

are needed to reach full recovery (i.e., 

delisting), we are limiting the revised 

MWEPA to areas south of Interstate 40 

in Arizona and New Mexico. Whether 

areas north of Interstate 40 are 

important for the conservation and 

recovery of the Mexican wolf will be 

addressed in a future revised recovery 

plan. This issue is further discussed in 

Chapter 2, Alternatives Eliminated from 

Further Consideration, of the final EIS 

(Service 2014, Chapter 2, p. 5–7). 

(82) Comment: The proposed MWEPA 

is not enough for recovery and much of 

the range that is proposed will not ever 

actually be suitable for reintroduction. 

Therefore, more range needs to be 

included as there is more suitable 

habitat that is available within public 

lands that was part of the Mexican wolf 

historical range. This includes public 

lands north of Interstate 40, within the 

area of the Grand Canyon in Arizona, 

and the mountains in northern New 

Mexico, such as the Jemez and Sangre 

de Cristo Mountains and southern 

Colorado. Provisions in the proposed 

rule effectively prevent Mexican wolves 

from returning to the Grand Canyon 

region, including northern Arizona and 

southern Utah, or to northern New 

Mexico and southern Colorado. The 

Service should eliminate these arbitrary 

boundaries to the wolves’ movement in 

order to facilitate their recovery. These 

areas are essential for Mexican wolf 

recovery. 

Our response: This MWEPA 

represents just one phase of Mexican 

wolf recovery. We acknowledge that 

additional recovery areas are likely to be 

needed in the future to recover the 

Mexican wolf and remove it from the 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Species. These areas will be identified 

in future recovery planning efforts. 

(83) Comment: Do not remove the 

portion of west Texas from the MWEPA. 

Our response: Texas was removed 

from the MWEPA because this area is 

not likely to contribute substantially to 

our purpose and need, and it is very 

unlikely that Mexican wolves will 

disperse into Texas because of the lack 

of suitable habitat. We do not expect 

Mexican wolves to occupy the small 

portion of Texas that was previously in 

the MWEPA because ungulate 

populations are inadequate to support 

Mexican wolves there. 

(84) Comment: Mexican wolves 

should not be allowed to occupy the 

entire MWEPA. The BRWRA and the 

Fort Apache Indian Reservation contain 

over 9,000 square miles (23,310 square 

kilometers), which is adequate to 

support at least 100 Mexican wolves in 

the middle to high elevations of a 5,000- 

square-mile (12,950-square-kilometer) 

area within the Mexican wolf’s historic 

range. 

Our response: We have expanded the 

MWEPA with this final rule in order to 

further the conservation of the Mexican 

wolf. We do not expect Mexican wolves 

to occupy the entire MWEPA, but we do 

expect them to occupy areas of suitable 

habitat where ungulate populations are 

adequate to support them and conflict 

with humans and their livestock would 

be low. A larger population of Mexican 

wolves distributed over a larger area has 

a higher probability of persistence than 

a small population in a small area 

(Service 2014, Chapter 1, pp. 31–32). 

(85) Comment: It is inappropriate for 

the 10(j) rule to prescribe the 

management of Mexican wolves outside 

the 10(j) designated area (i.e., to bring 

back wolves that disperse beyond the 

MWEPA). Prior to approving a take 

permit for wolves outside the MWEPA, 

the Service will have to evaluate the 

potential for any such take to be a major 

Federal action significantly impacting 

the environment pursuant to NEPA. At 

a minimum, the Service must complete 

an environmental assessment (relevant 

law suit citation provided). 

Our response: Although we 

mentioned in the preamble our intent to 

manage Mexican wolves that disperse 

outside the MWEPA, we do not have 

any language in the regulations that 

prescribes management of Mexican 

wolves outside the 10(j) designated area. 

However, we are going to issue a section 

10(a)(1)(A) permit to allow for certain 

activities with Mexican wolves that 

occur outside the MWEPA. Under this 

permit we will authorize removal of 

Mexican wolves that can be identified 

as coming from the experimental 

population that disperse and establish 

territories in areas outside of the 

MWEPA. Also, in compliance with 

NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), we have 

included an analysis of the 

environmental effects of the permit as 

part of our EIS. 

(86) Comment: The rule proposes to 

capture Mexican wolves dispersing 

beyond the boundaries of the current 

MWEPA. The Service’s own Mexican 

Wolf Recovery Team scientists (Science 

and Planning Committee) have written 

that establishment of additional 

populations will be required to achieve 

recovery, and that the most suitable 

habitat to support these populations lies 

to the north of Interstate 40. This 

position is also articulated in a recent 

peer-reviewed journal article (Carroll et 

al. 2014). A commitment to capture 

Mexican wolves leaving the MWEPA is 

inconsistent with best available 

scientific information. At the very least, 

the MWEPA should be expanded to 

extend northward to Interstate 70. 

Our response: This final rule to revise 

the regulations for the experimental 

population of the Mexican wolf that was 

established in the 1998 Final Rule 

represents one phase in our approach to 

recovery and delisting. The 1998 Final 

Rule enabled us to release Mexican 

wolves from the captive population into 

the wild to determine if it was possible 

to establish a wild population following 

the extirpation of the species in the 

early 1970s. Since 1998, we have 

demonstrated success in establishing a 

wild population (e.g., a minimum of 83 

Mexican wolves in the wild, all of 

which are wild born as of December 

2013). However, we are now expanding 

the MWEPA and revising the 

regulations to the 1998 Final Rule so 

that we can improve the effectiveness of 

the reintroduction project to achieve the 

necessary population growth, 

distribution, and recruitment, as well as 

genetic variation within the Mexican 

wolf experimental population so that it 

can contribute to recovery in the future. 

Following this phase of improving the 

existing experimental population, we 

intend to revise the Mexican wolf 

recovery plan so that it provides a 

recovery goal and objective recovery 

criteria, which may require further 

revision to this regulation for the 

experimental population in the future 

including any necessary analysis 

pursuant to NEPA. Because we do not 

have a revised recovery plan at this time 

to guide us on where Mexican wolves 

are needed to reach full recovery (i.e., 

delisting), we are limiting the revised 

MWEPA to areas south of Interstate 40 

in Arizona and New Mexico. 

(87) Comment: According to the 1998 

Final Rule, the White Sands Wolf 

Recovery Area was specifically intended 

to serve as a reintroduction area in the 

event that the initial goal of 100 wolves 

was not reached within the BRWRA, 

which is exactly what has occurred. In 

removing that obligation, fluctuating 

prey numbers in this recovery area 

should not serve as a rationale to 

continue to neglect it as an important 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2541 

tool in ameliorating inbreeding and in 

conserving the Mexican wolf. 

Our response: While the White Sands 

Wolf Recovery Area, as designated in 

the 1998 Final Rule, lies within the 

probable historical range of the Mexican 

wolf, and could be an important 

reestablishment site if prey densities 

increased substantially, it is now 

considered a marginally suitable area for 

Mexican wolf release and 

reestablishment primarily due to the 

low density of prey. For these reasons 

the Mexican Wolf Blue Range 

Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review 

recommended that any amended or new 

Mexican wolf experimental population 

rule not include the White Sands 

Missile Range as a Mexican Wolf 

Recovery Area or as a reintroduction 

zone (AMOC and IFT 2005, p. ARC–3); 

our current habitat analysis supports 

that recommendation (Service 2014, 

Section 1.2.14.1 and Figure 1–21). 

Comments on Definitions 

(88) Comment: The definition of 

‘‘occupied range’’ is problematic and 

inappropriate, because radio-collared 

locations are not instantly known to 

Wildlife Services personnel but are 

reported in a delayed manner on 

Service’s Web site. This only informs 

Wildlife Services where the wolves 

were the last time the radio-collared 

locations were determined. They are not 

real time, but are at least a month old. 

Also, Mexican wolves move around 

much more than 5 miles a day. 

Our response: We have changed the 

definition of ‘‘occupied Mexican wolf 

range’’ to mean an area of confirmed 

presence of Mexican wolves based on 

the most recent map of occupied range 

posted on the Service’s Mexican Wolf 

Recovery Program Web site at http://

www.fws.gov/southwest/es/

mexicanwolf/. The Service will 

continue to coordinate with Wildlife 

Services on an informal basis. Wildlife 

Services personnel are on the 

Interagency Field Team and have access 

to weekly flight locations, thus Wildlife 

Services is informed when Mexican 

wolves are located in unexpected areas. 

(89) Comment: We believe ‘‘problem 

wolves’’ should be amended as follows: 

(1) Are members of a group or pack 

(including adults and yearlings) that 

were directly involved in livestock 

depredation on lawfully present 

livestock two times in an area within 1 

year, or (2) have depredated domestic 

animals other than livestock on private 

or tribal lands, two times in an area 

within 1 year; or (3) are habituated to 

humans, human residence, or other 

facilities regularly occupied by humans. 

Our response: We have defined 

‘‘problem wolves’’ as Mexican wolves 

that, for purposes of management and 

control by the Service or its designated 

agent(s), are: 

(i) Individuals or members of a group 

or pack (including adults, yearlings, and 

pups greater than 4 months of age) that 

were directly involved in a depredation 

on lawfully present domestic animals; 

(ii) Habituated to humans, human 

residences, or other facilities regularly 

occupied by humans; or 

(iii) Aggressive when unprovoked 

toward humans. 

The 1982 Amendments to the Act, 

which created section 10(j), were 

designed to provide the Service with 

administrative flexibility to manage 

experimental populations of listed 

species. This definition provides the 

Service with flexibility regarding how to 

manage problem wolves, whereas the 

suggestion in the comment does not. 

(90) Comment: In the definitions of 

‘‘Predation’’ and ‘‘Problem wolves’’, 

‘‘lawfully present livestock’’ should be 

revised to include ‘‘. . . or on legal 

allotments (not trespassing and 

observing all requirements of the 

allotment operating instructions) on 

Federal lands.’’ The definition of 

‘‘lawfully present livestock’’ needs to be 

clarified to include the permittee’s 

obligation to follow U.S. Forest Service 

(USFS) operating instructions as a 

condition of the privilege of grazing on 

public lands. 

Our response: A permittee’s 

obligation to follow USFS operating 

instructions is beyond the purview of 

these revised regulations to the 

experimental population. It is the 

responsibility of the USFS, Bureau of 

Land Management, State Land 

Commissions, and private landowners 

who lease grazing allotments to make 

sure that their permittees are complying 

with the terms and agreements of the 

leased allotments. Lawfully present 

livestock does not include livestock that 

is considered to be trespassing on 

Federal or other lands. 

General Comments 

(91) Comment: The proposed rule 

must not include expanded provisions 

for take of these critically endangered 

wolves. Science-based program reviews 

have shown that the killing and 

permanent removal of Mexican wolves 

by agency managers to resolve conflicts 

has been a major cause of failing to meet 

the reintroduction objective. The 

proposed rule changes offer additional 

excuses for removing wolves. The 

Service needs to tighten restrictions for 

take of Mexican wolves, not loosen 

them. 

Our response: Nothing in this rule 

requires an increase in the killing or 

permanent removal of Mexican wolves. 

The purpose of this final 10(j) revision 

is to further the conservation of the 

Mexican wolf by improving the 

effectiveness of the reintroduction 

project in managing the experimental 

population. We have included 

modifications to the management 

regulations that govern take of Mexican 

wolves in this final rule to mitigate 

impacts caused by Mexican wolves and 

to increase our management flexibility 

in recognition that our action area 

includes a wider matrix of land 

ownership type and habitat quality than 

the previous BRWRA. The experimental 

population has grown each year since 

2009, when the minimum Mexican wolf 

population count was 42. The Mexican 

wolf minimum population count was 83 

in 2013. We expect that modifying the 

provisions governing the take of 

Mexican wolves will contribute to our 

efforts to find the appropriate balance 

between enabling wolf population 

growth and minimizing nuisance and 

depredation impacts on local 

stakeholders. 

(92) Comment: Traps, including both 

leg-hold traps and snares, should not be 

allowed where Mexican wolves are at 

risk. There is no way to exclude a 

Mexican wolf from a coyote trap. The 

injuries that Mexican wolves can 

sustain in traps can be severe and lifethreatening. It is an avoidable source of 

harm. 

Our response: Incidents of Mexican 

wolf injuries and mortalities from 

trapping targeted at other animals have 

been low. Since reintroductions began 

in 1998 and have continued through 

December 31, 2013, we are aware of 25 

incidents in which Mexican wolves 

were captured in nongovernmental 

(private) traps; at least 7 have been 

severely injured, and at least 3 have 

died as a result of injuries or activities 

associated with being captured in a leghold trap. More information about 

trapping and threats can be found in the 

final rule determining endangered status 

for the Mexican wolf, which published 

elsewhere in this Federal Register. The 

Service and designated agencies will 

continue to use leg-hold traps as an 

effective method to manage Mexican 

wolves in the wild. For non-project 

trappers, we have specified due care 

criteria, which include: Following the 

regulations, proclamations, 

recommendations, guidelines, and/or 

laws within the State or Tribe where the 

trapping takes place; modifying or 

utilizing appropriate size traps, chains, 

drags, and stakes to reasonably expect to 

prevent a wolf from either breaking the 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
2542 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

chain, or escaping with the trap on the 

wolf, or utilizing sufficiently small traps 

(less than Victor 2) to reasonably expect 

the wolf to either immediately pull free 

from the trap, or span the jaw spread 

when stepping on the trap; reporting the 

capture of a Mexican wolf (even if the 

wolf has pulled free) within 24 hours to 

the Service; not taking a Mexican wolf 

via neck snares; and if a Mexican wolf 

is captured, trappers can call the 

Interagency Field Team (1–888–459– 

WOLF [9653]) as soon as possible to 

arrange for radio-collaring and releasing 

of the wolf. Per State regulations for 

releasing nontarget animals, trappers 

may also choose to release the animal 

alive and subsequently contact the 

Service or Interagency Field Team. 

(93) Comment: In regard to trapping, 

add a provision that trappers have to 

check their traps frequently enough to 

minimize death or amputation of a 

Mexican wolf. Trapping within the 

MWEPA should require that traps be 

checked no less than every 24 hours 

when the lowest ambient temperature is 

above freezing and no less than every 12 

hours when the temperature is below 

freezing. Until the Mexican wolf is past 

the insufficient population of 100, the 

Service should not abdicate its recovery 

responsibility to States’ varying trapping 

regulations, which are not crafted to 

promote recovery. The Service should 

incorporate the best practices from the 

experience of its Inter-agency Field 

Team (IFT). In particular there must be 

adequate warning to people 

approaching traps and the trappers must 

check the trap as soon as it is sprung, 

as well as at least every 24 hours in case 

the activation signal is defective. 

Our response: See our response 

immediately above. 

(94) Comment: The revised 10(j) rule 

should state affirmatively that trapping 

is allowed within the MWEPA. 

Our response: The Service is not 

authorized to regulate trapping in the 

MWEPA. Although we do not state 

affirmatively in the regulations that 

trapping is allowed within the MWEPA, 

we provide for unintentional take that 

occurs despite the use of due care, is 

coincidental to an otherwise lawful 

activity, and is not done on purpose. 

Taking a Mexican wolf with a trap, 

snare, or other type of capture device 

within occupied Mexican wolf range is 

prohibited (except as authorized in 

paragraph (k)(7)(viii)(A) of the 

regulations) and will not be considered 

unintentional take, unless due care was 

exercised to avoid injury or death to a 

Mexican wolf as specified in the final 

rule. 

(95) Comment: We need more habitat 

and more Mexican wolves in the wild 

to keep them from inbreeding. Time is 

of the essence as inbreeding is already 

occurring in the captive wolf 

population. 

Our response: This final rule will 

promote population growth, genetic 

diversity, and management flexibility by 

providing additional area and locations 

for initial release of captive Mexican 

wolves to the wild. Increased initial 

releases can improve the genetic 

composition of the experimental 

population because the captive 

population contains Mexican wolves 

with genetic material that is currently 

unrepresented (or underrepresented) in 

the experimental population; therefore, 

initial release of the appropriate animals 

can improve the genetic composition of 

the experimental population and 

minimize the likelihood of inbreeding. 

Genetic variation is managed in the 

captive wolf population because the 

Mexican Wolf Species Survival Plan has 

detailed lineage information on each 

captive Mexican wolf and establishes 

annual breeding objectives to maintain 

the genetic diversity of the captive 

population (Siminski and Spevak 2014, 

p. 2). 

(96) Comment: Many public 

comments objected to the killing or 

lethal take of Mexican wolves. 

Commenters noted that there are many 

nonlethal methods to keep depredation 

levels low and that the Service should 

require ranchers in the Mexican wolf 

reintroduction areas to proactively 

pursue nonlethal deterrents. 

Our response: We and our partners in 

the reintroduction project continue to 

investigate reported depredations and 

implement a variety of nonlethal 

methods to minimize Mexican wolf– 

livestock conflicts. A number of 

provisions in this final rule allow for 

nonlethal take of Mexican wolves. 

However, while preventative and 

nonlethal control methods can be useful 

in some situations, they are not 

consistently reliable, so lethal control 

remains a tool for managing Mexican 

wolves. Lethal take of Mexican wolves 

is most often the management tool of 

last resort. 

(97) Comment: Wild Mexican wolves 

should not be captured and relocated. 

This activity is a danger to the wild 

wolves. 

Our response: Translocation of 

Mexican wolves continues to be an 

important management tool. In some 

cases, translocating a wild Mexican wolf 

to a new location will disrupt 

depredation or nuisance behavior and 

thus contribute to our efforts to find the 

appropriate balance between enabling 

wolf population growth and minimizing 

nuisance and depredation impacts on 

local communities. As of December 31, 

2013, we have captured 348 individual 

Mexican wolves, and of these, only 3 

have resulted in capture-related 

mortalities (see Mexican Wolf Recovery 

Program Progress reports from 2001 to 

2013 on our Web site at http://

www.fws.gov/southwest/es/

mexicanwolf/). This level of mortality is 

comparable to anesthesia-caused deaths 

during veterinary procedures and 

demonstrates a track record of safely 

handling Mexican wolves by the 

Program. 

(98) Comment: Any additional 

Mexican wolf population introductions 

will cause serious harm to deer and elk 

populations. Please do not introduce 

any more Mexican wolves in Arizona or 

New Mexico. 

Our response: In this final rule, we 

have included provisions allowing for 

take of Mexican wolves in response to 

impacts to wild ungulates in accordance 

with certain stipulations. If the States of 

Arizona or New Mexico determine that 

Mexican wolf predation is having an 

unacceptable impact to a wild ungulate 

herd (pronghorn, bighorn sheep, deer, 

elk, or bison), the respective State may 

request approval from the Service that 

Mexican wolves be removed from the 

area of the impacted ungulate herd. 

Upon written approval from the Service 

following a peer and public review of 

the data and information supporting the 

State’s request, the State (Arizona or 

New Mexico) or any designated agency 

may be authorized to remove (capture 

and translocate in the MWEPA, move to 

captivity, transfer to Mexico, or lethally 

take) Mexican wolves. Because Tribes 

are able to request the capture and 

removal of Mexican wolves from their 

tribal trust lands at any time, take in 

response to wild ungulate impacts is not 

applicable on tribal trust lands. Based 

on a review of available survey data 

between 1998 and 2012, the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department determined 

that while Mexican wolves do target elk 

as their primary prey source, including 

elk calves during the spring and 

summer season, there was no 

discernible impact on the number of elk 

calves that survive through early fall 

periods. A similar finding was made for 

mule deer (Service 2104, Chapter 4 p. 

12–17). 

(99) Comment: The Service should 

develop a comprehensive and 

scientifically valid recovery plan that 

allows for at least three core 

populations. The current population in 

the greater Gila National Forest would 

then be one of the three core 

populations. The current recovery plan, 

more than 25 years old, is functionally 

irrelevant and virtually useless. The 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2543 

2012 draft recovery plan, irrationally 

scuttled by the Service, should move 

forward. 

Our response: We acknowledge that a 

scientifically based population goal is 

needed in order to determine when we 

have achieved recovery. That 

population goal will need to be 

determined in a future revision to the 

Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan. We will 

revise the recovery plan as soon as 

feasible. This MWEPA represents just 

one phase of Mexican wolf recovery. 

(100) Comment: Trapping and the use 

of M–44’s should be banned in the 

entire MWEPA. Trapping has already 

caused significant harm to individual 

Mexican wolves. Given the small size of 

the Mexican wolf population and the 

genetic risks associated with the loss of 

even a single wolf, the biologically 

sound, compassionate and 

precautionary approach dictates that 

every protection should be afforded to 

the species. 

Our response: We have included a 

provision in this final rule prohibiting 

Wildlife Services from using M–44’s 

and choking-type snares in occupied 

Mexican wolf range. Taking a Mexican 

wolf with a trap, snare, or other type of 

capture device within occupied 

Mexican wolf range is prohibited 

(except as authorized in paragraph 

(k)(7)(vii)(A)) and will not be considered 

unintentional take, unless due care was 

exercised to avoid injury or death to a 

Mexican wolf. 

(101) Comment: The revised 10(j) rule 

does not allow the killing of a Mexican 

wolf to protect dogs that defend our 

livelihood. 

Our response: This final rule includes 

several provisions by which non-feral 

dogs may be protected. For instance, 

anyone may conduct opportunistic 

harassment of any Mexican wolf at any 

time provided that Mexican wolves are 

not purposefully attracted, tracked, 

searched out, or chased and then 

harassed. Also, after the Service or its 

designated agency has confirmed 

Mexican wolf presence on any land 

within the MWEPA, the Service or its 

designated agency may issue permits 

valid for not longer than 1 year, with 

appropriate stipulations or conditions, 

to allow intentional harassment of 

Mexican wolves. In addition, we have 

provisions on Federal and non-Federal 

lands to allow for take of Mexican 

wolves by livestock guarding dogs, 

when used in the traditional manner to 

protect livestock. Further, on nonFederal lands anywhere within the 

MWEPA, domestic animal (includes 

non-feral dogs) owners or their agents 

may take (including kill or injure) any 

Mexican wolf that is in the act of biting, 

killing, or wounding a domestic animal, 

as defined in paragraph (k)(3) of the 

regulations, provided that evidence of 

freshly wounded or killed domestic 

animals by Mexican wolves is present. 

Lastly, based on the Service’s or a 

designated agency’s discretion and in 

conjunction with a removal action 

authorized by the Service, the Service or 

designated agency may issue permits to 

domestic animal owners or their agents 

(e.g., employees, land manager, local 

officials) to take (including intentional 

harassment or killing) any Mexican wolf 

that is present on non-Federal land 

where specified in the permit. 

(102) Comment: Livestock owners 

should never be allowed to kill Mexican 

wolves on public land to protect 

livestock, nor should they be allowed to 

kill them on private land for no reason. 

Our response: In order to reduce 

human-related conflict, we have 

included provisions that the Service or 

designated agency may issue permits to 

livestock owners or their agents (e.g., 

employees, land manager, local 

officials) to take (including intentional 

harassment or killing) any Mexican wolf 

that is in the act of biting, killing, or 

wounding livestock on Federal land 

where specified in the permit. These 

permits will be based on the Service’s 

or a designated agency’s discretion in 

conjunction with a removal action 

authorized by the Service. Take by 

permittees under this provision will 

assist the Service or designated agency 

in completing control actions. Also, 

there are no provisions in this final rule 

that allow for the killing of Mexican 

wolves on private land for no reason. 

(103) Comment: Some commenters 

believed we are violating the Service’s 

mission to conserve Mexican wolves by 

allowing for lethal and nonlethal take. 

Our response: Prior to the 1982 

Amendments to the Act, the Service was 

authorized to translocate listed species 

into unoccupied portions of their 

historical range in order to aid in the 

recovery of the species. Significant local 

opposition to translocation efforts often 

occurred, however, due to concerns over 

the rigid protection and prohibitions 

surrounding listed species under the 

Act. Section 10(j) of the 1982 

Amendments was designed to resolve 

this dilemma by providing new 

administrative flexibility for selectively 

applying the prohibitions of the Act to 

experimental populations of listed 

species. The Service’s mission is 

working with others to conserve, 

protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and 

plants and their habitats for the 

continuing benefit of the American 

people. Nothing in this rule reduces the 

ability of the Service to achieve its 

mission or its responsibility under the 

Act to conserve Mexican wolves. Rather, 

this rule builds on the establishment of 

the experimental population and the 

partnerships already established with 

non-Federal entities, States, and Tribes 

to manage the Mexican wolf, while 

recognizing the need to balance 

recovery of the Mexican wolf with other 

human uses in the MWEPA. 

(104) Comment: The Service should 

revise its documents to include 

complete genetic analysis from the 

initial capture of the ancestors of today’s 

Mexican wolves, including the genetic 

makeup of the original animals from 

which the current population of 

Mexican wolves is descended; the 

numbers of animals analyzed and their 

identities; the results of analysis; the 

cause of dog characteristics in wolf 

skulls; and records of any animals in the 

wild that DNA testing showed were 

hybrids and proof they were 

subsequently eliminated from the 

population. 

Our response: Including this level of 

genetic detail is beyond the purview of 

this revised 10(j) rule. We have noted in 

the preamble that the Mexican wolves 

selected for release into the wild are 

wolves that have genes that are wellrepresented in the captive population, 

thus minimizing any adverse effects on 

the genetic integrity of the remaining 

captive population. The Mexican Wolf 

SSP has detailed lineage information on 

each captive Mexican wolf and 

establishes annual breeding objectives 

to maintain the genetic diversity of the 

captive population (Siminski and 

Spevak 2014, p. 2). The genetic purity 

of the Mexican wolves used in the 

captive program has been confirmed in 

published scientific studies. 

(105) Comment: Clarify whether 

livestock operators are required to 

implement depredation-avoidance 

measures before incentives or 

compensation funding can be provided, 

or whether such actions are voluntary 

and independent of incentive and 

compensation programs. 

Our response: Although proactive 

measures are not required to receive 

compensation funding, the Coexistence 

Council may provide payments based 

on a formula that includes the presence 

of Mexican wolves, number of livestock 

exposed to wolves, and the rancher’s 

participation in proactive conflict 

avoidance measures. 

(106) Comment: The proposed rule 

includes no plan for how the Service 

will mitigate damages or reduce the 

impact of Mexican wolves on 

individuals or communities that are 

harmed by their presence. Instead, it 

proposes to further reduce and limit the 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
2544 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

conditions under which Mexican 

wolves will be removed or when 

landowners will be allowed to take 

action against a problem wolf. Specific 

information on how livestock producers 

will be compensated for their losses due 

to Mexican wolves needs to be in the 

revised rule. 

Our response: Regarding 

compensation for livestock 

depredations, the Mexican Wolf/

Livestock Coexistence Council has 

developed compensation guidelines and 

a long-term Coexistence Plan. The 

Coexistence Council is now in the 

process of seeking funding from private 

and public sources. Further, we have 

included several provisions in the final 

rule that will mitigate the potential 

impacts of Mexican wolves on 

landowners, recreational users, and 

local communities. Under the final rule, 

on non-Federal lands, domestic animal 

owners or their agents may take 

(including kill or injure) any Mexican 

wolf that is in the act of biting, killing, 

or wounding a domestic animal, as 

defined in the regulations, provided that 

evidence of freshly wounded or killed 

domestic animals by Mexican wolves is 

present; on Federal land, livestock 

owners may be permitted to take a wolf 

that is in the act of biting, killing, or 

wounding livestock. We have also 

included a provision for conditional 

take permits on non-Federal land for 

domestic animal owners to assist the 

Service or its designated agency in 

completing wolf control actions. In 

addition, after the Service or its 

designated agency has confirmed 

Mexican wolf presence on any land 

within the MWEPA, the Service or its 

designated agency may issue permits 

valid for not longer than 1 year, with 

appropriate stipulations or conditions, 

to allow intentional harassment of 

Mexican wolves. 

(107) Comment: Some commenters 

suggested that the Mexican wolf is not 

a valid subspecies and, thus, should not 

be subject of an experimental 

population rule. 

Our response: Based on the best 

available scientific information, we 

continue to recognize the Mexican wolf 

(Canis lupus baileyi) as a subspecies of 

the gray wolf. More information about 

the taxonomy of the Mexican wolf can 

be found in the final rule determining 

endangered status for the Mexican wolf, 

which published elsewhere in this 

Federal Register. 

(108) Comment: The final revised 

10(j) rule should acknowledge the full 

name of the subspecies as Mexican gray 

wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) rather than 

Mexican wolf. While this abbreviated 

nomenclature is acceptable after the first 

written usage and in colloquial writing 

and speech, taxonomic and genetic 

studies have documented that the 

Mexican gray wolf is a subspecies of 

gray wolf and regulatory documents 

should reflect this. 

Our response: As previously noted, 

we recognize the Mexican gray wolf or 

Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) as a 

distinct gray wolf subspecies. For this 

final rule and to be consistent with 

other Service documents, we have 

chosen to use the common name 

Mexican wolf rather than Mexican gray 

wolf. 

(109) Comment: The Service has the 

legal responsibility to recover the 

Mexican wolf and should maintain and 

consolidate that authority rather than 

delegate it again. The Service should 

issue a final revision to the 1998 Final 

Rule that makes clear that it has the sole 

authority over Mexican wolves. 

Our response: Nothing in this rule 

delegates the Service’s authority to 

manage Mexican wolves. Although the 

Service has the primary responsibility 

for the conservation of federally listed 

species under the Act, we are 

committed to working with our partners 

from other agencies, Tribes, State and 

local governments, and private entities 

to implement actions to further the 

conservation and recovery of the 

Mexican wolf. Work done by partners 

from other agencies will be approved by 

the Service. 

(110) Comment: It is not acceptable to 

allow permits for the taking of Mexican 

wolves, especially without requiring 

that property owners and ranchers make 

significant effort to use nonlethal 

methods to control and protect their 

property. 

Our response: We and our partners in 

Mexican wolf recovery continue to 

investigate and implement a variety of 

nonlethal methods of wolf management. 

While preventative and nonlethal 

control methods can be useful in some 

situations, they are not consistently 

reliable, so lethal control remains a tool 

for managing Mexican wolves. 

(111) Comment: Provisions should be 

included to allow and require the 

Service to immediately reduce 

authorized take for all subsequent years 

following years when this conservation 

goal has not been met. 

Our response: Even though we do not 

have a provision in this final rule that 

requires the Service to immediately 

reduce authorized take for all 

subsequent years following years when 

the conservation goal is not met, we 

have the flexibility and discretion to 

consider the status of the population 

when issuing take permits to manage 

Mexican wolves in the MWEPA. Some 

form of Mexican wolf management is 

usually necessary when wolves prey on 

livestock or engage in nuisance 

behavior. Accordingly, we recognize the 

importance of obtaining an appropriate 

balance between enabling Mexican wolf 

population growth and minimizing 

nuisance and depredation impacts on 

local communities, and we understand 

that removal of wolves to address 

conflicts with livestock (depredation) or 

humans (nuisance) is an essential 

component of reintroduction efforts. 

(112) Comment: The revised 10(j) rule 

should include specifications for 

issuance of take permits to livestock 

producers (on private or public land). 

Any specifications should be based on 

the particular set of circumstances 

surrounding an ongoing depredation 

situation. The issuance of the permit 

should not depend upon the number of 

Mexican wolves in the MWEPA. The 

Service should develop and publish for 

review a set of take permit criteria based 

on certain situational elements, such as 

the number of livestock killed or 

injured, the frequency of wolf 

depredation, and the individual 

economic impacts to the livestock 

producer, landowner, and pet owner. 

Our response: In this final rule, the 

issuance of a take permit to a livestock 

producer is based on the Service’s or a 

designated agency’s discretion and in 

conjunction with a removal action 

authorized by the Service. We are not 

including permit criteria in this rule in 

order to remain flexible while 

responding to specific depredation 

situations. Because of the different 

dynamic issues associated with 

managing the Mexican wolf 

experimental population, we are trying 

to remain flexible so that permits fit the 

permittee’s individual situations. 

(113) Comment: Rather than 

addressing illegal shootings, a primary 

and immediate threat to the Mexican 

wolf survival and recovery, the Service 

is proposing to expand the 

circumstances in which Federal 

agencies and authorized personnel may 

take wolves. This would legalize 

mistaken Mexican wolf shootings, 

requiring anti-wolf advocates to simply 

claim that they thought the animal was 

a coyote. Indeed, the final revisions 

must include a directive that personnel 

working on Mexican wolf recovery shall 

not engage in other predator control 

activities while assigned to the wolf 

project. 

Our response: We have revised the 

take provisions set forth in the 1998 

Final Rule in order to effectively 

manage Mexican wolves within the 

expanded MWEPA in a manner that 

furthers the conservation of the Mexican 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2545 

wolf while being responsive to the 

needs of the local community in cases 

of depredation or nuisance behavior by 

wolves. However, we are not able to 

include a directive in this final rule that 

personnel working on Mexican wolf 

recovery shall not engage in other 

predator control activities because the 

Service is not authorized to direct the 

employees of other Federal and nonFederal agencies. But we have included 

a provision that Wildlife Services will 

discontinue use of M–44’s and chokingtype snares in occupied Mexican wolf 

range and that Wildlife Services may 

restrict or modify other predator control 

activities pursuant to a Serviceapproved management agreement or a 

conference opinion between Wildlife 

Services and the Service. 

(114) Comment: Provisions must be 

added that allow a rancher lethal take 

options if he or she experiences 

multiple depredations regardless of 

location of those depredations. Private 

property protection is a civil and 

constitutional right and the Service 

must support that right. Permit 

requirements should not be necessary, 

but if a permit is required, it should be 

structured as a cooperative measure 

rather than an agency requirement and 

the issuance of such a permit should be 

made retroactive, as ranchers may have 

to act before making a request. 

Our response: We have modified the 

provisions governing take of a Mexican 

wolf to contribute to our efforts to find 

the appropriate balance between 

enabling wolf population growth and 

minimizing nuisance and depredation 

impacts on local stakeholders. There are 

several provisions in this final rule by 

which a domestic animal or livestock 

owner can take (including kill or injure) 

a Mexican wolf in response to 

depredations. However, we are not 

authorized to structure a cooperative 

measure that allows the issuance of 

permits to be made retroactive. 

(115) Comment: The revised 10(j) rule 

should not allow for pet owners to kill 

Mexican wolves attacking pets 

anywhere in the MWEPA. It is a blank 

check for wolf opponents to pick up 

strays and pound puppies, stake them 

out, and bait Mexican wolves. 

Authorizing people to kill Mexican 

wolves in defense of pets may open up 

new opportunities for fraudulent take. 

Our response: We have included 

various provisions in this final rule to 

allow for take of Mexican wolves by 

domestic animal owners, which 

includes pet dog owners. However, for 

domestic animal owners, more take 

provisions are allowed on non-Federal 

land than on Federal land. Unless 

otherwise specified in this final rule or 

in a permit, any take of a Mexican wolf 

must be reported to the Service or a 

designated agency within 24 hours. The 

Service or designated agent will then 

investigate the incident, and if there are 

cases of fraudulent take, the person or 

persons may face Federal prosecution. 

(116) Comment: We received many 

comments with an overall general 

opposition to allowing any take by pet 

owners. Several commenters stated that 

take of Mexican wolves by pet owners 

should not be allowed, especially when 

previous levels of take were too high to 

protect Mexican wolves at a level that 

furthered the conservation of the 

species. 

Our response: In this final rule, we 

have included a provision that allows 

for the take of Mexican wolves by 

domestic animal owners or their agents 

if wolves are in the act of biting, killing, 

or wounding a domestic animal on nonFederal lands. In addition, there is a 

provision that would provide for the 

conditional issuance of permits to allow 

domestic animal owners or their agents 

to take (including intentional 

harassment, injure, or kill) any Mexican 

wolf that is present on non-Federal land 

owned by the domestic animal owner. 

We estimate that actual take of a 

Mexican wolf would occur only in 

about 25 percent of the instances in 

which take would be authorized, or the 

take of one to two wolves every other 

year (Service 2014, Appendix D, p. 6). 

This level of take should not 

significantly impact the conservation of 

the species, but see Appendix D of the 

final EIS for a full analysis of the 

predicted impact of additional take 

provisions on Mexican wolf 

conservation, based on incidences to 

date in the Mexican Wolf Recovery 

Program. 

(117) Comment: The revised 10(j) rule 

should give State game and fish 

agencies broad authority to manage 

experimental populations. The 

experimental population provisions of 

the Act (16 U.S.C. 1539(j)) give the 

Service the authority to manage 

experimental populations in ways 

different than allowed for other 

endangered or even threatened species. 

These experimental population 

provisions do not prohibit the Service 

from transferring management authority 

to the State game and fish agencies, for 

the purposes of determining if and 

when take of Mexican wolves may be 

allowed. These State game and fish 

agencies must deal with the presence of 

Mexican wolves on a day-to-day basis, 

as well as the impact of these wolves on 

wild ungulates, livestock, and on 

revenues generated by the State through 

hunting licenses, concessions and other 

related sources. For that reason, these 

State game and fish agencies should 

have the authority to determine if and 

when the lethal removal of Mexican 

wolves may be carried out. Instead of 

withholding that authority from the 

agencies, or doling it out on a very 

limited basis, the Service should 

recognize and authorize the State game 

and fish agencies as the primary 

authorities for Mexican wolf 

management. 

Our response: Federal law does not 

allow the Service to delegate its 

authority under the Act to a State. 

Although the Service has the primary 

responsibility for the conservation of 

federally listed species under the Act, 

we are committed to working with our 

partners at other Federal and State 

agencies, tribal and local governments, 

and private entities to implement 

actions that help prevent the extinction 

of species. With this final rule, we have 

modified the provisions of the 1998 

Final Rule to allow designated agencies, 

such as a Federal, State, or tribal agency, 

to assist in implementing this rule, all 

or in part, consistent with a Serviceapproved management plan, special 

management measure, conference 

opinion pursuant to section 7(a)(4) of 

the Act, section 6 of the Act as 

described in 50 CFR 17.31 for State 

game and fish agencies with authority to 

manage Mexican wolves, or a valid 

permit issued by the Service through 50 

CFR 17.32. However, if a Federal, State, 

or tribal agency becomes a designated 

agency, the Service will help coordinate 

their activities while retaining authority 

for program direction, oversight, 

guidance, and authorization of Mexican 

wolf removals. 

(118) Comment: In both Arizona and 

New Mexico, describe how Mexican 

wolf management on tribal and nontribal lands will be coordinated to 

ensure that neither positive nor negative 

impacts of Mexican wolf reintroduction 

will fall disproportionately on Tribes or 

on non-tribal interests. 

Our response: In this final rule, we 

have established additional take 

provisions for non-Federal land, which 

is any private, State-owned, or tribal 

trust land, because we expect the 

burden of Mexican wolf recovery to be 

on Federal land. In addition, Tribes 

have the ability to request the removal 

of Mexican wolves from their tribal trust 

lands. During the preparation of this 

rule, the Service met with affected 

Tribes on numerous occasions. We 

believe this rule reflects the input and 

requirements of the Tribes. 

(119) Comment: The rule should 

contain an escape clause, so that if 

excessive take results or limits on 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
2546 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

dispersal constrain population growth, 

the provisions can be quickly cancelled. 

Our response: The Service has the 

flexibility and discretion to consider the 

status of the population when issuing 

take permits to manage Mexican wolves 

in the MWEPA. Some form of Mexican 

wolf management is usually necessary 

when wolves prey on livestock or 

engage in nuisance behavior. 

Accordingly, we recognize the 

importance of obtaining an appropriate 

balance between enabling Mexican wolf 

population growth and minimizing 

nuisance and depredation impacts on 

local communities, and we understand 

that removal of wolves to address 

conflicts with livestock (depredation) or 

humans (nuisance) is an essential 

component of reintroduction efforts. 

(120) Comment: One commenter 

stated that the Service should 

demonstrate its commitment to 

recovering the Mexican wolf by 

including a provision that the annual 

Mexican wolf population growth is at 

least 10 percent before any lethal take or 

removal of Mexican wolves from the 

wild is authorized. And this provision 

should remain in effect until the 

Mexican wolf population reaches at 

least 350, or until an approved Mexican 

Wolf Recovery Plan establishes some 

other numerical population objective for 

the expanded experimental population. 

Our response: The Service has the 

flexibility and discretion to consider the 

status of the population when issuing 

take permits to manage Mexican wolves 

in the MWEPA. Some form of Mexican 

wolf management is usually necessary 

when wolves prey on livestock or 

engage in nuisance behavior. 

Accordingly, we recognize the 

importance of obtaining an appropriate 

balance between enabling Mexican wolf 

population growth and minimizing 

nuisance and depredation impacts on 

local communities, and we understand 

that removal of wolves to address 

conflicts with livestock (depredation) or 

humans (nuisance) is an essential 

component of reintroduction efforts. 

(121) Comment: A streamlined 

process needs to be identified to address 

responses to predation by Mexican 

wolves on Sonoran pronghorn. Such 

streamlining may include establishing 

metrics in advance that identify 

unacceptable impact to Sonoran 

pronghorn and the outlining of rapid 

response protocols and procedures. 

Our response: Sonoran pronghorn 

occur within Zone 3 of the MWEPA, 

which is an area of less suitable 

Mexican wolf habitat. We do not expect 

Mexican wolves to occupy these areas of 

less suitable habitat because ungulate 

populations are inadequate to support 

them. Even so, we have included 

provisions allowing for take of Mexican 

wolves in response to impacts to wild 

ungulates in accordance with certain 

stipulations. If the States of Arizona or 

New Mexico determine that Mexican 

wolf predation is having an 

unacceptable impact to a wild ungulate 

herd (pronghorn, bighorn sheep, deer, 

elk, or bison), the respective State may 

request approval from the Service that 

Mexican wolves be removed from the 

area of the impacted ungulate herd. 

Upon written approval from the Service 

following a peer and public review of 

the data and information supporting the 

State’s request, the State (Arizona or 

New Mexico) or any designated agency 

may be authorized to remove (capture 

and translocate in the MWEPA, move to 

captivity, transfer to Mexico, or lethally 

take) Mexican wolves. Because Tribes 

are able to request the capture and 

removal of Mexican wolves from their 

tribal trust land at any time, take in 

response to wild ungulate impacts is not 

applicable on tribal trust lands. 

(122) Comment: The provision should 

be removed that exonerates Wildlife 

Services agents who may take a Mexican 

gray wolf during control measures for 

other predators. The apparent 

misidentification and shooting of a 

Mexican wolf by a Wildlife Services 

agent has already occurred. A blanket 

dismissal of culpability in all future 

such cases is not a reasonable response. 

Our response: Take of Mexican 

wolves by Wildlife Services employees 

while conducting official duties 

associated with predator damage 

management activities for species other 

than Mexican wolves may be considered 

unintentional if it is coincidental to a 

legal activity and the Wildlife Services 

employees have adhered to all 

applicable Wildlife Services’ policies, 

Mexican wolf standard operating 

procedures, and reasonable and prudent 

measures or recommendations 

contained in Wildlife Service’s 

biological and conference opinions. 

Take of Mexican wolves by Wildlife 

Services employees will be investigated 

by the Service and USDA–APHIS. 

(123) Comment: The Service 

continues to assume a direct 

relationship between authorized taking 

of Mexican wolves and increased public 

tolerance of wolves. There is no sciencebased evidence that new, more 

permissive take provisions will achieve 

the conservation mandate of section 

10(j) of the Act. Scientific proof of such 

a relationship does not exist and the 

papers cited in support of this claim 

present only unfounded opinions. 

Our response: Our intention in 

revising the regulations to the 

experimental population is to effectively 

manage Mexican wolves in a manner 

that furthers the conservation of the 

Mexican wolf while being responsive to 

the needs of the local communities and 

minimizing wolf-human conflict. By 

providing more management flexibility, 

we believe that management of Mexican 

wolves under this final rule will 

improve the effectiveness of the 

reintroduction project in minimizing 

and mitigating wolf-human conflict 

while increasing public tolerance 

(Service 2014, Appendix E p.2). 

(124) Comment: If the Service insists 

on maintaining take provisions in the 

final rule to allow domestic animal 

owners or their agents to take any 

Mexican wolf that is present on nonfederal land, at a minimum the Service 

should include a verification process, 

ensure transparency in permitting 

decisions, and put a cap on the number 

of discretionary permits of this type that 

may be granted on the landscape. The 

Service sets forth no criteria to delimit 

when such permits may be granted, or 

to specify how many wolves may be 

killed or harmed in each permit. 

Our response: This final rule 

authorizes the issuance of permits to 

domestic animal owners or their agents 

on non-Federal lands to assist the 

Service or designated agency in 

completing a control action. The 

issuance of permits will be at the 

Service’s or designated agency’s 

discretion, and thus, analyzed on a caseby-case basis. Also, we have established 

additional take provisions for nonFederal land, which is any private, 

State-owned, or tribal trust land, 

because we expect the burden of 

Mexican wolf recovery to be on Federal 

land. 

Comments on National Environmental 

Policy Act 

We received several comments that 

we did not adequately address the 

social, economic, or environmental 

impacts in accordance with NEPA. 

However, we have carefully reviewed 

the requirements of NEPA and its 

regulations (Council on Environmental 

Quality 40 CFR 1502.9), and this final 

rule, as well as the process by which it 

was developed and finalized, complies 

with all provisions of the Act, NEPA, 

and application regulations. Please see 

the final EIS for a detailed description 

of public comments related to NEPA 

and our responses. 

Comments Not Germane to This 

Rulemaking 

Some of the comments went beyond 

the scope of this rulemaking, or beyond 

the authority of the Service or the Act. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2547 

Because these issues do not relate to the 

action we proposed, they are not 

addressed here. These comments 

include support of or opposition to this 

rulemaking. For example, some 

comments indicated that Mexican wolf 

reintroduction usurped States’ rights or 

that the current propagated population 

of Mexican wolves are not genetically 

pure wolves. We also received 

comments expressing support for, and 

opposition to, Mexican wolf recovery 

without further explanation. 

Summary of Changes from the June 13, 

2013, Proposed Revision to the 

Regulations for the Nonessential 

Experimental Population of the 

Mexican Wolf 

On June 13, 2013 (78 FR 35719), we 

published a proposed rule to revise the 

regulations for the experimental 

population designation of the Mexican 

wolf. That proposal had a 90-day 

comment period ending September 11, 

2013. Based on information received 

during that first 90-day public comment 

period ending on September 11, 2013, 

we proposed new revisions to the 

regulations for the experimental 

population of the Mexican wolf, and 

announced the availability of a draft EIS 

on the proposed revisions on July 25, 

2014 (79 FR 43358). The changes from 

the June 13, 2013 (78 FR 35719), 

proposed rule that were part of the July 

25, 2014 (79 FR 43358), revised 

proposed rule are described below. 

Revisions and Considerations from the 

June 13, 2013, Proposal That Will Not 

be Carried Forward into the Final Rule 

In the June 13, 2013 (78 FR 35719), 

proposed rule to revise the regulations 

for the experimental population 

designation of the Mexican wolf, we 

proposed that Mexican wolves on Stateowned lands within the boundaries of 

the MWEPA be regulated in the same 

manner as on lands owned and 

managed by other public land 

management agencies. In this final rule, 

we remove any reference that the 

Service will consider State-owned lands 

within the boundaries of the MWEPA in 

the same manner as we consider lands 

owned and managed by other public 

land management agencies. In the 1998 

Final Rule that established the Mexican 

wolf experimental population (63 FR 

1752, January 12, 1998) (1998 Final 

Rule), management of Mexican wolves 

on all State-owned lands within the 

boundary of the MWEPA, but outside of 

designated wolf recovery areas, were 

subject to the provisions of private 

lands. Henceforth, the Service will 

consider the management of Mexican 

wolves on State-owned lands within the 

boundaries of the MWEPA in the same 

manner and subject to the same 

provisions of this rule as on non-Federal 

lands, which is consistent with the 1998 

Final Rule. 

Additionally in the June 13, 2013 (78 

FR 35719), proposed rule, we proposed 

to modify the allowable take by 

livestock owners or their agents under 

paragraph (k)(6)(iii) from ‘‘six breeding 

pairs’’ to a requirement that at least 100 

Mexican wolves must be present in the 

MWEPA before a permit to take 

Mexican wolves can be issued to 

livestock owners or agents on public 

land grazing allotments. The 1998 Final 

Rule included a definition of breeding 

pair as one of the conditions for take of 

Mexican wolves by livestock owners or 

agents on public land grazing allotments 

(i.e., that there must be six breeding 

pairs present in order for a permit to 

take wolves to be issued by the Service). 

In the June 13, 2013 (78 FR 35719), 

proposed rule we considered overall 

population size to be a better metric for 

evaluating the appropriateness of 

providing such permits because it 

provided a more consistent measure of 

the overall population’s status. 

However, based on information that was 

submitted during public comment, we 

are no longer using 6 breeding pairs or 

at least 100 Mexican wolves as 

conditions for issuing a permit to 

livestock owners or their agents on 

Federal lands. The information 

presented suggested that using 6 

breeding pairs or at least 100 Mexican 

wolves were arbitrary conditions for 

issuing permits. Therefore, in this final 

rule, we allow livestock owners or their 

agents to take (including intentional 

harassment or killing) any Mexican wolf 

that is in the act of biting, killing, or 

wounding livestock on Federal land 

based on the Service’s or a designated 

agency’s discretion and in conjunction 

with a removal action that has been 

authorized by the Service. 

Also in the June 13, 2013 (78 FR 

35719), preamble to our proposed rule 

we considered several additional 

revisions. One of the considerations was 

to change the term ‘‘depredation’’ to 

‘‘depredation incident’’ and revise the 

definition to mean, ‘‘The aggregate 

number of livestock killed or mortally 

wounded by an individual Mexican 

wolf or single pack of Mexican wolves 

at a single location within one 24-hour 

period, beginning with the first 

confirmed kill or injury.’’ We 

considered this change in order to 

provide consistency with terms used in 

our management documents (standard 

operating protocol, management plans, 

etc.), in which we consider all of the 

depredations that occur within one 24- 

hour period as one incident in our 

determination of what management 

actions to apply to a given situation. 

However, we received public comment 

that this term does not appropriately 

communicate individual depredations 

(e.g., a wolf may have depredated three 

times in one 24-hour period). In 

addition, we are using the term 

‘‘depredation’’ only in our definition of 

problem wolves. Therefore, we are no 

longer considering changing the term 

‘‘depredation’’ to ‘‘depredation 

incident’’ and in this final rule will use 

the term ‘‘depredation’’ only as defined 

in the rule portion of this document. 

Below, we discuss the additional 

modifications to our proposed revision 

to the regulations for the experimental 

population of the Mexican wolf. 

Additional or Revised Definitions from 

the Proposal to Revise the Regulations 

for the Experimental Population of the 

Mexican Wolf 

We add or revise several definitions to 

provide additional clarification; 

definitions for these terms are laid out 

in the rule portion of this document: 

Active den 

Cross-foster 

Designated agency 

Disturbance-causing land-use activity 

Domestic animal 

Federal land 

Feral dog 

In the act of biting, killing, or wounding 

Initial release 

Intentional harassment 

Non-Federal land 

Service-approved management plan 

Translocate 

Tribal trust land 

Wild ungulate herd 

Wounded 

Zone 1 

Zone 2 

Zone 3 

Revisions to the Geographic Area of the 

Mexican Wolf Experimental Population 

We expand the MWEPA by moving 

the southern boundary from Interstate 

Highway 10 to the United States-Mexico 

international border across Arizona and 

New Mexico (Figure 2). Expanding the 

MWEPA was a recommendation in the 

Mexican Wolf Blue Range 

Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review 

(AMOC and IFT 2005, p. ARC–3). We 

make this modification because the 

reintroduction effort for Mexican wolves 

now being undertaken by the Mexican 

Government has established a need to 

manage Mexican wolves that may 

disperse into southern Arizona and New 

Mexico from reestablished Mexican 

wolf populations in Mexico. An 

expansion of the MWEPA south to the 

international border with Mexico allows 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
2548 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

us to manage all Mexican wolves in this 

area, regardless of origin, under the 

experimental population 10(j) rule. The 

regulatory flexibility provided by our 

revisions to the 1998 Final Rule allows 

us to take management actions within 

the MWEPA that further the 

conservation of the Mexican wolf while 

being responsive to needs of the local 

community in cases of problem wolf 

behavior. 

Also, we identify Zones 1, 2, and 3 as 

different management areas within the 

MWEPA and discontinue the use of the 

term BRWRA. These different zones are 

based on areas of habitat suitability and 

dispersal corridors. Areas of less 

suitable Mexican wolf habitat will be 

where Mexican wolves are more 

actively managed under the authorities 

of this rule to reduce conflict with the 

potentially affected public. 

Zone 1 is where Mexican wolves may 

be initially released or translocated, and 

where they can occupy and disperse, 

and includes all of the Apache, Gila, 

and Sitgreaves National Forests; the 

Payson, Pleasant Valley, and Tonto 

Basin Ranger Districts of the Tonto 

National Forest; and the Magdalena 

Ranger District of the Cibola National 

Forest. Zone 2 is where Mexican wolves 

will be allowed to naturally disperse 

into and occupy, and where Mexican 

wolves may be translocated. On Federal 

land in Zone 2, initial releases of 

Mexican wolves are limited to pups less 

than 5 months old, which allows for the 

cross-fostering of pups from the captive 

population into the wild, as well as 

enables translocation-eligible adults to 

be re-released with pups born in 

captivity. On private and tribal land in 

Zone 2, Mexican wolves of any age, 

including adults, can also be initially 

released under a Service- and Stateapproved management agreement with 

private landowners or a Serviceapproved management agreement with 

tribal agencies. Translocations in Zone 2 

will be focused on suitable Mexican 

wolf habitat that is contiguous to 

occupied Mexican wolf range. Zone 3 is 

where neither initial releases nor 

translocations will occur, but Mexican 

wolves will be allowed to disperse into 

and occupy. Zone 3 is an area of less 

suitable Mexican wolf habitat where 

Mexican wolves will be more actively 

managed under the authorities of this 

rule to reduce conflict. 

Elimination of the BRWRA and the 

primary and secondary recovery zones 

within it, and our expansion of Zone 1 

to include the entire Sitgreaves and 

three Ranger Districts of the Tonto 

National Forests in Arizona and one 

Ranger District of the Cibola National 

Forest in New Mexico is consistent with 

recommendations in the Mexican Wolf 

Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5- 

Year Review (AMOC and IFT 2005, p. 

ARC–4). These revisions provide 

additional area and locations for initial 

release of Mexican wolves to the wild 

from captivity beyond that currently 

allowed by the 1998 Final Rule, which 

will enable us to improve the genetic 

variation of the experimental 

population. 

Clarification of Take Provisions From 

the 1998 Final Rule for the Mexican 

Wolf Experimental Population 

In the rule portion of this document, 

we clarify take provisions provided in 

the 1998 Final Rule for intentional 

harassment, opportunistic harassment, 

take for research purposes, take by 

Service personnel or designated agency, 

and unintentional take. We also revise 

the due care criteria in regard to 

trapping activities. And we provide 

language to clarify that personnel of the 

USDA–APHIS Wildlife Services will not 

be in violation of the Act or this rule for 

take of a Mexican wolf that occurs while 

conducting official duties associated 

with predator damage management 

activities for species other than Mexican 

wolves. These changes do not directly 

authorize an increase in the amount of 

take. However, an increase in the 

Mexican wolf population in the 

MWEPA could result in an increase in 

the amount of take authorized over time 

because more situations could result in 

take. 

Furthermore, we revise provisions in 

the 1998 Final Rule to allow for removal 

of Mexican wolves in response to 

impacts to wild ungulates. Under this 

provision, if Arizona or New Mexico 

game and fish agencies determine that 

Mexican wolf predation is having an 

unacceptable impact to a wild ungulate 

herd (pronghorn, bighorn sheep, deer, 

elk, or bison), the respective State may 

request approval from the Service that 

Mexican wolves be removed from the 

area of the impacted ungulate herd. 

Upon written approval from the Service, 

the State (Arizona or New Mexico) or 

any designated agency may be 

authorized to remove (capture and 

translocate in the MWEPA, move to 

captivity, transfer to Mexico, or lethally 

take) Mexican wolves. 

Additional Take Provisions to the 

Mexican Wolf Experimental Population 

One of the additional provisions we 

are now allowing is take of a Mexican 

wolf on non-Federal lands anywhere 

within the MWEPA by domestic animal 

owners or their agents when any 

Mexican wolf is in the act of biting, 

killing, or wounding a domestic animal 

provided that evidence of a freshly 

wounded or killed domestic animal by 

Mexican wolves is present. We define a 

domestic animal as livestock as defined 

in paragraph (k)(3) of this final rule and 

non-feral dogs. We are making this 

change to mitigate the potential impacts 

of Mexican wolves on landowners, 

recreational users, and local 

communities. These management 

actions must occur in accordance with 

50 CFR 17.84(k)(7)(iv)(A). 

We are also finalizing provisions for 

the issuance of permits, based on the 

Service’s or a designated agency’s 

discretion and in conjunction with a 

removal action authorized by the 

Service, on non-Federal land anywhere 

within the MWEPA, and under 

particular circumstances, to allow 

domestic animal owners or their agents 

to take (including intentional 

harassment or kill) any Mexican wolf 

that is present on non-Federal land 

where specified in the permit. Permits 

issued under this provision specify the 

number of days for which the permit is 

valid and the maximum number of 

Mexican wolves for which take is 

allowed. Take by permittees under this 

provision will assist the Service or 

designated agency in completing control 

actions. Domestic animal owners or 

their agents must report this take to the 

Service’s Mexican Wolf Recovery 

Coordinator or a designated agency of 

the Service within 24 hours. 

Lastly, we are adding reporting 

requirements which clarify that, unless 

otherwise specified in this rule or in a 

permit, any take of a Mexican wolf must 

be reported to the Service or our 

designated agency within 24 hours. 

Summary of Changes From the July 25, 

2014, Proposed Revisions to the 

Regulations for the Nonessential 

Experimental Population of the 

Mexican Wolf 

In this final rule, based on 

information received during the July 25, 

2014, to September 23, 2014, public 

comment period, we make several 

modifications from our July 25, 2014, 

proposal to revise the regulations for the 

experimental population of the Mexican 

wolf. These modifications represent an 

agreement with Arizona and New 

Mexico’s State game and fish agencies 

in accordance with 50 CFR 17.81(d). As 

explained further below, we find that 

these recommended modifications are 

commensurate with the conservation of 

the Mexican wolf. First, we added a 

definition for Unacceptable impact to a 

wild ungulate herd. Second, we 

established a population objective of 

300 to 325 Mexican wolves throughout 

the MWEPA, in both Arizona and New 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2549 

Mexico. Last, we have provided for a 

phased approach to Mexican wolf 

management within the MWEPA in 

western Arizona. 

In our revised proposed rule, our 

language under paragraph (k)(7)(vi) 

stated that ‘‘If Arizona or New Mexico 

determines, based on ungulate 

management goals, that Mexican wolf 

predation is having an unacceptable 

impact to a wild ungulate herd 

(pronghorn, bighorn sheep, deer, elk, or 

bison), the respective State may request 

approval from the Service that Mexican 

wolves be removed from the area of the 

impacted ungulate herd.’’ Based on 

information that we received from the 

State game and fish agencies, an 

unacceptable impact to a wild ungulate 

herd will be determined by a State game 

and fish agency based upon ungulate 

management goals, or a 15 percent 

decline in an ungulate herd as 

documented by a State game and fish 

agency, using their preferred 

methodology, based on a preponderance 

of evidence of bull:cow ratios, cow:calf 

ratios, hunter days, and/or elk 

population estimates. The process 

outlined in paragraph (k)(7)(vi) for 

Service approval remains the same. 

We received comments from 

numerous agencies, organizations, and 

individuals requesting that we include a 

population objective for the MWEPA. In 

accordance with best available 

information, we included a population 

objective of 300 to 325 Mexican wolves 

throughout the MWEPA in both Arizona 

and New Mexico (see Population 

Objective for Wolves in the MWEPA). 

This range will be based on end-of-year 

counts. So as not to exceed this 

population objective, we will exercise 

all management options with preference 

for translocation to other Mexican wolf 

populations to further the conservation 

of the subspecies. The Service may 

change this population objective as 

necessary to accommodate a new 

recovery plan. 

In regard to the phased approach to 

Mexican wolf management in western 

Arizona, in consultations with the 

Arizona Game and Fish Department, 

they expressed concern that elk 

populations, west of Highway 87 are 

generally smaller in number and 

isolated from each other compared to 

elk populations east of Highway 87. 

Also, areas west of Highway 87 tend to 

be drier, and, therefore, elk herds have 

greater fluctuations in population size 

than herds in more mesic areas to the 

east. As such, Arizona’s most dense and 

productive elk populations are found in 

the eastern part of the State, generally 

east of Highway 87. Therefore, we have 

included a phased approach to 

translocations, initial releases, and 

occupancy of Mexican wolves west of 

Highway 87. 

As part of the phased-approach, Phase 

1 will be implemented for the first 5 

years following the effective date of this 

rule (see DATES), and under this phase, 

initial release and translocation of 

Mexican wolves can occur throughout 

Zone 1 with the exception of the area 

west of State Highway 87 in Arizona 

(Figure 3). No translocations can be 

conducted west of State Highway 87 in 

Arizona in Zone 2. Mexican wolves can 

disperse naturally from Zones 1 and 2 

into, and occupy, the MWEPA (Zones 1, 

2, and 3). However, during Phase 1 

dispersal and occupancy in Zone 2 west 

of State Highway 87 will be limited to 

the area north of State Highway 260 and 

west to Interstate 17. 

In Phase 2, initial releases and 

translocation of Mexican wolves can 

occur throughout Zone 1 including the 

area west of State Highway 87 in 

Arizona. No translocations can be 

conducted west of Interstate Highway 

17 in Arizona. Mexican wolves can 

disperse naturally from Zones 1 and 2 

into, and occupy, the MWEPA (Zones 1, 

2, and 3) with the exception of those 

areas west of State Highway 89 in 

Arizona (Figure 4). 

If determined to be necessary by the 

8-year evaluation and Phase 2 has 

already been implemented, Phase 3 will 

be initiated (Figure 5). In Phase 3, initial 

release and translocation of Mexican 

wolves can occur throughout Zone 1, 

including the area west of State 

Highway 87 in Arizona. No 

translocations can be conducted west of 

State Highway 89 in Arizona. Mexican 

wolves can disperse naturally from 

Zones 1 and 2 into, and occupy, the 

MWEPA (Zones 1, 2, and 3). 

While implementing this phased 

approach, two evaluations will be 

conducted: (1) Covering the first 5 years 

and (2) covering the first 8 years after 

the effective date of this rule in order to 

determine if we will move forward with 

the next phase. Each phase evaluation 

will consider adverse human 

interactions with Mexican wolves, 

impacts to wild ungulates, and whether 

or not the Mexican wolf population in 

the MWEPA is achieving a population 

number consistent with a 10 percent 

annual growth rate based on end-of-year 

counts, such that 5 years after the 

effective date of this rule the population 

is at least 150 Mexican wolves, and 8 

years after the effective date of this rule 

the population is at least 200 Mexican 

wolves. The phasing may be expedited 

with the concurrence of participating 

State game and fish agencies. Regardless 

of the outcome of the two evaluations, 

by the beginning of year 12 from the 

effective date of this rule, we will move 

to full implementation of this rule 

throughout the MWEPA, and the phased 

management approach will no longer 

apply. The phasing may be expedited 

with the concurrence of participating 

State game and fish agencies. 

Findings 

As discussed in the Statutory and 

Regulatory Framework section, several 

findings are required before establishing 

an experimental population. Below are 

our findings. 

Is the experimental population wholly 

separate geographically from 

nonexperimental populations of the 

same species? 

Prior to the first release of Mexican 

wolves in 1998, the Service ensured that 

no population of naturally occurring 

wild wolves existed within the recovery 

areas under consideration (in the United 

States) or in Mexico. Currently, no 

populations or individuals of the 

Mexican wolf subspecies are known to 

exist in the United States outside of the 

MWEPA. Due to the active 

reestablishment effort Mexico initiated 

in 2011, as of October 2014, seven 

confirmed Mexican wolves were known 

to exist in the wild approximately 130 

mi (209 km) south of the United States– 

Mexico international border. The seven 

wolves consist of two adults and their 

five pups, and are approximately 100 mi 

(161 km) straight-line distance south 

from the United States–Mexico 

international border. Thus, the two 

areas are neither adjacent to nor 

overlapping each other. 

The Mexican wolves in Mexico do not 

meet the definition of a population that 

we have consistently used in our gray 

wolf experimental population rules, 

which is at least two breeding pairs of 

gray wolves that each successfully 

raised at least two young annually for 

two consecutive years (59 FR 60252, 

November 22, 1994). This definition 

represents what we have determined to 

be the minimum standards for a gray 

wolf population (Service 1994). The 

courts have supported this definition 

and thus upheld our interpretation that 

pairs must breed to have a ‘‘population’’ 

(Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation v. 

Babbitt, 199 F.3d 1224, 1234 (10th Cir. 

2000); U.S. v. McKittrick, 142 F. 3d 

1170, 1175 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 

525 U.S. 1072 (1999)). Based on the 

results of Mexico’s efforts from 2011 

through 2013, we can only speculate 

that the number of Mexican wolves in 

Mexico will fluctuate over the next few 

years from zero to several wolves or 

packs of wolves depending on 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
2550 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

mortalities, future releases, and 

successful breeding (in the wild) of 

released wolves. Therefore, we consider 

it unlikely for a population that meets 

our definition to be established in 

northern Mexico any time soon and 

certainly no such population exists 

currently. 

Based on the fact that there are 

currently no populations of Mexican 

wolves in the United States or Mexico 

other than the existing experimental 

population in the United States, we find 

that the experimental population is 

wholly geographically separate. If a 

population is successfully established in 

the future due to Mexico’s efforts, it is 

possible that an occasional Mexican 

wolf from Mexico may disperse into the 

United States. Interconnectivity 

between Mexican wolves in Mexico and 

in the MWEPA in the future could 

benefit recovery of the Mexican wolf by 

providing genetic interchange between 

populations. 

Is the experimental population area in 

suitable natural habitat outside the 

species’ current range, but within its 

probable historical range? 

The experimental population area is 

within suitable natural habitat in its 

probable historical range. Because 

Mexican wolves were extirpated from 

the wild prior to protection by the Act, 

there is no current range in the United 

States except that which is occupied by 

this experimental population. The 

MWEPA is considered to be within the 

probable historical range (Parsons 1996, 

p. 106; Bogan and Mehlhop 1983, p. 17). 

Designation of Experimental Population 

as Essential or Nonessential 

Our finding of whether a population 

is essential or nonessential is made with 

our understanding that Congress 

enacted the provisions of section 10(j) of 

the Act to address fears that 

reestablishing populations of threatened 

or endangered species into the wild 

could negatively impact landowners 

and other private parties. Congress also 

recognized that flexible rules could 

encourage recovery partners to actively 

assist in the reestablishment and hosting 

of such populations on their lands (H.R. 

rep. No. 97–567, at 8 (1982)). Although 

Congress allowed experimental 

populations to be identified as either 

essential or nonessential, they noted 

that most experimental populations 

would be nonessential (H.R. Conference 

Report No. 835, supra at 34; Service 

1984)). 

We make all determinations on 

essentiality as part of the rulemaking to 

reestablish a population of endangered 

or threatened species under section 

10(j). It is instructive that Congress did 

not put requirements in section 10(j) to 

reevaluate the determination of 

essentiality after a species has been 

reestablished in the wild. While our 

regulations require a ‘‘periodic review 

and evaluation of the success or failure 

of the release and the effect of the 

release on the conservation and 

recovery of the species (50 CFR 

17.81(c)(4))’’, this does not require 

reevaluation and reconsideration of a 

population’s nonessential experimental 

status (Service 1991, 1994, 1996b). 

In 1998, we designated the Mexican 

wolf experimental population. At that 

time, we determined that the 

experimental population was not 

essential to the survival of the species 

in the wild. In this final rule, we are not 

revisiting the issue of whether or not the 

experimental population is essential to 

survival of the species in the wild, and 

nothing in the rule changes the 

designation of the population. The 1998 

Rule is being changed only to improve 

the effectiveness of the reintroduction 

project in managing the experimental 

population in particular ways that have 

been previously described. Making 

these management changes does not 

require the Service to revisit the 1998 

designation’s determination regarding 

whether the population is essential or 

not. 

Reestablishing a species is by its very 

nature an experiment for which the 

outcomes are uncertain. However, it is 

always our goal to successfully 

reestablish a species in the wild so that 

it can be recovered and removed from 

the endangered species list. This is 

consistent with the Act’s requirements 

for section 10(j) experimental 

populations. Specifically, the Act 

requires experimental populations to 

further the conservation of the species. 

Conservation is defined by the Act as 

the use of all methods and procedures 

which are necessary to bring any 

endangered or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

pursuant to the Act are no longer 

necessary. In short, experimental 

populations must further a species’ 

recovery. 

The importance of an experimental 

population to a species’ recovery does 

not mean the population is ‘‘essential’’ 

under section 10(j) of the Act. All efforts 

to reestablish a species are undertaken 

to move that species toward recovery. If 

importance to recovery was equated 

with essentiality, no reestablished 

populations of a species would qualify 

for nonessential status. This 

interpretation would conflict with 

Congress’ expectation that ‘‘in most 

cases, experimental populations will not 

be essential’’ (H.R. Conference Report 

No. 835, supra at 34; Service 1984) and 

our 1984 implementing regulations, 

which indicated an essential population 

will be a special case and not the 

general rule (Service 1984). 

In addressing essentiality, the Act 

instructs us to determine whether a 

population is essential to the continued 

existence of an endangered or 

threatened species in the wild. Our 

regulations define essential 

experimental populations as those 

‘‘whose loss would be likely to 

appreciably reduce the likelihood of the 

survival of the species in the wild (50 

CFR 17.80(b)).’’ The Service defines 

‘‘survival’’ as the condition in which a 

species continues to exist in the future 

while retaining the potential for 

recovery (Service and National Marine 

Fisheries Service 1998). Inherent in our 

regulatory definition of essential is the 

impact the potential loss of the 

experimental population would have on 

the species as a whole (Service 1984). 

All experimental populations not 

meeting this bar are considered 

nonessential (50 CFR 17.80(b)). 

The Service has previously 

determined that this experimental 

population of Mexican wolves was 

nonessential in the 1998 Final Rule. The 

Mexican wolf population that is in the 

wild in Arizona and New Mexico today 

is the experimental population that was 

designated in the 1998 Final Rule. The 

1998 Final Rule stated that ‘‘The Service 

finds that even if the entire 

experimental population died, this 

would not appreciably reduce the 

prospects for future survival of the 

subspecies in the wild. That is, the 

captive population could produce more 

surplus wolves and future 

reintroductions still would be feasible if 

the reasons for the initial failure were 

understood (63 FR 1754).’’ 

Does the establishment of the 

experimental population and release of 

Mexican wolves further the conservation 

of the species? 

(1) Are there any possible adverse 

effects on extant populations of the 

Mexican wolf as a result of removal of 

individuals for introduction elsewhere? 

The Mexican wolves in the captivebreeding program and the seven wolves 

in the wild in Mexico (which do not 

constitute a population) are the only 

extant Mexican wolves other than those 

in the existing experimental population. 

The primary purpose of the captivebreeding program is to supply wolves 

for reestablishing Mexican wolves into 

the wild. Mexican wolves selected for 

release from the captive-breeding 

program are genetically wellVerDate Sep<11>2014 14:46 Jan 15, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JAR2.SGM 16JAR2

rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2551 

represented in the captive population, 

thus minimizing any adverse effects on 

the genetic integrity of the remaining 

captive population. The Mexican Wolf 

SSP has detailed lineage information on 

each captive Mexican wolf and 

establishes annual breeding objectives 

to maintain the genetic diversity of the 

captive population (Siminski and 

Spevak 2014, p. 2). This rule allows for 

more captive Mexican wolves to be 

released to the wild, which can be 

accommodated by the captive-breeding 

program. We find that the continuation 

of the experimental population and 

specifically the expansion of the area 

into which initial releases can be 

conducted will not have adverse effects 

on the captive-breeding program. Such 

releases benefit the captive-breeding 

program by freeing up space for 

additional breeding of Mexican wolves, 

which helps slow the loss of genetic 

diversity. Mexican wolf dispersal 

throughout the MWEPA will further the 

conservation of the species by allowing 

wolves access to additional habitat for 

reestablishment. 

(2) What is the likelihood that any 

such experimental population will 

become established and survive in the 

foreseeable future? 

In our 1998 Final Rule we stated, 

‘‘The Service finds that, under the 

Preferred Alternative, the reintroduced 

experimental population is likely to 

become established and survive in the 

wild within the Mexican wolf’s 

probable historic range (63 FR 1754, 

January 12, 1998).’’ We have been 

reestablishing Mexican wolves into the 

BRWRA since 1998, and the population 

has consistently demonstrated signs of 

establishment, such as wolves 

establishing home ranges and 

reproducing. The progress in meeting 

the population objective of at least 100 

wild Mexican wolves has been slower 

than projected, but we anticipate that 

the revisions in this rule will support 

progress toward our objective. At the 

end of 2013, all of the Mexican wolves 

in the wild in Arizona and New Mexico 

were born in the wild. This marked the 

twelfth consecutive year in which wildborn Mexican wolves bred and raised 

pups in the wild. We have also modified 

our management procedures related to 

depredation response and other 

recommendations from the Mexican 

Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 

5-Year Review to ensure the success of 

the experimental population (Service 

2010, p. 29). To promote survival of the 

wild population we have used an 

adaptive management framework to 

modify our approach to depredation 

management by removing fewer 

Mexican wolves, focusing on proactive 

measures, and tasking the Mexican 

Wolf/Livestock Coexistence Council to 

develop a comprehensive program to 

fund proactive conflict avoidance 

measures, depredation compensation 

and payments for presence of Mexican 

wolves. 

(3) What are the relative effects that 

establishment of an experimental 

population will have on the recovery of 

the Mexican wolf? 

The recovery and long-term 

conservation of the Mexican wolf in the 

southwestern United States and 

northern Mexico is likely to depend on 

establishment of a metapopulation or 

several semi-disjunct populations 

spanning a significant portion of its 

historic range in the region (Carroll et al. 

2014, entire). Continuing the effort to 

reestablish the experimental population, 

and making modifications to improve it, 

will substantially contribute to the 

recovery of the species, as it is currently 

extirpated in the wild except for the 

existing experimental population in the 

United States and a fledgling 

reestablishment effort in Mexico. We 

recognize that the reestablishment of a 

single experimental population of 

Mexican wolves is inadequate for 

recovery, and we are fully cognizant 

that a small isolated Mexican wolf 

population, such as the existing 

experimental population, can neither be 

considered viable nor self-sustaining 

(USFWS 2010 entire, Carroll et al. 2014 

entire). The continued successful 

reestablishment of an experimental 

population of Mexican wolves in the 

MWEPA is envisaged as the first step 

toward, and will contribute to, recovery. 

(4) What is the extent to which the 

introduced population may be affected 

by existing or anticipated Federal or 

State actions or private activities within 

or adjacent to the experimental 

population area? 

Now, as in the 1998 Final Rule (63 FR 

1752, January 12, 1998), we do not 

foresee that the introduced population 

would be affected by existing or 

anticipated Federal or State actions or 

private activities. Wolves are considered 

habitat generalists that can occupy areas 

where prey populations and human 

tolerance support their existence (Mech 

1970, p. 334; Mech 1995, entire; Fritts 

et al. 2003, pp. 300–301; Fuller et al. 

2003, pp. 170–171; Oakleaf et al. 2006, 

p. 560). We expect Mexican wolves in 

the MWEPA to primarily occupy 

forested areas on Federal lands due to 

the availability of prey in these areas 

and supportive management regimes, 

although we recognize that wolves may 

disperse through or occasionally occupy 

less-suitable habitat. We also recognize 

that Mexican wolves may seek to 

inhabit tribal or private lands with 

suitable habitat. 

Zone 1, the area where Mexican 

wolves may be initially released from 

captivity or translocated as established 

in this final rule, comprises the Apache, 

Gila, and Sitgreaves National Forests; 

the Payson, Pleasant Valley, and Tonto 

Basin Ranger Districts of the Tonto 

National Forest; and the Magdalena 

Ranger District of the Cibola National 

Forest that are administered by the 

Forest Service. The Forest Service 

manages these areas to sustain the 

health, diversity, and productivity of the 

Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet 

the needs of present and future 

generations. The National Forests are 

responsible for developing and 

operating under a Land and Resource 

Management Plan, which outlines how 

each of the multiple uses on the forest 

will be managed. The Forest Service is 

a partner in the management and 

recovery of the Mexican wolf. 

The MWEPA covered by this final 

rule contains a mixture of many land 

ownerships, including Federal (e.g., 

Forest Service, Bureau of Land 

Management, Department of Defense), 

State, private, and tribal lands. A variety 

of actions and activities may occur 

throughout the MWEPA, such as 

recreation, agriculture and ranching, 

development, and military operations. 

Although we expect the majority of the 

Mexican wolf population to occur on 

Federal lands within Zones 1 and 2 of 

the MWEPA due to habitat suitability, 

we also anticipate that the experimental 

population may be affected by actions 

and activities occurring on private or 

tribal land, such as ranching operations, 

because wolves that depredate livestock 

or display nuisance behavior may be 

hazed or removed. We will establish 

management actions in cooperation 

with private landowners and tribal 

governments to support the recovery of 

the Mexican wolf on private and tribal 

lands and will continue our efforts to 

support the Mexican Wolf/Livestock 

Coexistence Council and proactive 

management activities aimed at 

reducing wolf-livestock conflicts. 

Road and human densities have been 

identified as potential limiting factors 

for colonizing wolves in the Midwest 

and Northern Rocky Mountains due to 

the mortality associated with these 

landscape characteristics (Mladenoff et 

al. 1995, entire; Oakleaf et al. 2006, pp. 

558–561). Vehicular collision, in 

particular, is not identified as having a 

significant impact on the Mexican wolf 

population, although it may contribute 

to the overall vulnerability of the 

population due to its small population 

size and the cumulative effects of 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
2552 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

multiple factors, including inbreeding 

and illegal shooting of wolves. We 

recognize that human and road densities 

in the MWEPA are within 

recommended levels for Mexican wolf 

colonization, and are expected to 

remain so in the future; therefore, we 

see the impact to the population from 

actions related to human development 

as minimal within the areas we expect 

Mexican wolves primarily to inhabit. 

More information about vehicular 

collisions and other threats can be 

found in the final rule determining 

endangered status for the Mexican wolf, 

which published elsewhere in this 

Federal Register. 

Both Arizona and New Mexico protect 

the Mexican wolf under State law. In 

Arizona, Mexican wolves are managed 

as Wildlife of Special Concern (Arizona 

Game and Fish Commission Rules, 

Article 4, R12–4–401) and are identified 

as a Species of Greatest Conservation 

Need (Tier 1a, endangered) (Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 2006, 

pending). In New Mexico, Mexican 

wolves are listed as endangered under 

the State’s Wildlife Conservation Act 

(NMSA 1978, pp. 17–2–37 through 17– 

2–46). Based on these protective 

designations and regulations, we do not 

foresee that actions on State land will 

significantly negatively affect the 

experimental population. 

We will continue to work with other 

agencies, tribes, and landowners to 

ensure that their activities will not 

adversely affect the experimental 

population of Mexican wolves. Based on 

our intent to capture and return to the 

MWEPA Mexican wolves that disperse 

outside of the MWEPA, we do not 

expect actions and activities adjacent to 

the MWEPA to have a significant impact 

on the experimental population. 

Consultation With State Game and Fish 

Agencies, Local Governments, Federal 

Agencies, and Private Landowners in 

Developing and Implementing This 

Rule 

In accordance with 50 CFR 17.81(d), 

to the maximum extent practicable, this 

rule represents an agreement between 

the Service, the affected State and 

Federal agencies, and persons holding 

any interest in land that may be affected 

by the establishment of this 

experimental population. We invited 84 

Federal and State agencies, local 

governments, and tribes to participate as 

cooperating agencies in the 

development of the EIS, 27 of which 

signed a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU). The purpose of 

this MOU was for the signatory entities 

to contribute to the preparation of the 

EIS that analyzes the proposed revisions 

to the regulations for the Mexican Wolf 

Experimental Population. We have 

maintained a list of individual 

stakeholders, as well as a Web site, 

since the initiation of the EIS 

development to ensure that interested 

and potentially affected parties received 

information on the EIS and notices of 

opportunities for public involvement. 

As previously mentioned, numerous 

parts of this rule directly reflect the 

input and desires of State game and fish 

agencies, local governmental entities, 

affected Federal agencies, and affected 

private landowners. 

In June 2013, we notified the tribal 

governments of all the Native American 

tribes in Arizona and New Mexico of 

our intent to prepare an EIS. We held 

Tribal Working Group meetings to 

provide opportunity for input, discuss 

the current status of the EIS 

development, and address issues raised 

by the Tribes. We met with affected 

Federal agencies; several State, county, 

and tribal governments; as well as 

Forest Service livestock permittees, 

several Natural Resource Conservation 

Districts, and organizations representing 

interested parties to discuss the 

proposed rule and draft EIS. We met 

with the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department and New Mexico 

Department of Game and Fish to collect 

data and develop the analyses of effects 

to native species, particularly ungulates 

and economic impacts associated with 

hunting in Arizona and New Mexico. 

We also met with the two State game 

and fish agencies to discuss issues and 

recommendations they may have with 

the proposed rules. The New Mexico 

State Game Commission suspended the 

involvement of the New Mexico 

Department of Game and Fish in the 

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program on 

June 9, 2011, but they have participated 

as a Cooperating Agency for the 

development of the EIS. Throughout the 

course of drafting this rule, the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department has made 

numerous comments on the rule. Some 

of those comments have been 

incorporated into this rule as explained 

earlier. Numerous other entities and 

individuals have provided suggestions 

on the draft rule that have not always 

reflected the best available scientific 

and commercial information available 

or met our purpose and need for 

revising this rule and therefore do not 

contribute to the conservation of the 

species. Therefore, it is not practicable 

for this final rule to represent an 

agreement between the Service and all 

agencies and persons holding any 

interest in land that may be affected by 

the establishment of this experimental 

population. We held four public 

hearings and three public information 

sessions in Arizona and New Mexico 

prior to developing this final rule and 

EIS. We reviewed and considered 

approximately 48,131 public comments 

submitted on the June 13, 2013, and July 

25, 2014, proposed rules prior to 

finalizing this rule and the EIS. 

Management of Wolves Inside and 

Outside the Mexican Wolf Experimental 

Population Area 

For Mexican wolves that occur 

outside the MWEPA, the Act (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) prohibits activities that 

‘‘take’’ endangered and threatened 

species unless a Federal permit allows 

such ‘‘take.’’ Along with our 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 

17, the Act provides for permits and 

requires that we invite public comment 

before issuing these permits. A permit 

issued by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of 

the Act authorizes activities otherwise 

prohibited by section 9 for scientific 

purposes or to enhance the propagation 

or survival of the affected species, 

including acts necessary for the 

establishment and maintenance of 

experimental populations. Our 

regulations regarding implementation of 

section 10(a)(1)(A) permits are found at 

50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife 

species. 

We have developed a section 

10(a)(1)(A) permit to allow for certain 

activities with Mexican wolves that 

occur both inside and outside the 

MWEPA. Please note that if Mexican 

wolves travel outside the MWEPA, we 

intend to capture and return them to the 

MWEPA or put them in captivity. In 

compliance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 

et seq.), we have included analysis of 

the environmental effects of the permit 

as part of our EIS. In accordance with 

both the Act and NEPA, we invited 

local, State, tribal, and Federal agencies 

and the public to comment on the draft 

section 10(a)(1)(A) permit during the 

July 25, 2014, to September 23, 2014, 

open comment period (79 FR 43358; 

July 25, 2014). 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review— 

Executive Order 12866 

Executive Order 12866 provides that 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 

Management and Budget will review all 

significant rules. OIRA has determined 

that this rule is not significant. 

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the 

principles of Executive Order 12866 

while calling for improvements in the 

nation’s regulatory system to promote 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2553 

predictability, to reduce uncertainty, 

and to use the best, most innovative, 

and least burdensome tools for 

achieving regulatory ends. This final 

rule promotes predictability and 

reduces uncertainty because it clearly 

tells the affected public what is 

necessary to promote the conservation 

of Mexican wolves in the MWEPA. It is 

the most innovative approach because it 

improves upon the 1998 Final Rule. 

Section 10(j) of the Act provides a less 

burdensome tool for reintroducing 

threatened and endangered species into 

the wild. 

Executive Order 13563 directs 

agencies to consider regulatory 

approaches that reduce burdens and 

maintain flexibility and freedom of 

choice for the public where these 

approaches are relevant, feasible, and 

consistent with regulatory objectives. 

This new rule provides added flexibility 

regarding how the public may deal with 

Mexican wolves. This flexibility is 

found in this rule’s new ‘‘take’’ 

provisions. Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes further that regulations 

must be based on the best available 

science and that the rulemaking process 

must allow for public participation and 

an open exchange of ideas. As explained 

earlier in this rule, the Service has 

consistently involved the public in this 

decisionmaking process through public 

meetings and public comment periods. 

We believe we have used the best 

scientific information available in 

drafting this rule. For these reasons, we 

have developed this rule in a manner 

consistent with these requirements. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(as amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

(SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C 801 et seq.), 

whenever a Federal agency is required 

to publish a notice of rulemaking for 

any proposed or final rule, it must 

prepare, and make available for public 

comment, a regulatory flexibility 

analysis that describes the effect of the 

rule on small entities (i.e., small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small government jurisdictions). 

However, no regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required if the head of an 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The SBREFA amended the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act to require Federal 

agencies to provide a statement of the 

factual basis for certifying that the rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration, small entities include 

small organizations such as 

independent nonprofit organizations; 

small governmental jurisdictions, 

including school boards and city and 

town governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents; and small businesses 

(13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 

include such businesses as 

manufacturing and mining concerns 

with fewer than 500 employees, 

wholesale trade entities with fewer than 

100 employees, retail and service 

businesses with less than $5 million in 

annual sales, general and heavy 

construction businesses with less than 

$27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

forestry and logging operations with 

fewer than 500 employees and annual 

business less than $7 million. To 

determine whether small entities may 

be affected, we considered the types of 

activities that might trigger regulatory 

impacts under this designation as well 

as types of project modifications that 

may result. In general, the term 

‘‘significant economic impact’’ is meant 

to apply to a typical small business 

firm’s business operations. 

Importantly, the impacts of a rule 

must be both significant and substantial 

to prevent certification of the rule under 

the RFA and to require the preparation 

of a regulatory flexibility analysis. If a 

substantial number of small entities are 

affected by the proposed rule, but the 

per-entity economic impact is not 

significant, the Service may certify a 

rule. Likewise, if the per-entity 

economic impact is likely to be 

significant, but the number of affected 

entities is not substantial, the Service 

may also certify. 

In the 1998 Final Rule, we found that 

the experimental population would not 

have significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

The 1998 Final Rule set forth 

management directions and provided 

for limited allowable legal take of 

Mexican wolves within the MWEPA. 

We concluded that the rule would not 

significantly change costs to industry or 

governments. Furthermore, the rule 

produced no adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or the ability 

of U.S. enterprises to compete with 

foreign-based enterprises in domestic or 

export markets. We further concluded 

that no significant direct costs, 

information collection, or recordkeeping 

requirements were imposed on small 

entities by the action and that the rule 

was not a major rule as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2) (63 FR 1752, January 12, 

1998). 

In this final rule revising the 

regulations for the experimental 

population of the Mexican wolf, the area 

affected by this rule includes the 

portion of the States of Arizona and 

New Mexico from Interstate Highway 40 

south to the United States-Mexico 

international border. This rule expands 

many of those activities that were 

already taking place within the BRWRA 

to larger portions of the MWEPA in both 

States. 

Because of the regulatory flexibility 

for Federal agency actions provided by 

the 10(j) designation and the exemption 

for incidental take in the special rule, 

we do not expect this rule to have 

significant effects on any activities 

within Federal, State, or private lands 

within the experimental population. In 

regard to section 7(a)(2) of the Act, 

except on National Park Service and 

National Wildlife Refuge system lands, 

the population is treated as proposed for 

listing, and Federal action agencies are 

not required to consult on their 

activities. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act 

requires Federal agencies to confer 

(rather than consult) with the Service on 

actions that are likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of a species. 

However, because a nonessential 

experimental population is, by 

definition, not essential to the survival 

of the species, conferencing will 

unlikely be required within the 

MWEPA. Furthermore, the results of a 

conference are strictly advisory in 

nature and do not restrict agencies from 

carrying out, funding, or authorizing 

activities. In addition, section 7(a)(1) of 

the Act requires Federal agencies to use 

their authorities to carry out programs to 

further the conservation of listed 

species, which would apply on any 

lands within the experimental 

population area. As a result, and in 

accordance with these regulations, some 

modifications to the Federal actions 

within the experimental population area 

may occur to benefit the Mexican wolf, 

but we do not expect projects on Federal 

lands to be halted or substantially 

modified as a result of these regulations. 

However, this revision to the 

regulations for the experimental 

population will allow Mexican wolves 

to occupy the MWEPA, which has the 

potential to affect small entities 

involved in ranching and livestock 

production, particularly beef cattle 

ranching (business activity code North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) 112111), sheep farming 

(business activity code NAICS 112410), 

and outfitters and guides (business 

activity code NAICS 114210). Small 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
2554 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

entities in these sectors may be affected 

by Mexican wolves depredating on, or 

causing weight loss of, domestic 

animals (particularly beef cattle), or 

preying on wild native ungulates, 

respectively. We have further assessed 

these impacts to small entities in the 

EIS. We also consider impacts to the 

tourism industry. 

Small businesses involved in 

ranching and livestock production may 

be affected by Mexican wolves 

depredating on domestic animals, 

particularly beef cattle. Direct effects to 

small businesses could include foregone 

calf or cow sales at auctions due to 

depredations. Indirect effects could 

include impacts such as increased ranch 

operation costs for surveillance and 

oversight of the herd, and weight loss of 

livestock when wolves are present. 

Ranchers have also expressed concern 

that a persistent presence of wolves may 

negatively impact their property and 

business values. We do not foresee a 

significant economic impact to a 

substantial number of small entities in 

the ranching and livestock production 

sector based on the following 

information: 

The small size standard for beef cattle 

ranching entities and sheep farms as 

defined by the Small Business 

Administration are those entities with 

less than $750,000 in average annual 

receipts (http://www.sba.gov/content/

summary-size-standards-industrysector). We consider close to 100 

percent of the cattle ranches and sheep 

farms in Arizona and New Mexico to be 

small entities. The 2012 Census of 

Agriculture reports that there were 

6,029 cattle and calf operations and 

7,447 sheep farms in Arizona and 

12,796 cattle and calf operations and 

3,385 sheep farms in New Mexico. 

Of the approximately 18,825 cattle 

ranches in Arizona and New Mexico, 

12,275 occur in counties in the MWEPA 

(2012 Census of Agriculture data by 

county). This estimate was derived by 

subtracting the number of milk cow 

farms and inventory and feeder farms 

and inventory from the total cattle and 

calf farms and inventory for the project 

area counties. The actual number of 

ranches within the project area is less 

than this estimate because several 

counties extend beyond the borders of 

the project area. The Agricultural 

Census does not report sub-county 

farms or inventory, so relying on the 

county numbers is the best available 

data for estimating the number of 

potentially affected small ranching 

operations. 

Cattle ranches vary significantly in 

herd size, with classifications ranging 

from a herd of 1–9 animals, to those 

with more than 2,500 animals (2012 

Census of Agriculture). For the purposes 

of this analysis, we consider all of the 

ranches to be small entities. More than 

80 percent of the ranches in Arizona 

and New Mexico have fewer than 50 

head of cattle (in Arizona, 5,367 out of 

6,029 ranches, and in New Mexico, 

11,165 out of 12,796). Nearly 50 percent 

of Arizona operations and 40 percent of 

New Mexico operations had a herd size 

of less than 10. While these ranches 

represent the majority of the number of 

ranches in the two States, they account 

for only about 10 percent of the States’ 

total cattle and calf inventory (in 

Arizona, 76,712 out of 911,334 cattle 

and in New Mexico, 268,438 out of 

1,354,240 cattle) (2012 Census of 

Agriculture). The largest operations, 

those with an inventory greater than 500 

cattle, account for more than 80 percent 

of the total cattle inventory in Arizona 

and 66 percent of the total inventory in 

New Mexico. 

The Department of Agriculture 

reported a national estimate of 90.0 

million cattle and calves in 2013, which 

implies that together, Arizona and New 

Mexico contribute approximately 2.5 

percent to the overall national supply 

(National Agriculture Statistics Service’s 

Web site at http://

quickstats.nass.usda.gov). 

We assessed whether a substantial 

number of entities would be impacted 

by this rule by estimating the annual 

number of depredations we expect to 

occur within the project area when the 

Mexican wolf population will be at its 

largest. Between 1998 and 2013, on 

average there were 62 total depredations 

(confirmed and unconfirmed) by 

Mexican wolves in any given year, 

which equates to 1.3 cow/calves killed 

for every Mexican wolf. Based on this, 

we estimate the average number of cattle 

killed (both confirmed and 

unconfirmed) in any given year will be 

130.8 per 100 Mexican wolves). We 

expect the experimental population to 

grow from its current minimum 

population estimate of 83 wolves to a 

maximum population of not more than 

300 to 325 wolves under the proposed 

action within 13 years; accordingly, we 

expect the annual number of 

depredations (both confirmed and 

unconfirmed) to increase from 119 to 

approximately 412 cows/calves. 

Assuming that one cow is depredated 

per ranch, 412 of 12,275 ranches would 

experience depredation events annually, 

or 3.4 percent of the cattle ranches. 

To the extent that some cattle ranches 

will most likely not be impacted by wolf 

recovery because they are not located in 

suitable habitat but are included in the 

total estimate of potentially affected 

ranches because the Agricultural Census 

does not provide data at a sub-county 

level, this estimate could understate the 

percentage of ranches potentially 

affected. However, for other reasons, 

this estimate could very well overstate 

the percentage of cattle ranches affected 

as we recognize that annual depredation 

events have not been, and may not be, 

uniformly distributed across the ranches 

operating in occupied wolf range. 

Rather, wolves seem to concentrate in 

particular areas, and to the extent that 

livestock are targeted by the pack for 

depredations, some ranch operations 

will be disproportionately affected. 

Therefore, it is more likely that fewer 

than 412 ranches may experience more 

than one depredation, rather than each 

of 412 ranches experiencing one 

depredation. 

Compared to the 2012 total inventory 

of estimated ranch cattle (97,686) for the 

five-county area of the BRWRA 

(Graham, Greenlee, and Apache 

Counties in Arizona; and Catron and 

Grant Counties in New Mexico), both 

confirmed and unconfirmed 

depredations per 100 Mexican wolves 

account for less than 0.4 percent of the 

herd size. The economic cost of 

Mexican wolf depredations in this time 

period has been a small percentage of 

the total value of the livestock 

operations. With a population objective 

of 300 to 325 Mexican wolves in the 

MWEPA, the expected value of 412 

cattle (130.8 cattle killed per 100 

Mexican wolves on average for any year) 

at auction using 2013 prices (National 

Agriculture Statistics Service’s Web site 

at http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov; the 

most current data available at the time 

of the analysis) would be about 

$430,553. 

Small businesses involved in 

ranching and livestock production 

could also be indirectly affected by 

weight loss of livestock due to the 

presence of Mexican wolves. For 

example, livestock may lose weight 

because wolves force them off suitable 

grazing habitat or away from water 

sources. Livestock may try to protect 

themselves by staying close together in 

protected areas where they are more 

easily able to see approaching wolves 

and defend themselves and their calves. 

A consequence of such a behavioral 

change would likely be weight loss, 

especially if the wolves are allowed to 

persist in the area for a significant 

amount of time because the cattle would 

be afraid to spread out to find more 

lucrative forage areas. Weight loss could 

also occur if the presence of wolves 

causes the herd to move around more 

rapidly as they try to keep away from 

wolves. Based on Ramler et al. 2014, 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2555 

weight loss of cattle is associated with 

the ranches that have suffered 

depredations. Therefore, we would 

expect the same ranches—that is, 412 

ranches or fewer—that were impacted 

by depredations to potentially be 

impacted by weight loss of their cattle. 

Because wolves’ tendency to prey on 

cattle is localized, we would not expect 

all 412 ranches and their associated 

herds to be impacted. 

Using a mid-point estimate of 6 

percent weight loss for calves at the 

time of auction (Service 2014, Chapter 

4, p. 43–44), we calculated the impact 

on 2012 model ranches assuming that 

wolf presence pressures were allowed to 

persist throughout the foraging year. 

Based on 2013 market prices, a 6 

percent weight loss for the herd at the 

time of sale could result in a profit loss 

of $2,393 to $12,226 depending on the 

size of the ranch (Service 2014, Chapter 

4, p. 44, Table 4–10). This is likely an 

overestimate of impacts that would 

occur, as once wolves are detected in an 

area, a variety of proactive and reactive 

management tools are available to the 

landowner or the Service and our 

designated agencies such that wolf 

presence would not persist throughout a 

foraging year. 

This final rule is based on Alternative 

One in our environmental impact 

statement. This alternative minimizes 

the potential impact to small ranching 

entities in several ways relative to the 

other action alternatives and the no 

action alternative. First, the rule offers 

several forms of harassment and take of 

Mexican wolves on Federal and nonFederal land that are not offered in 

Alternatives Three or Four. Second, 

Alternative One maximizes our ability 

to conduct initial releases in areas of 

high-quality habitat (relative to 

Alternatives Two and Four) in order to 

minimize nuisance events associated 

with initial releases. In addition to the 

minimization measures provided by the 

rule, one or more sources of 

compensation may be available to 

ranchers to further mitigate impacts. If 

the Mexican Wolf/Livestock Trust Fund 

continues to be funded, we would 

expect the Mexican Wolf/Livestock 

Coexistence Council (Coexistence 

Council) to compensate 100 percent of 

the market value of confirmed 

depredated cattle and 50 percent of 

market value for probable kills with 

payments to affected ranchers (Mexican 

Wolf/Livestock Coexistence Plan 2014). 

We would also expect the Coexistence 

Council to continue to provide funding 

for proactive conservation measures to 

decrease the likelihood of depredation 

and Payments for Presence of Mexican 

wolves to offset indirect costs. Another 

possible source of mitigation funding is 

the USDA Livestock Indemnity 

Program, part of the 2014 Farm Bill, 

which provides (among other benefits) 

benefits to livestock producers for 

livestock lost due to attacks by animals 

introduced into the wild by the Federal 

Government or protected by Federal 

law, including wolves. This program 

may pay a livestock owner 75 percent of 

the market value of the applicable 

livestock (http://www.fsa.usda.gov/

Internet/FSA_File/lip_long_fact_sht_

2014.pdf). 

Based on the preceding information, 

we find that the impact of direct and 

indirect effects of Mexican wolf 

depredations on livestock is not both 

significant and substantial. That is, if 

impacts are evenly spread, less than 3.4 

percent of small ranches in Arizona and 

New Mexico will be impacted, which 

we do not consider to be a substantial 

number. If impacts are 

disproportionately felt (several ranchers 

bear the burden of the depredations), 

the number of affected ranches will be 

even less (not substantial), but the 

impact to those affected may be 

significant depending on the number of 

cattle on the ranch and other 

characteristics. 

Small businesses ($5.5 million or less 

in operating income) associated with 

hunting in Arizona and New Mexico 

could also be affected by 

implementation of our action. Direct 

effects to small businesses in this 

section could occur from impacts to big 

game populations due to Mexican wolf 

predation (primarily on elk), loss of 

hunter visitation to the region, or a 

decline in hunter success, leading to 

lost income or increased costs to guides 

and outfitters. However, we do not have 

information suggesting that these 

impacts will occur. Based on a review 

of available survey data between 1998 

and 2012, the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department determined the impact that 

Mexican wolves have had on deer and 

elk populations in the BRWRA. The 

Arizona Game and Fish Department 

found that, while Mexican wolves do 

target elk as their primary prey source, 

including elk calves during the spring 

and summer season, there was no 

discernible impact on the number of elk 

calves that survive through early fall 

periods. A similar finding was made for 

mule deer. The Arizona Game and Fish 

Department also reported that, while the 

number of elk permits authorized has 

varied since Mexican wolves were 

reintroduced into Arizona, the variation 

is attributable to a variety of 

management-related objectives 

unrelated to elk availability for hunters. 

At a population of 300 to 325, we 

expect the Mexican wolf density in the 

MWEPA to be no higher (and more 

likely, lower) than it is currently 

because the area where wolves can 

occur is larger. We also expect wolf to 

elk ratios (an indicator of predation 

pressure) to occur at levels resulting in 

less than significant biological impacts, 

suggesting that ungulate populations 

will not be impacted by Mexican wolves 

(Service 2014, Chapter 4, p. 12–15). 

Furthermore, information suggests that 

wolves tend to prey on unproductive 

calf elk and older cow elk, whereas 

hunters are seeking elk with high 

reproductive potential. Trends in hunter 

visitation and success rates since 1998 

in the areas occupied by Mexican 

wolves are stable or increasing based on 

the number of licensed hunters and 

hunter success rates. We do not have 

information suggesting these trends 

would change during the project time 

period. Further, our final rule allows for 

the take of Mexican wolves due to 

unacceptable impacts to wild ungulate 

herds, which will serve as mitigation for 

any herds that may suffer heavier 

predation impacts. Therefore, we do not 

foresee a significant economic impact to 

a substantial number of small entities 

associated with hunting activities. 

We also considered impacts to the 

tourism industry from implementation 

of our proposed action (Service 2014, 

Chapter 4, p. 52). In this case, impacts 

to small businesses would be positive, 

stemming from increased profits 

associated with wolf-related outdoor 

recreation opportunities, such as 

providing eco-tours in Mexican wolf 

country. However, we do not have 

information suggesting that wolf 

presence will create significant 

(positive) economic impacts to a 

substantial number of small entities, as 

very few eco-tours or other ventures 

have been identified since 1998. 

Therefore, we do not foresee a 

significant economic impact to a 

substantial number of small entities 

associated with tourism activities. 

We further conclude that no 

significant direct costs, information 

collection, or recordkeeping 

requirements are imposed on small 

entities by the action and that the rule 

is not a major rule as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). 

In summary, we have considered 

whether this final rule would result in 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Information for this analysis was 

gathered from the Arizona Game and 

Fish Department, cooperating agencies, 

the New Mexico Game and Fish 

Department, stakeholders, published 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
2556 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

literature and reports, and information 

in our files. For the above reasons and 

based on currently available 

information, we certify that this final 

rule to revise the regulations for the 

Mexican wolf experimental population 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

business entities. Therefore, a regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.), we make the following findings: 

(1) This rule would not ‘‘significantly 

or uniquely’’ affect small governments. 

We have determined and certify 

pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that, 

if adopted, this rulemaking would not 

impose a cost of $100 million or more 

in any given year on local or State 

governments or private entities. A Small 

Government Agency Plan is not 

required. As explained above, small 

governments would not be affected 

because the experimental population 

designation would not place additional 

requirements on any city, county, or 

other local municipalities. 

(2) This rule would not produce a 

Federal mandate of $100 million or 

greater in any year (i.e., it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act). 

Takings—Executive Order 12630 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12630 (Government Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Private Property Rights), this 

rule does not have significant takings 

implications. When reestablished 

populations of federally listed species 

are designated as nonessential 

experimental populations, the Act’s 

regulatory requirements regarding the 

reestablished listed species within the 

experimental population are 

significantly reduced. In the 1998 Final 

Rule, we stated that one issue of 

concern is the depredation of livestock 

by reintroduced Mexican wolves, but 

such depredation by a wild animal 

would not be a taking under the 5th 

Amendment. One of the reasons for the 

experimental population is to allow the 

agency and private entities flexibility in 

managing Mexican wolves, including 

the elimination of a wolf when there is 

a confirmed kill of livestock. 

A takings implication assessment is 

not required because this rule will not 

effectively compel a property owner to 

suffer a physical invasion of property 

and will not deny all economically 

beneficial or productive use of the land 

or aquatic resources. Damage to private 

property caused by protected wildlife 

does not constitute a taking of that 

property by a government agency that 

protects or reintroduces that wildlife. 

This rule substantially advances a 

legitimate government interest 

(conservation and recovery of a listed 

species) and does not present a barrier 

to all reasonable and expected beneficial 

use of private property. 

Federalism—Executive Order 13132 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132 (Federalism), we have considered 

whether this final rule has significant 

Federalism effects and have determined 

that a Federalism assessment is not 

required. This rule will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the Federal 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. In keeping with 

Department of the Interior policy, we 

requested information from and 

coordinated development of this final 

rule with the affected resource agencies 

in New Mexico and Arizona. Achieving 

the population objective for the MWEPA 

will help to ensure a stable population 

of Mexican wolves in the MWEPA in 

the future. This stable population will 

then contribute to the range-wide 

recovery of the species, which will 

contribute to its eventual delisting and 

its return to State management. No 

intrusion on State policy or 

administration is expected, roles or 

responsibilities of Federal or State 

governments will not change, and fiscal 

capacity will not be substantially or 

directly affected. This final rule operates 

to maintain the existing relationship 

between the State and the Federal 

Government. Therefore, this rule does 

not have significant Federalism effects 

or implications to warrant the 

preparation of a Federalism Assessment 

under the provisions of Executive Order 

13132. 

Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 

12988 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12988 (February 7, 1996; 61 FR 4729), 

the Office of the Solicitor has 

determined that this rule will not 

unduly burden the judicial system and 

meets the requirements of sections (3)(a) 

and (3)(b)(2) of the Order. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994 

(Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments), and the Department of 

the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

will notify the Native American tribes 

within and adjacent to the experimental 

population area about this final rule. 

They will be informed through written 

contact, including informational 

mailings from the Service, and were 

provided an opportunity to comment on 

the draft EIS and proposed rule. If future 

activities resulting from this rule may 

affect tribal resources, the Service will 

communicate and consult on a 

Government-to-Government basis with 

any affected Native American tribes in 

order to find a mutually agreeable 

solution. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, 

which implement provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.), require that Federal 

agencies obtain approval from OMB 

before collecting information from the 

public. This rule does not contain any 

new collections of information that 

require approval by OMB. This rule 

would not impose recordkeeping or 

reporting requirements on State or local 

governments, individuals, businesses, or 

organizations. OMB has approved our 

collection of information associated 

with reporting the taking of 

experimental populations (50 CFR 

17.84) and assigned control number 

1018–0095, which expires October 31, 

2017. An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

We prepared a draft and final EIS 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.) in connection with the revision to 

the regulations for the experimental 

population of the Mexican wolf section 

10(j) rule. From October through 

December 2007, we conducted a public 

scoping process under NEPA based on 

our intent to modify the 1998 Final 

Rule. We developed a final scoping 

report in April 2008, but we did not 

propose or finalize any modifications to 

the 1998 Final Rule at that time. We 

utilized information collected during 

that scoping process in the development 

of a draft EIS for the proposed revision 

to the regulations for the experimental 

population of the Mexican wolf. 

Information about additional scoping 

opportunities was available on our Web 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2557 

site, at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/

es/mexicanwolf/NEPA.cfm. On July 25, 

2014 (79 FR 43358), we proposed new 

revisions to the regulations for the 

experimental population of the Mexican 

wolf, and announced the availability of 

the draft EIS on the proposed revisions. 

After full consideration of all 

information and comments received on 

the proposed rule and the EIS, we made 

our final determination based on the 

best available information. 

The purpose of the draft and final 

EISs, prepared under NEPA (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.), was to identify and 

disclose the environmental 

consequences resulting from the 

proposed action of revising the 

regulations for the experimental 

population of the Mexican wolf. The 

Service has complied with NEPA by 

completing the final EIS and Record of 

Decision. The final EIS and Record of 

Decision are available electronically on 

the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program’s 

Web site at http://www.fws.gov/

southwest/es/mexicanwolf/. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use— 

Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211 (Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) requires agencies 

to prepare Statements of Energy Effects 

when undertaking certain actions. This 

rule is not expected to significantly 

affect energy supplies, distribution, and 

use because the actions contemplated in 

this rule involve the reintroduction of 

Mexican wolves. Mexican wolves 

reintroduced in the MWEPA do not 

change where, when, or how energy 

resources are produced or distributed. 

Because this action is not a significant 

energy action, no Statement of Energy 

Effects is required. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this final rule is available at http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R2–ES–2013–0056, or upon 

request from the Mexican Wolf 

Recovery Program, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, New Mexico 

Ecological Services Field Office (see 

ADDRESSES section). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are the staff members of the Mexican 

Wolf Recovery Program (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authority 

The authorities for this action are the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). 

List of Subjects for 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Final Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.84 by revising 

paragraph (k) to read as follows: 

§ 17.84 Special rules—vertebrates. 

* * * * * 

(k) Mexican wolf (Canis lupus 

baileyi). This paragraph (k) sets forth the 

provisions of a rule to establish an 

experimental population of Mexican 

wolves. 

(1) Purpose of the rule. The U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (Service) finds that 

reestablishment of an experimental 

population of Mexican wolves into the 

subspecies’ probable historical range 

will further the conservation of the 

Mexican wolf subspecies. The Service 

found that the experimental population 

was not essential under § 17.81(c)(2). 

(2) Determinations. The Mexican wolf 

population reestablished in the Mexican 

Wolf Experimental Population Area 

(MWEPA), identified in paragraph (k)(4) 

of this section, is one nonessential 

experimental population. This 

nonessential experimental population 

will be managed according to the 

provisions of this rule. The Service does 

not intend to change the nonessential 

experimental designation to essential 

experimental, threatened, or 

endangered. Critical habitat cannot be 

designated under the nonessential 

experimental classification, 16 U.S.C. 

1539(j)(2)(C)(ii). 

(3) Definitions. Key terms used in this 

rule have the following definitions: 

Active den means a den or a specific 

site above or below ground that is used 

by Mexican wolves on a daily basis to 

bear and raise pups, typically between 

approximately April 1 and July 31. More 

than one den site may be used in a 

single season. 

Cross-foster means the removal of 

offspring from their biological parents 

and placement with surrogate parents. 

Depredation means the confirmed 

killing or wounding of lawfully present 

domestic animals by one or more 

Mexican wolves. The Service, Wildlife 

Services, or other Service-designated 

agencies will confirm cases of wolf 

depredation on lawfully present 

domestic animals. Cattle trespassing on 

Federal lands are not considered 

lawfully present domestic animals. 

Designated agency means a Federal, 

State, or tribal agency designated by the 

Service to assist in implementing this 

rule, all or in part, consistent with a 

Service-approved management plan, 

special management measure, 

conference opinion pursuant to section 

7(a)(4) of the Act, section 6 of the Act 

as described in § 17.31 for State game 

and fish agencies with authority to 

manage Mexican wolves, or a valid 

permit issued by the Service through 

§ 17.32. 

Disturbance-causing land-use activity 

means any activity on Federal lands 

within a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius around 

release pens when Mexican wolves are 

in them, around active dens between 

April 1 and July 31, and around active 

Mexican wolf rendezvous sites between 

June 1 and September 30, which the 

Service determines could adversely 

affect reproductive success, natural 

behavior, or persistence of Mexican 

wolves. Such activities may include, but 

are not limited to, timber or wood 

harvesting, prescribed fire, mining or 

mine development, camping outside 

designated campgrounds, livestock 

husbandry activities (e.g., livestock 

drives, roundups, branding, vaccinating, 

etc.), off-road vehicle use, hunting, and 

any other use or activity with the 

potential to disturb wolves. The 

following activities are specifically 

excluded from this definition: 

(A) Lawfully present livestock and 

use of water sources by livestock; 

(B) Livestock drives if no reasonable 

alternative route or timing exists; 

(C) Vehicle access over established 

roads to non-Federal land where legally 

permitted activities are ongoing if no 

reasonable alternative route exists; 

(D) Use of lands within the National 

Park or National Wildlife Refuge 

Systems as safety buffer zones for 

military activities and Department of 

Homeland Security border security 

activities; 

(E) Fire-fighting activities associated 

with wildfires; and 

(F) Any authorized, specific land use 

that was active and ongoing at the time 

Mexican wolves chose to locate a den or 

rendezvous site nearby. 

Domestic animal means livestock as 

defined in this paragraph (k)(3) and 

non-feral dogs. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
2558 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Federal land means land owned and 

under the administration of Federal 

agencies including, but not limited to, 

the Service, National Park Service, 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. 

Forest Service, Department of Energy, or 

Department of Defense. 

Feral dog means any dog (Canis 

familiaris) or wolf–dog hybrid that, 

because of absence of physical restraint 

or conspicuous means of identifying it 

at a distance as non-feral, is reasonably 

thought to range freely without 

discernible, proximate control by any 

person. Feral dogs do not include 

domestic dogs that are penned, leashed, 

or otherwise restrained (e.g., by shock 

collar) or which are working livestock or 

being lawfully used to trail or locate 

wildlife. 

Harass means intentional or negligent 

actions or omissions that create the 

likelihood of injury to wildlife by 

annoying it to such an extent as to 

significantly disrupt normal behavioral 

patterns, which include, but are not 

limited to, breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering. 

In the act of biting, killing, or 

wounding means grasping, biting, 

wounding, or feeding upon a live 

domestic animal on non-Federal land or 

live livestock on Federal land. The term 

does not include feeding on an animal 

carcass. 

Initial release means the release of 

Mexican wolves to the wild within Zone 

1, as defined in this paragraph (k)(3), or 

in accordance with tribal or private land 

agreements in Zone 2, as defined in this 

paragraph (k)(3), that have never been in 

the wild, or releasing pups that have 

never been in the wild and are less than 

5 months old within Zones 1 or 2. The 

initial release of pups less than 5 

months old into Zone 2 allows for the 

cross-fostering of pups from the captive 

population into the wild, as well as 

enables translocation-eligible adults to 

be re-released in Zone 2 with pups born 

in captivity. 

Intentional harassment means 

deliberate, preplanned harassment of 

Mexican wolves, including by less-thanlethal means (such as 12-gauge shotgun 

rubber-bullets and bean-bag shells) 

designed to cause physical discomfort 

and temporary physical injury, but not 

death. Intentional harassment includes 

situations where the Mexican wolf or 

wolves may have been unintentionally 

attracted—or intentionally tracked, 

waited for, chased, or searched out— 

and then harassed. Intentional 

harassment of Mexican wolves is only 

allowed under a permit issued by the 

Service or its designated agency. 

Livestock means domestic alpacas, 

bison, burros (donkeys), cattle, goats, 

horses, llamas, mules, and sheep, or 

other domestic animals defined as 

livestock in Service-approved State and 

tribal Mexican wolf management plans. 

Poultry is not considered livestock 

under this rule. 

Mexican Wolf Experimental 

Population Area (MWEPA) means an 

area in Arizona and New Mexico 

including Zones 1, 2, and 3, as defined 

in this paragraph (k)(3), that lies south 

of Interstate Highway 40 to the 

international border with Mexico. 

Non-Federal land means any private, 

State-owned, or tribal trust land. 

Occupied Mexican wolf range means 

an area of confirmed presence of 

Mexican wolves based on the most 

recent map of occupied range posted on 

the Service’s Mexican Wolf Recovery 

Program Web site at http://

www.fws.gov/southwest/es/

mexicanwolf/. Specific to the 

prohibitions at paragraphs (k)(5)(iii) and 

(k)(5)(vii)(D) of this section, Zone 3, as 

defined in this paragraph (k)(3), and 

tribal trust lands are not considered 

occupied range. 

Opportunistic harassment means 

scaring any Mexican wolf from the 

immediate area by taking actions such 

as discharging firearms or other 

projectile-launching devices in 

proximity to, but not in the direction of, 

the wolf, throwing objects at it, or 

making loud noise in proximity to it. 

Such harassment might cause 

temporary, non-debilitating physical 

injury, but is not reasonably anticipated 

to cause permanent physical injury or 

death. Opportunistic harassment of 

Mexican wolves can occur without a 

permit issued by the Service or its 

designated agency. 

Problem wolves mean Mexican wolves 

that, for purposes of management and 

control by the Service or its designated 

agent(s), are: 

(A) Individuals or members of a group 

or pack (including adults, yearlings, and 

pups greater than 4 months of age) that 

were involved in a depredation on 

lawfully present domestic animals; 

(B) Habituated to humans, human 

residences, or other facilities regularly 

occupied by humans; or 

(C) Aggressive when unprovoked 

toward humans. 

Rendezvous site means a gathering 

and activity area regularly used by 

Mexican wolf pups after they have 

emerged from the den. Typically, these 

sites are used for a period ranging from 

about 1 week to 1 month in the first 

summer after birth during the period 

from June 1 to September 30. Several 

rendezvous sites may be used in 

succession within a single season. 

Service-approved management plan 

means management plans approved by 

the Regional Director or Director of the 

Service through which Federal, State, or 

tribal agencies may become a designated 

agency. The management plan must 

address how Mexican wolves will be 

managed to achieve conservation goals 

in compliance with the Act, this 

experimental population rule, and other 

Service policies. If a Federal, State, or 

tribal agency becomes a designated 

agency through a Service-approved 

management plan, the Service will help 

coordinate their activities while 

retaining authority for program 

direction, oversight, guidance, and 

authorization of Mexican wolf removals. 

Take means to harass, harm, pursue, 

hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, 

or collect, or to attempt to engage in any 

such conduct (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). 

Translocate means the release of 

Mexican wolves into the wild that have 

previously been in the wild. In the 

MWEPA, translocations will occur only 

in Zones 1 and 2, as defined in this 

paragraph (k)(3). 

Tribal trust land means any lands title 

to which is either: Held in trust by the 

United States for the benefit of any 

Indian tribe or individual; or held by 

any Indian tribe or individual subject to 

restrictions by the United States against 

alienation. For purposes of this rule, 

tribal trust land does not include land 

purchased in fee title by a tribe. We 

consider fee simple land purchased by 

tribes to be private land. 

Unacceptable impact to a wild 

ungulate herd will be determined by a 

State game and fish agency based upon 

ungulate management goals, or a 15 

percent decline in an ungulate herd as 

documented by a State game and fish 

agency, using their preferred 

methodology, based on the 

preponderance of evidence from bull to 

cow ratios, cow to calf ratios, hunter 

days, and/or elk population estimates. 

Unintentional take means the take of 

a Mexican wolf by any person if the take 

is unintentional and occurs while 

engaging in an otherwise lawful activity, 

occurs despite the use of due care, is 

coincidental to an otherwise lawful 

activity, and is not done on purpose. 

Taking a Mexican wolf by poisoning or 

shooting will not be considered 

unintentional take. 

Wild ungulate herd means an 

assemblage of wild ungulates (bighorn 

sheep, bison, deer, elk, or pronghorn) 

living in a given area. 

Wildlife Services means the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service, 

Wildlife Services. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2559 

Wounded means exhibiting scraped or 

torn hide or flesh, bleeding, or other 

evidence of physical damage caused by 

a Mexican wolf bite. 

Zone 1 means an area within the 

MWEPA in Arizona and New Mexico 

into which Mexican wolves will be 

allowed to naturally disperse and 

occupy and where Mexican wolves may 

be initially released from captivity or 

translocated. Zone 1 includes all of the 

Apache, Gila, and Sitgreaves National 

Forests; the Payson, Pleasant Valley, 

and Tonto Basin Ranger Districts of the 

Tonto National Forest; and the 

Magdalena Ranger District of the Cibola 

National Forest. 

Zone 2 is an area within the MWEPA 

into which Mexican wolves will be 

allowed to naturally disperse and 

occupy, and where Mexican wolves may 

be translocated. 

(A) On Federal land in Zone 2, initial 

releases of Mexican wolves are limited 

to pups less than 5 months old, which 

allows for the cross-fostering of pups 

from the captive population into the 

wild, as well as enables translocationeligible adults to be re-released with 

pups born in captivity. On private and 

tribal land in Zone 2, Mexican wolves 

of any age, including adults, can also be 

initially released under a Service- and 

State-approved management agreement 

with private landowners or a Serviceapproved management agreement with 

tribal agencies. 

(B) The northern boundary of Zone 2 

is Interstate Highway 40; the western 

boundary extends south from Interstate 

Highway 40 and follows Arizona State 

Highway 93, Arizona State Highway 89/ 

60, Interstate Highway 10, and Interstate 

Highway 19 to the United States-Mexico 

international border; the southern 

boundary is the United States-Mexico 

international border heading east, then 

follows New Mexico State Highway 81/ 

146 north to Interstate Highway 10, then 

along New Mexico State Highway 26 to 

Interstate Highway 25; the boundary 

continues along New Mexico State 

Highway 70/54/506/24; the eastern 

boundary follows the eastern edge of 

Otero County, New Mexico, to the north 

and then along the southern and then 

eastern edge of Lincoln County, New 

Mexico, until it intersects with New 

Mexico State Hwy 285 and follows New 

Mexico State Highway 285 north to the 

northern boundary of Interstate 

Highway 40. Zone 2 excludes the area 

in Zone 1, as defined in this paragraph 

(k)(3). 

Zone 3 means an area within the 

MWEPA into which Mexican wolves 

will be allowed to disperse and occupy, 

but neither initial releases nor 

translocations will occur there. 

(A) Zone 3 is an area of less suitable 

Mexican wolf habitat where Mexican 

wolves will be more actively managed 

under the authorities of this rule to 

reduce human conflict. We expect 

Mexican wolves to occupy areas of 

suitable habitat where ungulate 

populations are adequate to support 

them and conflict with humans and 

their livestock is low. If Mexican wolves 

move outside of areas of suitable 

habitat, they will be more actively 

managed. 

(B) Zone 3 is two separate geographic 

areas on the eastern and western sides 

of the MWEPA. One area of Zone 3 is 

in western Arizona, and the other is in 

eastern New Mexico. In Arizona, the 

northern boundary of Zone 3 is 

Interstate Highway 40; the eastern 

boundary extends south from Interstate 

Highway 40 and follows State Highway 

93, State Highway 89/60, Interstate 

Highway 10, and Interstate Highway 19 

to the United States–Mexico 

international border; the southern 

boundary is the United States–Mexico 

international border; the western 

boundary is the Arizona–California 

State border. In New Mexico, the 

northern boundary of Zone 3 is 

Interstate Highway 40; the eastern 

boundary is the New Mexico–Texas 

State border; the southern boundary is 

the United States–Mexico international 

border heading west, then follows State 

Highway 81/146 north to Interstate 

Highway 10, then along State Highway 

26 to Interstate Highway 25, the 

southern boundary continues along 

State Highway 70/54/506/24; the 

western boundary follows the eastern 

edge of Otero County to the north and 

then along the southern and then 

eastern edge of Lincoln County until it 

follows State Highway 285 north to the 

northern boundary of Interstate 

Highway 40. 

(4) Designated area. The designated 

experimental population area for 

Mexican wolves classified as a 

nonessential experimental population 

by this rule is within the subspecies’ 

probable historical range and is wholly 

separate geographically from the current 

range of any known Mexican wolves. 

The boundaries of the MWEPA are the 

portions of Arizona and New Mexico 

that are south of Interstate Highway 40 

to the international border with Mexico. 

A map of the MWEPA follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
2560 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

(5) Prohibitions. Take of any Mexican 

wolf in the experimental population is 

prohibited, except as provided in 

paragraph (k)(7) of this section. 

Specifically, the following actions are 

prohibited by this rule: 

(i) No person may possess, sell, 

deliver, carry, transport, ship, import, or 

export by any means whatsoever any 

Mexican wolf or wolf part from the 

experimental population except as 

authorized in this rule or by a valid 

permit issued by the Service under 

§ 17.32. If a person kills or injures a 

Mexican wolf or finds a dead or injured 

wolf or wolf parts, the person must not 

disturb them (unless instructed to do so 

by the Service or a designated agency), 

must minimize disturbance of the area 

around them, and must report the 

incident to the Service’s Mexican Wolf 

Recovery Coordinator or a designated 

agency of the Service within 24 hours as 

described in paragraph (k)(6) of this 

section. 

(ii) No person may attempt to commit, 

solicit another to commit, or cause to be 

committed, any offense defined in this 

rule. 

(iii) Taking a Mexican wolf with a 

trap, snare, or other type of capture 

device within occupied Mexican wolf 

range is prohibited (except as 

authorized in paragraph (k)(7)(iv) of this 

section) and will not be considered 

unintentional take, unless due care was 

exercised to avoid injury or death to a 

wolf. With regard to trapping activities, 

due care includes: 

(A) Following the regulations, 

proclamations, recommendations, 

guidelines, and/or laws within the State 

or tribal trust lands where the trapping 

takes place. 

(B) Modifying or using appropriately 

sized traps, chains, drags, and stakes 

that provide a reasonable expectation 

that the wolf will be prevented from 

either breaking the chain or escaping 

with the trap on the wolf, or using 

sufficiently small traps (less than or 

equal to a Victor #2 trap) that allow a 

reasonable expectation that the wolf 

will either immediately pull free from 

the trap or span the jaw spread when 

stepping on the trap. 

(C) Not taking a Mexican wolf using 

neck snares. 

(D) Reporting the capture of a 

Mexican wolf (even if the wolf has 

pulled free) within 24 hours to the 

Service as described in paragraph (k)(6) 

of this section. 

(E) If a Mexican wolf is captured, 

trappers can call the Interagency Field 

Team (1–888–459–WOLF [9653]) as 

soon as possible to arrange for radiocollaring and releasing of the wolf. Per 

State regulations for releasing nontarget 

animals, trappers may also choose to 

release the animal alive and 

subsequently contact the Service or 

Interagency Field Team. 

(6) Reporting requirements. Unless 

otherwise specified in this rule or in a 

permit, any take of a Mexican wolf must 

be reported to the Service or a 

designated agency within 24 hours. We 

will allow additional reasonable time if 

access to the site is limited. Report any 

take of Mexican wolves, including 

opportunistic harassment, to the 

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico 

Ecological Services Field Office, 2105 

Osuna Road, NE., Albuquerque, NM 

87113; by telephone 505–761–4704; or 

by facsimile 505–346–2542. Additional 

contact information can also be found 

on the Mexican Wolf Recovery 

Program’s Web site at http://

www.fws.gov/southwest/es/

mexicanwolf/. Unless otherwise 

specified in a permit, any wolf or wolf 

part taken legally must be turned over 

to the Service, which will determine the 

disposition of any live or dead wolves. 

(7) Allowable forms of take of 

Mexican wolves. Take of Mexican 

wolves in the experimental population 

is allowed as follows: 

(i) Take in defense of human life. 

Under section 11(a)(3) of the Act and 

§ 17.21(c)(2), any person may take 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER16JA15.020</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2561 

(which includes killing as well as 

nonlethal actions such as harassing or 

harming) a Mexican wolf in self-defense 

or defense of the lives of others. This 

take must be reported as specified in 

accordance with paragraph (k)(6) of this 

section. If the Service or a designated 

agency determines that a Mexican wolf 

presents a threat to human life or safety, 

the Service or the designated agency 

may kill the wolf or place it in captivity. 

(ii) Opportunistic harassment. 

Anyone may conduct opportunistic 

harassment of any Mexican wolf at any 

time provided that Mexican wolves are 

not purposefully attracted, tracked, 

searched out, or chased and then 

harassed. Such harassment of Mexican 

wolves might cause temporary, nondebilitating physical injury, but is not 

reasonably anticipated to cause 

permanent physical injury or death. 

Any form of opportunistic harassment 

must be reported as specified in 

accordance with paragraph (k)(6) of this 

section. 

(iii) Intentional harassment. After the 

Service or its designated agency has 

confirmed Mexican wolf presence on 

any land within the MWEPA, the 

Service or its designated agency may 

issue permits valid for not longer than 

1 year, with appropriate stipulations or 

conditions, to allow intentional 

harassment of Mexican wolves. The 

harassment must occur in the area and 

under the conditions specifically 

identified in the permit. Permittees 

must report this take as specified in 

accordance with paragraph (k)(6) of this 

section. 

(iv) Take on non-Federal lands. (A) 

On non-Federal lands anywhere within 

the MWEPA, domestic animal owners or 

their agents may take (including kill or 

injure) any Mexican wolf that is in the 

act of biting, killing, or wounding a 

domestic animal, as defined in 

paragraph (k)(3) of this section. After the 

take of a Mexican wolf, the Service must 

be provided evidence that the wolf was 

in the act of biting, killing, or wounding 

a domestic animal at the time of take, 

such as evidence of freshly wounded or 

killed domestic animals. This take must 

be reported as specified in accordance 

with paragraph (k)(6) of this section. 

The take of any Mexican wolf without 

evidence of biting, killing, or wounding 

domestic animals may be referred to the 

appropriate authorities for investigation. 

(B) Take of Mexican wolves by 

livestock guarding dogs, when used to 

protect livestock on non-Federal lands, 

is allowed. If such take by a guard dog 

occurs, it must be reported as specified 

in accordance with paragraph (k)(6) of 

this section. 

(C) Based on the Service’s or a 

designated agency’s discretion and in 

conjunction with a removal action 

authorized by the Service, the Service or 

designated agency may issue permits to 

domestic animal owners or their agents 

(e.g., employees, land manager, local 

officials) to take (including intentional 

harassment or killing) any Mexican wolf 

that is present on non-Federal land 

where specified in the permit. Permits 

issued under this provision will specify 

the number of days for which the permit 

is valid and the maximum number of 

Mexican wolves for which take is 

allowed. Take by permittees under this 

provision will assist the Service or 

designated agency in completing control 

actions. Domestic animal owners or 

their agents must report this take as 

specified in accordance with paragraph 

(k)(6) of this section. 

(v) Take on Federal land. (A) Based 

on the Service’s or a designated agency’s 

discretion and in conjunction with a 

removal action authorized by the 

Service, the Service may issue permits 

to livestock owners or their agents (e.g., 

employees, land manager, local 

officials) to take (including intentional 

harassment or killing) any Mexican wolf 

that is in the act of biting, killing, or 

wounding livestock on Federal land 

where specified in the permit. 

(1) Permits issued under this 

provision will specify the number of 

days for which the permit is valid and 

the maximum number of Mexican 

wolves for which take is allowed. Take 

by permittees under this provision will 

assist the Service or designated agency 

in completing control actions. Livestock 

owners or their agents must report this 

take as specified in accordance with 

paragraph (k)(6) of this section. 

(2) After the take of a Mexican wolf, 

the Service must be provided evidence 

that the wolf was in the act of biting, 

killing, or wounding livestock at the 

time of take, such as evidence of freshly 

wounded or killed livestock. The take of 

any Mexican wolf without evidence of 

biting, killing, or wounding domestic 

animals may be referred to the 

appropriate authorities for investigation. 

(B) Take of Mexican wolves by 

livestock guarding dogs, when used to 

protect livestock on Federal lands, is 

allowed. If such take by a guard dog 

occurs, it must be reported as specified 

in accordance with paragraph (k)(6) of 

this section. 

(C) This provision for take on Federal 

land does not exempt Federal agencies 

and their contractors from complying 

with sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(4) of the 

Act, the latter of which requires a 

conference with the Service if they 

propose an action that is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

the Mexican wolf. In areas within the 

National Park System and National 

Wildlife Refuge System, Federal 

agencies must treat Mexican wolves as 

a threatened species for purposes of 

complying with section 7 of the Act. 

(vi) Take in response to unacceptable 

impacts to a wild ungulate herd. If the 

Arizona or New Mexico game and fish 

agency determines that Mexican wolf 

predation is having an unacceptable 

impact to a wild ungulate herd, as 

defined in paragraph (k)(3) of this 

section, the respective State game and 

fish agency may request approval from 

the Service that Mexican wolves be 

removed from the area of the impacted 

wild ungulate herd. Upon written 

approval from the Service, the State 

(Arizona or New Mexico) or any 

designated agency may be authorized to 

remove (capture and translocate in the 

MWEPA, move to captivity, transfer to 

Mexico, or lethally take) Mexican 

wolves. These management actions 

must occur in accordance with the 

following provisions: 

(A) The Arizona or New Mexico game 

and fish agency must prepare a sciencebased document that: 

(1) Describes what data indicate that 

the wild ungulate herd is below 

management objectives, what data 

indicate that the impact on the wild 

ungulate herd is influenced by Mexican 

wolf predation, why Mexican wolf 

removal is a warranted solution to help 

restore the wild ungulate herd to State 

game and fish agency management 

objectives, the type (level and duration) 

of Mexican wolf removal management 

action being proposed, and how wild 

ungulate herd response to wolf removal 

will be measured and control actions 

adjusted for effectiveness; 

(2) Demonstrates that attempts were 

and are being made to identify other 

causes of wild ungulate herd declines 

and possible remedies or conservation 

measures in addition to wolf removal; 

(3) If appropriate, identifies areas of 

suitable habitat for Mexican wolf 

translocation; and 

(4) Has been subjected to peer review 

and public comment prior to its 

submittal to the Service for written 

concurrence. In order to comply with 

this requirement, the State game and 

fish agency must: 

(i) Conduct the peer review process in 

conformance with the Office of 

Management and Budget’s most recent 

Final Information and Quality Bulletin 

for Peer Review and include in their 

proposal an explanation of how the 

bulletin’s standards were considered 

and satisfied; and 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
2562 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(ii) Obtain at least three independent 

peer reviews from individuals with 

relevant expertise other than staff 

employed by the State (Arizona or New 

Mexico) requesting approval from the 

Service that Mexican wolves be 

removed from the area of the affected 

wild ungulate herd. 

(B) Before the Service will allow 

Mexican wolf removal in response to 

impacts to wild ungulates, the Service 

will evaluate the information provided 

by the requesting State (Arizona or New 

Mexico) and provide a written 

determination to the requesting State 

game and fish agency on whether such 

actions are scientifically based and 

warranted. 

(C) If all of the provisions above are 

met, the Service will, to the maximum 

extent allowable under the Act, make a 

determination providing for Mexican 

wolf removal. If the request is approved, 

the Service will include in the written 

determination which management 

action (capture and translocate in 

MWEPA, move to captivity, transfer to 

Mexico, lethally take, or no action) is 

most appropriate for the conservation of 

the Mexican wolf subspecies. 

(D) Because tribes are able to request 

the capture and removal of Mexican 

wolves from tribal trust lands at any 

time, take in response to impacts to wild 

ungulate herds is not applicable on 

tribal trust lands. 

(vii) Take by Service personnel or a 

designated agency. The Service or a 

designated agency may take any 

Mexican wolf in the experimental 

population in a manner consistent with 

a Service-approved management plan, 

special management measure, biological 

opinion pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act, conference opinion pursuant to 

section 7(a)(4) of the Act, section 6 of 

the Act as described in § 17.31 for State 

game and fish agencies with authority to 

manage Mexican wolves, or a valid 

permit issued by the Service through 

§ 17.32. 

(A) The Service or designated agency 

may use leg-hold traps and any other 

effective device or method for capturing 

or killing Mexican wolves to carry out 

any measure that is a part of a Serviceapproved management plan, special 

management measure, or valid permit 

issued by the Service under § 17.32, 

regardless of State law. The disposition 

of all Mexican wolves (live or dead) or 

their parts taken as part of a Serviceapproved management activity must 

follow provisions in Service-approved 

management plans or interagency 

agreements or procedures approved by 

the Service on a case-by-case basis. 

(B) The Service or designated agency 

may capture; kill; subject to genetic 

testing; place in captivity; or euthanize 

any feral wolf-like animal or feral wolf 

hybrid found within the MWEPA that 

shows physical or behavioral evidence 

of: Hybridization with other canids, 

such as domestic dogs or coyotes; being 

a wolf-like animal raised in captivity, 

other than as part of a Service-approved 

wolf recovery program; or being 

socialized or habituated to humans. If 

determined to be a pure Mexican wolf, 

the wolf may be returned to the wild. 

(C) The Service or designated agency 

may carry out intentional or 

opportunistic harassment, nonlethal 

control measures, translocation, 

placement in captivity, or lethal control 

of problem wolves. To determine the 

presence of problem wolves, the Service 

will consider all of the following: 

(1) Evidence of wounded domestic 

animal(s) or remains of domestic 

animal(s) that show that the injury or 

death was caused by Mexican wolves; 

(2) The likelihood that additional 

Mexican wolf-caused depredations or 

attacks of domestic animals may occur 

if no harassment, nonlethal control, 

translocation, placement in captivity, or 

lethal control is taken; 

(3) Evidence of attractants or 

intentional feeding (baiting) of Mexican 

wolves; and 

(4) Evidence that Mexican wolves are 

habituated to humans, human 

residences, or other facilities regularly 

occupied by humans, or evidence that 

Mexican wolves have exhibited 

unprovoked and aggressive behavior 

toward humans. 

(D) Wildlife Services will not use M– 

44’s and choking-type snares in 

occupied Mexican wolf range. Wildlife 

Services may restrict or modify other 

predator control activities pursuant to a 

Service-approved management 

agreement or a conference opinion 

between Wildlife Services and the 

Service. 

(viii) Unintentional take. (A) Take of 

a Mexican wolf by any person is 

allowed if the take is unintentional and 

occurs while engaging in an otherwise 

lawful activity. Such take must be 

reported as specified in accordance with 

paragraph (k)(6) of this section. Hunters 

and other shooters have the 

responsibility to identify their quarry or 

target before shooting; therefore, 

shooting a Mexican wolf as a result of 

mistaking it for another species will not 

be considered unintentional take. Take 

by poisoning will not be considered 

unintentional take. 

(B) Federal, State, or tribal agency 

employees or their contractors may take 

a Mexican wolf or wolf-like animal if 

the take is unintentional and occurs 

while engaging in the course of their 

official duties. This includes, but is not 

limited to, military training and testing 

and Department of Homeland Security 

border security activities. Take of 

Mexican wolves by Federal, State, or 

tribal agencies must be reported as 

specified in accordance with paragraph 

(k)(6) of this section. 

(C) Take of Mexican wolves by 

Wildlife Services employees while 

conducting official duties associated 

with predator damage management 

activities for species other than Mexican 

wolves may be considered unintentional 

if it is coincidental to a legal activity 

and the Wildlife Services employees 

have adhered to all applicable Wildlife 

Services’ policies, Mexican wolf 

standard operating procedures, and 

reasonable and prudent measures or 

recommendations contained in Wildlife 

Service’s biological and conference 

opinions. 

(ix) Take for research purposes. The 

Service may issue permits under 

§ 17.32, and designated agencies may 

issue permits under State and Federal 

laws and regulations, for individuals to 

take Mexican wolves pursuant to 

scientific study proposals approved by 

the agency or agencies with jurisdiction 

for Mexican wolves and for the area in 

which the study will occur. Such take 

should lead to management 

recommendations for, and thus provide 

for the conservation of, the Mexican 

wolf. 

(8) Disturbance-causing land-use 

activities. For any activity on Federal 

lands that the Service determines could 

adversely affect reproductive success, 

natural behavior, or persistence of 

Mexican wolves, the Service will work 

with Federal agencies to use their 

authorities to temporarily restrict 

human access and disturbance-causing 

land-use activities within a 1-mi (1.6- 

km) radius around release pens when 

Mexican wolves are in them, around 

active dens between approximately 

April 1 and July 31, and around active 

Mexican wolf rendezvous sites between 

approximately June 1 and September 30, 

as necessary. 

(9) Management. (i) On private land 

within Zones 1 and 2, as defined in 

paragraph (k)(3) of this section, of the 

MWEPA, the Service or designated 

agency may develop and implement 

management actions to benefit Mexican 

wolf recovery in cooperation with 

willing private landowners, including 

initial release and translocation of 

Mexican wolves onto such lands in 

Zones 1 or 2 if requested by the 

landowner and with the concurrence of 

the State game and fish agency. 

(ii) On tribal trust land within Zones 

1 and 2, as defined in paragraph (k)(3) 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2563 

of this section, of the MWEPA, the 

Service or a designated agency may 

develop and implement management 

actions in cooperation with willing 

tribal governments, including: 

occupancy by natural dispersal, initial 

release, and translocation of Mexican 

wolves onto such lands. No agreement 

between the Service and a Tribe is 

necessary for the capture and removal of 

Mexican wolves from tribal trust lands 

if requested by the tribal government. 

(iii) Based on end-of-year counts, we 

will manage for a population objective 

of 300 to 325 Mexican wolves in the 

MWEPA in Arizona and New Mexico. 

So as not to exceed this population 

objective, we will exercise all 

management options with preference for 

translocation to other Mexican wolf 

populations to further the conservation 

of the subspecies. The Service may 

change this provision as necessary to 

accommodate a new recovery plan. 

(iv) We are implementing a phased 

approach to Mexican wolf management 

within the MWEPA in western Arizona 

as follows: 

(A) Phase 1 will be implemented for 

the first 5 years following February 17, 

2015. During this phase, initial releases 

and translocation of Mexican wolves 

can occur throughout Zone 1 with the 

exception of the area west of State 

Highway 87 in Arizona. No 

translocations can be conducted west of 

State Highway 87 in Arizona in Zone 2. 

Mexican wolves can disperse naturally 

from Zones 1 and 2 into, and occupy, 

the MWEPA (Zones 1, 2, and 3, as 

defined in paragraph (k)(3) of this 

section). However, during Phase 1, 

dispersal and occupancy in Zone 2 west 

of State Highway 87 will be limited to 

the area north of State Highway 260 and 

west to Interstate 17. A map of Phase 1 

follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
2564 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(B) In Phase 2, initial releases and 

translocation of Mexican wolves can 

occur throughout Zone 1 including the 

area west of State Highway 87 in 

Arizona. No translocations can be 

conducted west of Interstate Highway 

17 in Arizona. Mexican wolves can 

disperse naturally from Zones 1 and 2 

into, and occupy, the MWEPA (Zones 1, 

2, and 3, as defined in paragraph (k)(3) 

of this section). However, during Phase 

2, dispersal and occupancy west of 

Interstate Highway 17 will be limited to 

the area west of Highway 89 in Arizona. 

A map of Phase 2 follows: 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER16JA15.021</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2565 

(C) In Phase 3, initial release and 

translocation of Mexican wolves can 

occur throughout Zone 1. No 

translocations can be conducted west of 

State Highway 89 in Arizona. Mexican 

wolves can disperse naturally from 

Zones 1 and 2 into, and occupy, the 

MWEPA (Zones 1, 2, and 3, as defined 

in paragraph (k)(3) of this section). A 

map of Phase 3 follows: 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER16JA15.022</GPH>
2566 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

(D) While implementing this phased 

approach, two evaluations will be 

conducted: The first evaluation will 

cover the first 5 years and the second 

evaluation will cover the first 8 years 

after February 17, 2015 in order to 

determine if we will move forward with 

the next phase. 

(1) Each phase evaluation will 

consider adverse human interactions 

with Mexican wolves, impacts to wild 

ungulate herds, and whether or not the 

Mexican wolf population in the 

MWEPA is achieving a population 

number consistent with a 10 percent 

annual growth rate based on end-of-year 

counts, such that 5 years after February 

17, 2015, the population of Mexican 

wolves in the wild is at least 150, and 

8 years after February 17, 2015, the 

population of Mexican wolves in the 

wild is at least 200. 

(2) If we have not achieved this 

population growth, we will move 

forward to the next phase. Regardless of 

the outcome of the two evaluations, by 

the beginning of year 12 from February 

17, 2015, we will move to full 

implementation of this rule throughout 

the MWEPA, and the phased 

management approach will no longer 

apply. 

(E) The phasing may be expedited 

with the concurrence of participating 

State game and fish agencies. 

(10) Evaluation. The Service will 

evaluate Mexican wolf reestablishment 

progress and prepare periodic progress 

reports and detailed annual reports. In 

addition, approximately 5 years after 

February 17, 2015, the Service will 

prepare a one-time overall evaluation of 

the experimental population program 

that focuses on modifications needed to 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER16JA15.023</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2567 

improve the efficacy of this rule, 

reestablishment of Mexican wolves to 

the wild, and the contribution the 

experimental population is making to 

the recovery of the Mexican wolf. 

* * * * * 

Dated: January 7, 2015. 

Michael J. Bean, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish 

and Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00436 Filed 1–15–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2