Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revision to the Regulations for the Nonessential Experimental Population of the Mexican Wolf, 2512-2567 [2015-00436]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 11 (Friday, January 16, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2512-2567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00436]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 https://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 https://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.

[[Page 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 species-level 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

[[Page 2514]]

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

[[Page 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 Direcci[oacute]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.

[[Page 2516]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JA15.015

    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 https://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

[[Page 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 
human-caused 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 quasi-extinction 
(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 
quasi-extinction 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 Service-approved 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

[[Page 2518]]

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

[[Page 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
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JA15.016


[[Page 2520]]


    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 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 State-approved management 
agreement with private landowners or a Service-approved 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.

[[Page 2521]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JA15.017

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.

[[Page 2522]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JA15.018

    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.

[[Page 2523]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JA15.019

    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

[[Page 2524]]

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 2526]]

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 one-
time 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

[[Page 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 States-
Mexico 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

[[Page 2528]]

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 Commission-owned 
lands are considered non-Federal 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-for-presence 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 conflict-
avoidance 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

[[Page 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 non-Federal 
land to allow for more flexibility in the management of problem wolves. 
The differences in allowable take on Federal and non-Federal 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

[[Page 2530]]

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 case-by-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 end-of-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 
non-

[[Page 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 
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, 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 low-productivity 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

[[Page 2532]]

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 Service-designated 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.

[[Page 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 https://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

[[Page 2534]]

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 Service-approved 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

[[Page 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 self-sustaining 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 self-sustaining 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

[[Page 2536]]

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 self-defense 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

[[Page 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 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.
    (66) Comment: Describe how Mexican wolf management on Tribal and 
non-Tribal 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 non-Federal 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

[[Page 2538]]

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 2540]]

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

[[Page 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 https://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 life-threatening. 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 leg-hold 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

[[Page 2542]]

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 https://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

[[Page 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 non-Federal 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 well-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). 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

[[Page 2544]]

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

[[Page 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 non-Federal agencies. But we have 
included a provision that Wildlife Services will discontinue use of 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.
    (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 non-Federal 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 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. 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 non-tribal 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

[[Page 2546]]

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 science-based 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 non-federal 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 case-by-case basis. Also, 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.

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.

[[Page 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 State-owned 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

[[Page 2548]]

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 State-approved management agreement with private 
landowners or a Service-approved 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 2550]]

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 captive-breeding 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 captive-breeding 
program is to supply wolves for reestablishing Mexican wolves into the 
wild. Mexican wolves selected for release from the captive-breeding 
program are genetically well-

[[Page 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 wild-born 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

[[Page 2552]]

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 2554]]

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 (https://www.sba.gov/content/summary-size-standards-industry-sector). 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 
https://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 https://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,

[[Page 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 
non-Federal 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 (https://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

[[Page 2556]]

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

[[Page 2557]]

site, at https://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 
https://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 https://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]

0
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.

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.84 by revising paragraph (k) to read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  17.31 for State 
game and fish agencies with authority to manage Mexican wolves, or a 
valid permit issued by the Service through Sec.  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.

[[Page 2558]]

    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-than-lethal 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 https://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.

[[Page 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 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 State-approved management agreement with private 
landowners or a Service-approved 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

[[Page 2560]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JA15.020

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 Sec.  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 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.
    (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 https://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 Sec.  17.21(c)(2), any person may take

[[Page 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, 
non-debilitating 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 
science-based 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

[[Page 2562]]

    (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 Sec.  17.31 
for State game and fish agencies with authority to manage Mexican 
wolves, or a valid permit issued by the Service through Sec.  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 Service-approved 
management plan, special management measure, or valid permit issued by 
the Service under Sec.  17.32, regardless of State law. The disposition 
of all Mexican wolves (live or dead) or their parts taken as part of a 
Service-approved 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 Sec.  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)

[[Page 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

[[Page 2564]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JA15.021

    (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:

[[Page 2565]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JA15.022

    (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:

[[Page 2566]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JA15.023

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

[[Page 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