Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 1995 Annual Report A cooperative effort by the U.S. D. A. Forest Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, State of Montana, State of Wyoming, The Blackfeet Nation, The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, and the Nez Perce Tribe

Wolf #R10

This cooperative annual report presents information on the status, distribution and management of the recovery Rocky Mountain wolf population from January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1995. This report may be copied and distributed as needed. Suggested citation: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, and USDA Wildlife Services. 1995. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 1995 Annual Report. USFWS, Ecological Services, 100 N. Park, Suite 320, Helena, MT

1

Table of Contents Executive Summary

3

Introduction

4

Wolf Population Monitoring

5

Activity of Known Montana and Canadian Border Packs in 1995

Yellowstone and Central Idaho Wolf Reintroduction

7

Yellowstone National Park Activity of Yellowstone Packs Idaho

Wolf Reintroduction 1996

10

Research

11

North Fork of the Flathead River / Glacier National Park Other Areas

Information and Education

14

Montana Idaho Yellowstone National Park

Wolf / Livestock Interactions

15

Summary

17

Appendix A

18

A Review of Reintroductions: EIS Predictions and Early Results Summary

Appendix B

22

Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho Experimental Rule

Tables Table 1: The dynamics of wolf packs in Montana and adjacent Canada, 1995 Table 2: Description and placement of 14 wolves translocated from Alberta to Yellowstone National Park, January 1995 Table 3: Prey killed by wolves in Yellowstone National Park, November-December 1995 Table 4: Causes of mortality in ungulates within the North Fork of the Flathead River drainage for December 1992 through March 1993, and December 1993 through March 1994, based on examination of carcasses located while backtracking radio-collard wolves in the snow. Table 5: Mortality of radio-collared adult female white-tailed deer, elk, and moose in the North Fork of the Flathead River drainage, 1990-1995 Table 6: Summary of wolf depredation and control in Montana, 1987-1995

5 9 10

11 12 16

Maps Figure Figure Figure Figure

1: 2: 3: 4:

Wolf Recovery in the Northern Rockies Home ranges of three Yellowstone wolf packs and individual wolf, 1995 Idaho Wolf Locations Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho Recovery Areas

25 26 27 28

2

Executive Summary 1. At the end of 1995, at least seven wolf packs resided in northwestern Montana, six of which reproduced in spring 1995. About 70 to 80 wolves lived in the Montana at year’s end. At least on additional pack is established in adjacent Canada, occasionally entering Montana.

2. Ongoing University of Montana research on wolves, mountain lions, coyotes, and wolf/ungulate relationships in Glacier National Park and several other areas in Montana is providing information about the impact of wolves in the state. Deer and elk populations are declining while the moose population is on the increase along the North Fork of the Flathead River area.

3. Relatively few (24) reports of wolf conflict with livestock were received in1995. In a two week period, wolves from the Boulder pack killed three calves. After confirming three calved killed, a control action was conducted in which an adult male wolf and female wolf were translocated to Glacier National Park and three pups were radio-collared and released back on site with the alpha female. The translocated adult male died from capture-related injuries. The female traveled to the east side of Glacier National Park. A reintroduced adult male wolf from the Yellowstone area was destroyed by Animal Damage Control (ADC) after it killed two to four sheep and attacked another. In addition, three dogs were killed by wolves, two in the Ninemile area and one north of Yellowstone National Park.

4. In January 1995, 29 wolves were captured in west-central Alberta, Canada, and reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho. Fourteen wolves making up three packs were placed in Yellowstone; tow of the packs produced nine pups, one of which was killed by a vehicle. Two adult males were illegally killed outside the park and another adult male was killed due to a depredation on domestic livestock. Fifteen wolves were released into central Idaho but no pair produced pups in 1995. An adult female was illegally killed near Salmon, Idaho. In January 1996, an adult female was killed by a mountain lion just east of Missoula, Montana.

5. In January 1996, 37 wolves were captured in north-central British Columbia, Canada, and reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho. Seventeen wolves making up four packs were placed into acclimation pens in Yellowstone National Park. Twenty wolves were released into central Idaho and for the most part have been slowly traveling in a north and northeasterly direction.

6. Reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho will greatly increase the rate and complexity of wolf restoration efforts in the northern Rocky Mountains of the United States. In the future it will b vital to view wolf restoration as a single effort composed of three complementary parts: the ongoing natural recovery of wolves in northwestern Montana, the growth of wolf populations in Yellowstone, and the growth of wolf pups in the central Idaho areas. Delisting can occur only after all three areas have had ten breeding pairs successfully raise young for three successive years. It is estimated that spring 1996, there may be as many as nine breeding pairs in northwestern Montana, eight breeding pairs in Yellowstone, and six breeding pairs in central Idaho. Delisting is estimated to occur in 2002.

3

Introduction The gray wolf (Canis lupus) became protected as an endangered species in 1974. Gray wolf reproduction was documented in 1986 in northwestern Montana for the first time in at least 60 years. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), which is mandated by Congress to be responsible for recovery of endangered species, approved a revised recovery plan for the gray wolf in the northern Rocky Mountains in 1987. An Interagency Wolf Working Group, composed of various federal, state, and tribal representatives, was formed in 1988 to coordinate recovery activities. In 1994 an Environmental Impact Statement was completed for reintroduction of wolves into central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park. The first reintroduction was completed in 1995. This report was prepared to update interested parties about ongoing wolf recovery in northwestern Montana, central Idaho, and the Yellowstone area during 1995. Information is presented on the status of the wolf population, ongoing research, wolf control activities, public outreach efforts, and the reintroduction of wolves from Canada to central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park.

4

Wolf Population Monitoring A three-phase monitoring system consisting of 1) detection by the public, 2) confirmation of wolf activity by agency biologists, and 3) capture, radio-collaring, and monitoring of wolves has been used since 1988. For phase one, wolf observation records have been kept since 1973. Wolf observation and reporting cards were first used in 1988 to collect information from the public about possible wolf sightings. We continue to encourage reports from persons who might encounter wolves or their sign. These reports help us determine the size and distribution of the wolf population in Montana, Wyoming, or Idaho. Reported sightings from new areas help us assess where we need to concentrate phase two searches. The third and final phase of wolf population monitoring program involves capturing, radio-collaring, and monitoring collared wolves to determine progress toward recovery goals. USFWS and University of Montana research personnel captured and radio-collared wolves in 1995 from seven Montana wolf packs and a pack that resides primarily in Canada (Figure 1). For specific information about packs in northwestern Montana and along the Canadian border see Table 1. Dispersal is a normal park of wolf behavior in which some wolves, mainly young adults, leave the pack and strike out on their own. Biologists believe this is usually the result of social tension within the pack. When dispersing wolves meet with wolves of the opposite sex, new packs can be formed. Dispersing wolves are very good at finding other wolves. Some dispersing wolves may travel long distances and still remain alone. Usually this means other wolves are not in the area. By monitoring pack size we can speculate that wolves we cannot account for may have dispersed. By following radio-collared animals, we can determine not only where the wolf came from, but where it finally settles. Many of the reports we receive of wolves or wolf tracks may represent dispersing animals. PACK Belly River Spruce Creek North Camas South Camas Murphy Lake Thompson River Ninemile Sawtooth Boulder

ADULTS IN MARCH 3 10 4 11 5 5 8 6 6

PUP PRODUCED ? 6 2 6 5 1 4 0 4

KNOWN MORTALITY

DISPERSED MISSING

3

3

1 2

PACK SIZE YEAR END 3 16 6 17 10 7 13 5 10

Table 1 The Dynamics of Wolf Packs in Montana and Adjacent Canada, 1995

Activity of Known Montana and Canadian Border Packs in 1995 Belly River – Although the Belly River Pack resided mainly in Waterton Lakes National Park in Alberta, Canada, and surrounding provincial forest and private ranch lands, the wolves occasionally entered the U.S. along the Belly River of Glacier National Park or further east on the Blackfeet Reservation. A radio-tagged female wolf from Glacier National Park dispersed to the Belly River area in January 1992 and founded the pack. The alpha female and several other members of the pack were legally killed in Canada. Although it was thought that the pack had been eliminated, a recent snow-tracking survey indicated that possibly three wolves were still in the Belly River drainage.

5

Boulder - Wolves were present east of Deerlodge in 1994, as indicated by a video taken of a pair of wolves by the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks; also, tracks of a pair of wolves were discovered by a local rancher. Efforts to locate a den or rendezvous site were hampered when local landowners denied the USFWS access to look for the wolves. Reports in August, 1995 from a local rancher and U.S. Forest Service personnel provided information about wolves with pups on public land in the same general area. A howling survey located the nd rendezvous site and a trapping operation was initiated. On September 2 , a 52-pound gray male th th pup was captured and fitted with a radio collar. From August 20 to September 6 , the pack killed three calves. After five wolves in the problem pack were captured, two adults were relocated to Glacier National Park and three pups were fitted with radio collars and released back on the site in early October. The pups immediately rejoined other members of the pack including the alpha female. This coincided with removal of livestock from federal allotments and private leased ground in the area. In November, a mortality signal from one of the radio-collared pups was received and the animal located/. The wolf had been illegally killed. The case is still under investigation. In February 1996, the radio collar from another pup was located in the Clark Fork River near Garrison Junction. No carcass was found. In February an unmarked female pup was struck and killed on Highway 12 approximately two miles east of Avon. Murphy Lake – The Murphy Lake pack ranged southeast of Eureka and south of the Murphy Lake/Dickey Lake area. The wolves have used a traditional den since 1991. Despite extensive logging at the den site in 1994, the wolves produced five pups that were observed during the summer along with the five adults. A yearling female wolf was captured and radio-collared in May. Ninemile – The Ninemile pack, which originated from a translocated problem female wolf, has persisted in the Ninemile Valley northwest of Missoula since 1990 despite the increasing number of people living and recreating in the valley. Monitoring is conduced by the University of Montana as part of their research program (see Research). A yearlong female was captured and radiocollared in May. Five pups were produced in 1995 and there are eight adults. It appears from sign in the snow that this pack may split and form two distinct packs. A better determination will be made when the wolves start to den in spring of 1996. North Camas – the North Camas pack resided along the North Fork River north of Polebridge and prior to 1994 had denned consistently in Glacier National Park. Four adults, including two radio-collard wolves, were observed at the end of 1994. The alpha female of this pack is unknown, but movements of radio-collared wolves indicated this pack denned in the northwestern portion of Glacier National Park. A minimum of tow, possibly three pups were observed during the summer. Six wolves were observed in early December. After an encounter with the South Camas pack in late December, five wolves were observed, two of which were radio-collared. Two adult males were killed by members of the South Camas pack when the South Camas pack trespassed into the North Camas pack’s territory. Another dead wolf, presumably killed by other wolves, was later found. It appeared that the larger South Camas pack was in the process of trying displace the smaller North Camas pack. Sawtooth – Two yearling males were helicopter-darted and radio-collared in March 1995. One of these animals showed signs of mange. This was the first time biologists have documented mange in Montana since wolf recovery began, and although mange occurs naturally in wild canids in Montana, it could have implications for the wolf population. The wolf with the mange was not subsequently observed nor was the radio-collared wolf from the group located. No evidence of reproduction or pup production was found for this pack in 1995. South Camas – Ten adults wolves, two radio-collared, were observed in March. This pack denned at the traditional den site where a minimum of six pups were observed. A lactating adult

6

female was captured in June, along with another wolf. Both were radio-collared. Fifteen wolves were seen from the air in December, and seventeen wolves were observed by a local resident, three of which were radio-collared. Spruce Creek – The spruce Creek pack resided mainly in British Columbia, west of the continental Divide just north of the North Camas pack. Ten wolves, including four radio-collared wolves, were observed in this pack in march. The alpha female denned north of the international border along the North Fork of the Flathead River. A minimum of six pups were observed during the summer. Ten wolves, including three radio-collard animals, were observed in December. Thompson River – Adult female wolf #1718 from the Murphy Lake pack dispersed to the Thompson River area in late 1993 and paired with a male wolf of unknown origin. We were able to monitor the pre-dispersal, dispersal, and denning behavior of wolf #1718 in the new area. Tracks and howling in June indicated that pups had been produced but no observation could be make to determine the number of pups. The home range of the pack was primarily on Plum Creek Timber Company land. Plum Creek has taken an interest in the pack, and along with the U.S. Forest Service, has assisted with monitoring. Plum Creek will map the home range of this pack. Plum Creek also received a $5,000 award from Defenders of Wildlife for having a pair of wolves successfully den on private land. Plum Creek donated that money to Project Learning Tree, an environmental education program for children that focuses on forest appreciation and stewardship. Side Note: The wolf captured by an ADC trapper south of Boulder in august 1994, (known as the Cardwell wolf) had been lost by out monitoring efforts in September 1994. At that time, we had decide the animal was not wild but a “domestic” wolf and we were planning to remove it from the population. When efforts to locate the wolf were unsuccessful, we speculated that the animal was dead and the collar destroyed. In April 1995, we received confirmation that the Cardwell wolf had been hit and killed by a vehicle on the outskirts of El Paso, Texas. The radio collar and ear tags were in place, and the wolf was 20 lbs. heavier than when captured. Since this was apparently a captive wolf this may have been done as part of a trick or hoax. A recent paper by Dr. Forbes and Diane Boyd reviewed the genetics of this wolf (see Research).

Yellowstone and Central Idaho Wolf Reintroduction On November 22, 1994, the USFWS approved a plan to establish populations of wolves in Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho (see Appendix). Rules published in the Federal Register designated wolves in each area as nonessential-experimental populations under Section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act (Act). This provision of the Act allows federal and state resource agencies and private citizens greater flexibility in managing reintroduced animals. In November 1994, USFWS personnel worked with Alberta Fish and Game officials and local trappers to investigate possible donor wolf populations in west-central Alberta. The trappers were paid to live-snare, radio-collar, and release wolves. By monitoring these wolves and by meeting with and interacting with Canadians we hoped to be prepared for capturing wolves when final approval was given to transplant them to the United States. By January 1, 1995, 17 wolves from 13 packs had been captured and radio-collared. Considerable effort was spend obtaining permits, equipment, and supplies, with actual support efforts and planning requiring most of the fall of 1994. Like the preliminary field efforts, this work was contingent upon final approval of the reintroduction. Several legal challenges to the plan were also addressed during the fall.

7

Approval to capture and transport Canadian wolves to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho was received in early January 1995. Efforts were immediately directed toward moving personnel and supplies to the Rocky Mountain House / Hinton area of Alberta and toward setting up facilities to hold captured wolves. Cooperation trappers were notified that we could at that time accept wolves for the relocation. Helicopters were contracted out of Cranbrook, British Columbia. A fixed-wing aircraft from Alaska was also contracted to supply “spotter” capability. By January 7, 1995, the operation was in place, and wolves were subsequently aerially darted and brought into captivity.

Yellowstone National Park Implementation of the Yellowstone wolf restoration project began on January 12, 1995, when eight wolves arrived from Canada. The second shipment of wolves contained six individuals and arrived on January 21, 1995. Wolves were held in three acclimation pens build along Crystal, Rose, and Soda Butte creeks in Yellowstone National Park (Table 2). Acclimation was designed to attenuate the wolves’ homing tendencies so they wold restrict movements to the Yellowstone ecosystem after release. All 14 wolves were release during late March when several factors dictated an end to acclimation. During acclimation human contact was minimized to reduce the amount of stress exerted on the wolves. Visitation to the pens was done during feeding, Tuesdays and Fridays, and only long enough to provide food to the wolves. The wolves were fed the equivalent of 15 pounds per wolf per day. Through the 10-week period this amounted to the wolves being fed a total of 15, 000 pounds of elk, bison, and mule deer. During the acclimation period park employees and small media groups were allowed to witness feeding events from a vantage point located about 300 yards from the Crystal Creek pen. About 75 employees and 25 journalists witnessed feedings. Comments from those that observed the feedings indicated that they all learned from and enjoyed the experience. st

nd

The Crystal and Rose Creek wolves were released by opening the gates on March 21 and 22 , rd 1995. Since most, if not all, of the wolves had failed to depart the pens by March 23 , a decision was made to cut a hole in the Crystal pen in a area when the wolves were comfortable. On March th 24 , it was determined that the adult male (10 M) and probably the female pup (07 F) from the Rose Creek pen had exited through the gate. Thus an opening was not cut for 09 F to depart th st through; she exited on march 29 . By March 31 , all the wolves had exited the pens. Snow-tracking indicated that all the wolves left the pens in an undisturbed manner and initially explored the area immediately around their pen before traveling more widely. This was the type of release that had been hoped for since it was believed that wolves were most likely to restrict their movements if they were not stimulated by humans immediately following their release. Wolves were, and continue to be, located primarily through aerial searches and when possible from the ground. The wolves are located from the air approximately once a week with the intensity increasing during November and December to determine prey being killed and the rate of the kill. During 1995, biologists documented 57 kills made by wolves’, all but two of these animals were elk (Table 3). Wolves killed prey at a rat of 3.4 to 6.3 days between kills. As of march 30, 1996, four wolves had died and another hadn’t been located for month. Two wolves were illegally killed, one (10 M) near Red Lodge, Montana, and the other near Pinedale, Wyoming. One of the Rose Creek pups was hit by a vehicle on a highway in the park. The fourth wolf was ordered destroyed for killing livestock. It initially killed two sheep, was translocated back into the park to an acclimation pen and then re-released in the center of the Park after being held for several week. Shortly after it was released, it traveled back to the same location as before and attacked another sheep.

8

Crystal Creek Acclimation Pen Wolf # & Sex 002 M 003 M 004 M 005 F 006 M 008 M

Age pup pup adult adult pup pup

Color black black black gray black gray

Weight 77 80 98 98 75 72

Original Pack Petite Lake Petite Lake Petite Lake Petite Lake Petite Lake Petite Lake

Probable Status n/a n/a alpha alpha n/a n/a

Delivery Date 01/12/95 01/12/95 01/12/95 01/12/95 01/12/95 01/12/95

Color gray black gray

Weight 77 98 122

Original Pack McLeod McLeod Rick’s

Probable Status n/a alpha alpha

Delivery Date 01/12/95 01/12/95 01/20/95

Color gray black gray gray black

Weight 92 122 113 89 75

Original Pack Berland Berland Berland Berland Berland

Probable Status non-breeder n/a alpha alpha n/a

Delivery Date 01/20/95 01/20/95 01/20/95 01/20/95 01/20/95

Rose Creek Acclimation Pen Wolf # & Sex 007 F 009 F 010 M

Age pup adult adult

Soda Butte Acclimation Pen Wolf # & Sex 011 F 012 M 013 M 014 F 015 M

Age adult adult adult adult pup

Table 2 Description and Placement of 14 Wolves Translocated from Alberta to Yellowstone National Park, January 1995

Activity of Yellowstone Packs Crystal Creek Pack – Throughout 1995 the Crystal Creek pack restricted movements to the Lamar and Pelican valleys (Figure 2). Although adult 05 F showed signs of denning, she did not produce pups. During mid-October and mid-December yearling 08 M, 02 M, and 03 M, respectively, dispersed from the pack. Wolf 08 M immediately paired with the Rose Creek alpha female 09 F. Wolves 02 F and 03 M traveled as loners through the end of December. In January 1996, wolf 03 M was destroyed after two separate incidences of killing and attacking sheep in Paradise Valley. Soda Butte Pack – Throughout 1995 the Soda butte pack restricted movements to the northeastern corn of the Yellowstone ecosystem (Figure 2). Wolf 14 F gave birth to a little th containing at least one pup around April 26 . The den was located in the Stillwater River drainage of the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness, in the Custer National Forest about 20 miles north of the th park. The pack did well throughout the remainder of the year. Around December 19 , adult 12 M dispersed southward and traveled as a lone wolf for the remainder of the year. He was illegally killed in February 1996 near Pinedale, Wyoming. In early December the pack traveled 15-20 miles outside of its normal home range on the north side of the Absaroke-Beartooth Wilderness. There the wolves encountered and killed a mountain lion chase hound. They then traveled east to the Red Lodge area before returning to the area where the hound was killed. They have since been in and out of the area, but have recently traveled back into the park. A phone tree was developed to keep local landowners appraised for the pack’s location as was requested at a meeting with the landowners in Nye earlier in the year. Rose Creek Pack – Soon after release, pup 07 F left the Rose Creek pack and traveled as a th lone wolf for the rest of 1995. On April 26 , wolf 10 M was illegally killed about four miles from Red Lodge, Montana, about 35 miles northeast of the park (Figure 2). At about the same time, 09 F gave birth to eight pups. Because she was alone and her den was so close to Red Lodge, she and the pups were captured and returned to the Rose Creek pen. They were maintained in

9

captivity until the pups were mature enough to survive the rigors of life in the wild. The family was th released on October 11 . Wolf 09 F immediately paired with yearling 08 M who had recently dispersed from the Crystal Creek pack. The Rose Creek pack has restricted its movements to Yellowstone National Park. Species Elk

Moose Mtn Goat

Age calf adult old adult unknown Total old adult adult

Male 0 2 3 2 7 0 1

Sex Female 3 6 19 0 28 1 0

Unknown 12 1 0 7 20 0 0

Table 3 Prey Killed by Wolves in Yellowstone National Park November – December, 1995

Idaho In January 1995, 15 wolves were reintroduced into central Idaho. Most of the wolves remained close to their release sites for several weeks before traveling any substantial distance. Exploratory movements occurred throughout much of the recovery area with the trend being to th the north and northeast. On January 20 , a wolf was shot 25 miles south of Salmon, Idaho. Radio contact from a second wolf was lost March 4, 1995 and had not been located since that time. The remains of another wolf was discovered February 7, 1996; it had evidently been killed by a mountain lion. The remaining 12 wolves have stayed in the central Idaho experimental area and are being monitored on a bi-monthly basis. The wolves have been observed periodically by various outdoor recreationists and ranchers. Five pairs have formed and their movements have started to become concentrated in a specific area. One pair was formed when a reintroduced wolf met a suspected non-reintroduced wolf in the Kelly Creek drainage. All other pairs resulted from reintroduced wolves pairing with other reintroduced wolves. The single wolves are still moving throughout the recovery area. In March 1995, the Nez Perce Tribe signed a five-year cooperative agreement with the USFWS to monitor and manage the wolves in Idaho. The Nez Perce Tribal Wolf Recovery and Management Plan for Idaho was approved by the USFWS in September and is being implemented.

Wolf Reintroduction 1996 In early January 1996, a multi-agency team proceeded to transport capture equipment and supplies to Fort St. John, British Columbia, Canada. A cooperative agreement had been developed between the USFWS and the British Columbia Ministry of the Environment to allow removal of wolves for reintroduction into the United States. The team marked four wolf packs with radio-collard animals, to assist the B.C. Environment biologists in determining possible impacts caused by removing wolves from the population and to ensure long term monitoring for the population. The B.C. Environment biologists marked two additional packs, making a total of 12 marked wolf packs located in the capture area. Wolves were captured by aerial darting which started on January 16, 1996. A total of 53 wolves o were handled during the 10-day period despite the daily near record cold temperatures of –45 F. By January 26, 1996, 17 wolves making up four packs had been transported to acclimation pens in Yellowstone National Park and 20 wolves had been released into central Idaho.

10

An adult male wolf, Y 31, who was being held in Missoula before being transported to Idaho, bit and broke the thumb of a biologist while the biologist was placing a block of ice into the transport box as a source of water. Protocol in accordance with the 1994 Rabies Compendium called for euthanizing the animals and sending his brain to a laboratory. The wolf was euthanized and the carcass sent to the Public Health Laboratory, Dept. of Agriculture in Idaho. Results indicated that the wolf was not rabid. We are reviewing the protocol to determine if the protocol can be modified so a wolf will not have to be euthanized if someone else is ever bitten. In Idaho, most of the wolves remained close to the release site for a short period of time before moving as a group to the north. In February 1996, one wolf headed south of the release site and the remaining 19 wolves moved in a northerly direction. Most of the wolves stayed on Forest Service land but a few had wandered through private property. Several wolves had gone northeast toward Salmon, Idaho and some had crossed over into the West Fork of the Bitterroot River drainage near Darby, Montana. At least one pair had formed from this second group and another group of one male and two female wolves were traveling together. For Idaho wolf movement map see Figure 3.

Research North Fork of the Flathead River / Glacier National Park Graduate student Kyran Kunkel, professor Dan Pletscher, and various volunteers collected additional field data for a project initiated in 1992 to examine the interactions between wolves and their prey. 1995 was the final year of field work and Kyran will begin writing his thesis in the spring of 1996. The study integrates and expands on work initiated by the University of Montana Wolf Ecology Project. Ungulates, as well as wolves, are radio-collared and monitored on a regular basis. Based on survival and recruitment data, deer (Odocoileus virginiaus) and elk (Cervus elephus) populations appear to be declining, and moose (Alces alces) populations appear to be increasing. Causes of ungulate mortality, shown in Table 4, were determined by tracking wolves and examining kills that were found. Another measure of ungulate mortality was gained by examining radio-collared animals that died or were killed by predators (Table 5). Wolves selected whitetailed deer as their primary prey, comprising 87% of wolf kills examined from 1992-1995. Sections of deer appears to be a function of availability and perhaps vulnerability.

Predator/cause Wolf

Mountain Lion Starvation Unknown

Prey White-tailed Deer Elk Moose Mule Deer White-tailed Deer Elk White-tailed Deer White-tailed Deer Total

1992-1993 63 5 4 0 24 0 0 14 115

Mortalities 1993-1994 54 6 0 1 23 2 2 n/a 86

Total 117 11 4 1 47 2 2 14 201

Table 4 Cause of mortality in ungulates within the North Fork of the Flathead River drainage for December 1992 through March 1993, and December 1993 through March 1994, based on examination of carcasses located while backtracking radio-collared wolves in the snow.

11

A mountain lion (Felis concolor) ecology study continues on the North Fork, conducted by Toni Ruth and several technicians from the Hornocker Wildlife Research Institute. Mountain lions were captured, radio-collard and monitored to determine, among other things, lion density in areas occupied by wolves. Direct and indirect food competition has been documented between lions and wolves, it has been determined that wolves may chase lions from the kills that lions made. At the beginning of May, 1995, 24 mountain lions were being monitored. Seven lions utilized summer range within Glacier National Park, six lions summered in the Whitefish Range, five lions used areas between Glacier National Park and the Whitefish Range, and three lions summered in Canada. Two lions dispersed from the area; a dispersed female lion was located in the Kootenai Mountains and a male lion dispersed to an unknown location. Five lions died during the summer and three in the fall. Two females were killed by other lions, three lions starved, one lion was killed by ADC personnel due to a depredation, one lion was harvested by a hunter, and one died of known causes. The researchers will continue to monitor the wolf/lion interactions. University of Montana graduate student Wendy Arjo conducted a study of coyote ecology and wolf/coyote interactions. Fourteen coyotes, seven males and seven females, were captured in Glacier National Park and the adjacent Flathead National Forest and fitted with radio collars. Five coyotes died, four males and one female; one died from natural causes, three were killed by mountain lions, and one died from unknown causes. The student is continuing to capture coyotes and monitor the interactions with wolves and other predators. Species Deer

Mortalities 13 11 4 4 5 4 1

Cause Mt. Lion Wolf Bear Coyote Human Unknown Old age

Elk

11 4 3 6 2

Mt Lion Wolf Bear Human Unknown

Moose

5 5 5 3 1

Bear Wolf Unknown Human Accident

Total

42

26

19 Table 5 Mortality of radio-collared adult female white-tailed deer, elk, and moose in the North Fork of the Flathead River drainage, 1990-1995.

Other Areas Idaho – The Nez Perce Tribe is coordinating with Dr. James Peek of the University of Idaho to initiate a graduate study project to investigate seasonal food habits and movements of reintroduced wolves in central Idaho. Murphy Lake – The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MDFWS) initiated a whitetailed deer population ecology study in 1988 prior to wolf establishment in the Murphy Lake area, Kootenai National Forest. This study continued as data were collected on deer population

12

characteristics, movements, and causes of mortality, including wolf predation. A Challenge Cost Share Agreement between MDFWP, USFS, and the USFWS outlined methods to collect several types of data, including information on the impact of the Murphy Lake wolf pack on the deer population. Of the 100 deer radio-collard since 1989, only three deaths were attributed to wolf predation. Hunter harvest of deer in the unit has remained stable during the past six years, while the wolves have been present. As of 1995, the study has not found either excessive wolf-caused deer mortality, or a shift in land-use patterns by the deer as a result of wolf presence. Rocky Mountain Front – On the Rocky Mountain Front, additional data was collected for a longterm study revolving around the Sawtooth pack. The study began in 1993 whit the concept that wolf management should be proactive, and that understanding the dynamics of wolves was critical for minimizing conflicts with landowners and hunters. USFS took the lead on this study, with cooperation from MDFWP, USFWS, BLM, the Boone and Crockett Club, and local landowners. Of particular interest is the fact that these wolves primarily used private range land stocked with cows and calves throughout the spring and summer seasons. Other than the four calves killed in 1994 (Table 6), there have been no additional livestock losses reported due to wolves. North Fork of the Flathead – Diane Boyd, a Ph.D. candidate from the University of Montana, has been examining wolf genetics and dispersal patterns in the United States and Canada. Preliminary results indicate that dispersing female wolves have a high probability of breeding. Most dispersing wolves, at least from the North Fork of the Flathead, have moved northward into Canada. Genetic analysis of 91 DNA samples indicated high amounts of genetic variation in the colonizing wolf population, showing that packs existing in Montana were founded by multiple unrelated wolves from Canada. High dispersal rates, long dispersal distances and lack of a founding population bottleneck indicate that wolves in the United States and Canada should be viewed and managed as a single population. The wolves transplanted into Idaho and Yellowstone will likely aid demographic recovery, but permanently retaining the high genetic variation already present in United States wolves will require assuring gene flow throughout the central Rocky Mountains. With only three exceptions, all alleles in the colonizing wolves were found in the reference Alberta population, consistent with natural immigration of wolves from Canada. Only three wolves did not fit the pattern. The three wolves were found farther south than any known breeding pack, and their relationship to the colonizing population was unknown. Two of the wolves, the Cardwell wolf (killed in 1995) and the Fox Park wolf from the southern portion of Yellowstone National Park (killed in 1992), were genetically consistent with the colonizing population, but not the descent from any sample breeding female. They could have been the offspring of an unsampled breeding female, captive wolves, or long distance migrants from Canadian packs. However, the third wolf of unknown origin, found near Deerlodge, Montana, had five alleles not otherwise present in the Alberta or Montana data. This animal was probably not born in the colonizing or native Alberta population and was likely from captive breeding stock as was the “Cardwell” wolf. Ninemile – Mike Jimenez, also a Ph.D. candidate from the University of Montana, has been studying wolf movements and responses relative to human activities, including roads and livestock, in the Ninemile area. In addition to monitoring radio-collared wolves and ungulates, the novel approach of radio-collaring and monitoring domestic cows was accomplished with good results. The cattle used moist areas in summer, which are also favored by white-tailed deer. In general, the location of deer dictated where the wolves went, resulting in radio-collared cattle and wolves often being found in very close proximity.

13

Information and Education Montana Attempts were made to respond to public concerns about, and interest in, wolves by answering questions, giving presentations, distributing wolf literature and reports, and continual communication with all parties regardless of their view of wolves. Public understanding and tolerance, if not acceptance, is one of the keys to successful wolf recovery. During 1995, approximately 33 presentations were made to more than 800 people about wolves and the wolf recovery program. Meetings and contacts with federal and state agencies, conservation organizations, sportsmen’s groups, and the media occurred on a regular basis. Contact with the media was international in scope as the wolf recovery team responded to interest about the wolf reintroduction. Coverage of the reintroduction went around the world. An educational package containing hands-on-material such as wolf pelts, tracks, scat, and study aids such as games and pictures was available for teachers during 1995. These “wolf trunks” were provided free of charge and due to their popularity, usually had to be reserved in advance. Twenty trunks have been assembled and were located throughout Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. The Wolf Education and Research Center (WERC), headquartered in Idaho, is the largest nonprofit membership organization dedicated to the recovery of wolves in the Northern Rockies. In 1994, WERC signed a cooperative agreement with the USFWS to develop a public partnership to aid in the educational outreach, volunteer services and funding. WERC represents more than 80,000 sponsors and members, each of whom receives up-to-date information through quarterly newsletters. In addition, WERC presented or funded 120 regional outreach programs which reached some 58,000 people during 1995. Among these programs, WERC initiated the Track a Wolf Program, a unique project linking regional schools through tracking individual wolves in the reintroduction area. WERC also sponsored the April 1995 Northern Rocky Mountain Interagency Wolf meeting in Missoula, Montana. WERC representatives provided volunteer assistance in the 1995 wolf reintroduction in Idaho and bean a fundraising campaign, call the Wolf Recovery Action Fund, that was kicked off by Bonnie Raitt in the summer and was awarded a development grant from Patagonia in the fall of 1995. WERC paid for radio collars and aerial monitoring during 1995 and, by late December, WERC initiated the first major direct mail campaign for the fund which successfully raised some $80,000. The Wolf Recovery Action Fund provided the single greatest source of private funding for the 1996 wolf reintroduction effort. In late 1995, WERC worked with Wild-Eyed Media, Inc. to develop an internet access page (www.wild-eyed.org) which allows internet users to participate in the Track a Wolf Program and receive general information about wolves and related issues. WERC also assisted Outside Magazine Online in developing a wolf recovery information site on the internet. WERC, in partnership with the Nez Perce Tribe, is currently developing a public educational facility on Nez Perce tribal land near Winchester, Idaho. This center will include a 20-area enclosure for a wolf pack, which was raised in captivity and featured in Wolf: Return of a Legend, the Emmy-Award winning documentary film. Yellowstone National Park The first year of the restoration effort attracted much interest from the media. Wolf project personnel gave more than 100 interviews to regional and national print and television media. Also, project personnel gave 20 interpretive programs to conservation groups, interested citizens,

14

and professional audience. It was estimated that approximately 4,000 to 5,000 park visitors observed the wolves in the Lamar Valley in Yellowstone National Park. A park seasonal naturalist conduced tours for more than 40,000 visitors to discuss wolf biology and the recovery program. Interest in viewing the wolves was high as indicated by the increased number of people entering through the parks Northeast Entrance and the increase sale of wolf paraphernalia in the park. Biologists worked hard to develop a working relationship with other biologists, agency personnel, and outside supporters of the program. These efforts resulted in the beginnings of wildlife studies that will clarify the ecology of the Northern Range, and in fund-raising initiatives that will help defray the cost of the wolf recovery program.

Wolf / Livestock Interactions Personnel from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal Damage Control (ADC) program, primarily, Wolf Management Specialist Carter Niemeyer, investigated 24 reports, five in Idaho and 19 in Montana, of wolf depredation or harassment of livestock during 1995. A total of 40 head of cattle, one donkey, eight horses, five chickens, and three dogs were investigated or examined to determine if wolves were responsible for the deaths or injuries. The only confirmed depredation by wolves on livestock was by the Boulder pack and the dispersing wolf that killed two to four sheep north of Yellowstone National Park. The remaining livestock listed above died from a variety of diseases, or were killed by coyotes or dogs, rustlers or unknown causes. The Boulder wolf pack was responsible for killing three calves in 1995 and, based upon photographs the producer took, injuring one in 1994 that later died as result of those injuries (Table 6). Defenders of Wildlife paid market value of $1,633 for the four calves that were confirmed as killed by wolves. In addition two mountain lions chase hounds and a guard dog were killed by wolves. Investigation of wolf depredation on livestock, communication with livestock owners and groups, and actual wolf control when necessary remains an essential part of wolf recovery. Two possible separate livestock depredations were reported in Idaho in 1996. Two sheep that were left on Forest Service allotments since the fall of 1995 were found dead. ADC investigated the site and concluded that wolves may have been involved. No control action was taken since the sheep had been abandoned on the allotments. In March 1996, a rancher near Salmon, Idaho, saw a large dog-like animal feeding on a calf carcass. ADC investigated and reported it as a possible wolf kill. The rancher was contracted about what to do if future problems occurred and no further action was taken.

15

Date of First Depredation Wolves involved Wolves controlled Control Method Fate of Wolves

Possible livestock losses

Confirmed losses

Value losses **

1987 Babb

1989 Marion

1990 Marion

1991 Ninemile

1991 Heart Butte

1992 Ninemile

1994 Augusta

1995 Boulder

05/08/87

08/31/89

03/20/90

03/29/91

05/23/91

05/16/92

04/2094

08/27/95

7

5

2

4

1

7

6

6

6

4

1

3

1

2

2

2

4 trap 2 aerial gun 4 killed 2 captivity

3 trap 1 aerial dart 4 translocated

9 ewe 1lamb 2 cows 1 calf 3 steers 9 ewes 1 lamb 2 cows 1 calf 3 steers $3,049

aerial gun

aerial dart

aerial dart

trapped

aerial dart

trapped

1 killed

3 translocated

1 captivity

2 released on site

2 translocated

0 sheep 2 cows 8 calves

0 sheep 5 calves

0 sheep 2 steers

2 lambs 0 cattle

0 sheep 1 steer

0 sheep 3 calves

2 translocated 3 released on site 0 sheep 0 cattle

0 sheep 2 cows 1 calf

0 sheep 5 calves

0 sheep 2 steers

2 lambs 0 cattle

0 sheep 1 steer

3 calves

$3,910

$2,500

$1,200

Amount $3,049 $2,920 $2,500 $1,200 compensated *** Control days 125 18 17 9 Other losses 6 months after 1 calf none 1 calf none control * - includes all salary, travel, equipment purchases, services. ** - includes confirmed losses, possible losses, and losses after control. *** - Defenders of Wildlife Program – 100% compensation for confirmed and 50% for possible losses.

3 calves 1 steer

$200

$375

$1,722

$1,633

$200

$375

$1,722

$1,633

1

2

1

14

none

none

none

none

Table 6 Summary of Wolf Depredation and Control in Montana, 1987 - 1995

16

Summary Wolf recovery in Montana has progressed to the point that seven known wolf packs reside in and have reproduced within the state boundaries. In 1995, six of the seven packs produced pups. At least one more reproducing pack resides in Canada, just north of the international boundary, and occasionally makes excursions into Montana. Progress towards a recovery goal of ten breeding pairs in the northwest Montana recovery area is measured by monitoring radio-collared wolves and investigating and/or confirming reports of wolves submitted by the public and other agencies. The Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan allows for increased flexibility in wolf management situations when six or more packs reside in the state. This could include lethal control in some cases of livestock depredation. Wolf research, conducted in and near Glacier National Park, along the Rocky Mountain From, and in the Ninemile Valley continued during 1995. These studies will provide much needed information to help us answer questions about present and future potential impacts of wolves in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Information and education activities included giving 84 presentations to the public and agencies about wolves, and the wolf recovery program. Regular contacts with other agency personnel and the general public occurred in the form of answering questions, giving presentations providing wolf literature and reports, and striving to maintain open lines of communication with all parties regardless of their views of wolves. The need for addressing concerns about the impact of wolves on the livestock industry remains an important part of wolf recovery. During 1995, 24 incidents of wolf predation or harassment with livestock were reported. These reports were investigated by personnel from USDA, ADC program. It was confirmed that members of the Boulder pack killed three calves in 1995 and an additional yearling 1994. Defenders of Wildlife paid market value for these livestock losses. As a result of this, tow adult wolves were captured and translocated to Glacier National Park in October. The adult male wolf died due to capture-related injuries and the adult female was last located on the east side of Glacier National Park. Personnel spent considerable time preparing for the Yellowstone National Park/Central Idaho wolf reintroduction effort. Equipment and supplies, permits, and logistics were organized, and by the end of the year preparations were completed to carry out the project pending the outcome of a court case. The wolves released in Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho in 1995 adapted to their new homes far better than predicted. Fifteen wolves were released in central Idaho in January 1995. They traveled widely but none left the non-essential-experimental area and all primarily used Forest Service lands. There were no livestock depredations in Idaho in 1995. One wolf was illegally killed shortly after it was released. Another wolf was killed by a mountain lion in Montana. One wolf has not been located since March 1995. The most hopeful event among the reintroduced wolves is that, of the 12 wolves being monitored, five breeding pairs have apparently formed. One pair located just within the central Idaho experimental area contains the only wolf that is suspected not to be from the 1995 reintroduction. Wolves in Idaho are primarily being managed by the Nez Perce Tribe, funded under a cooperative agreement with USFWS. Wolves released in Yellowstone National Park did even better. The 14 wolves that represented three packs were released from their acclimation pens in late March 1995. The wolves are being monitored by National Park Service personnel. Observations indicated they are preying almost exclusively on elk and have been regularly killing coyotes. All three packs stayed together after release and two packs had a total of nine pups. Four wolves have died: two were illegal mortalities, one was hit by a vehicle, and one was killed for livestock depredation. Two packs and a potential new breeding pair live entirely in the park. Another pack of four lives along the park’s

17

northeastern border and spent considerable time on some private land. This has caused some concern among local ranchers, particularly after the pack killed a mountain lion chase hound in the area.

Appendix A. A Review of Reintroduction: EIS Predictions and Early Results In the 994 final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on The Reintroduction of Gray Wolves in Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho, several predictions were made regarding the estimated effects a recovered wolf population would have on livestock losses, big game populations, land-use practices, local economies, and visitor use. Although only one year of data has been gathered, it is enlightening to compare the predictions made in the EIS to the reality of having wolves back in these areas for one year. 1. Prediction: It was estimated that some wolves would travel outside the experimental population areas or into areas of intensive agriculture and have to be moved back into the wilderness or park, even though they had not attacked livestock or caused problems. 1995 Results: No reintroduced wolf moved outside the experimental population areas. Three of four breeding pairs that developed in the Yellowstone area as a result of the 1995 reintroduction resided almost exclusively in Yellowstone National park. The only relocation in 1995 occurred when a female wolf from the Rose Creek pack and her eight pups were captured near Red Lodge, Montana, and moved back into the park. It was necessary to move the wolves because her mate was illegally killed about the time the pups were born and it would have been very difficult for the female to raise the pups by herself. The man that killed her mate was found guilty by a local jury and received three months in county jail, three months in a half-way house, a year probation, a fine of $10,000, loss of hunting privileges, and he was required to pay court costs. Wolves in central Idaho traveled extensively and crossed private lands but lived on USFS lands. Only one wolf establish a home range outside the immediate vicinity of central Idaho, but it was still inside the Idaho experimental area. It settled in an area southeast of Missoula, Montana, but was killed by a mountain lion in January of 1996. 2. Prediction: It was estimated that 100 wolves would kill about 19 cattle and 68 sheep in the Yellowstone area and about ten cattle and 57 sheep in central Idaho. Using averages of losses from other areas occupied by wolves, this meant 15-20 wolves would kill about 1.5 to tree cattle and nine to eleven sheep annually. Other domestic animals would be killed, but rarely. Problem wolves would be moved after the first depredation and killed if they attacked livestock again. A private group would compensate for lost livestock but not for dogs. 1995 Results: The Soda Butte pack killed a lion-hunting dog on private land in December 1995. No livestock or domestic animals were documented as killed by wolves in Idaho. A wolf in Idaho was illegally shot after it had fed on a calf that had died naturally shortly after birth. Early 1996 Results: A dispersing wolf in the Yellowstone area killed tow sheep and tow others were reported missing from the site in January 1996. The wolf was moved back into the park but returned to the same ranch and attacked another sheep. The wolf was subsequently killed by ADC. A private group paid the producer 100%of the value for the two dead sheep and 50% of the value for the two missing sheep.

18

3. Prediction: it was predicted that wolf pups would not be born in Yellowstone or central Idaho for two years. 1995 Results: One litter of eight pups and another litter of one pup was born in the Yellowstone area. No wolf pups were born in Idaho. 4. Prediction: It was presumed that there were no breeding pairs of wolves and very few dispersing single wolves, if any, occurring naturally in either experimental area. If any wolves were present it was expected that they would be quickly located by the reintroduced wolves, because wolves are very adept at locating one another. If two naturally-occurring wild wolf packs were located within 90 days of the release, the reintroduced wolves were to be removed, the experimental rules revoked, and the existing wolf packs would be managed as “fully endangered” under all the protections of the Endangered Species Act. 1995 Results: No non-reintroduced wild wolves were discovered in the Yellowstone are. Reintroduced wolves found only other reintroduced wolves. A dispersing female from the rose Creek pack was joined by a dispersing male from the Crystal Creek pack in 1995. The mate of the alpha female from the Rose Creek pack was illegally killed in spring 1995. She was joined in September by a dispersing male from the Crystal Creek pack that became the Rose Creeks’ new alpha male. Early 1996 Results: They now comprise the fourth known breeding pair in the Yellowstone are. Adult male R-12 dispersed southeast and south of the park before being illegally killed. This male apparently found no other wolves in the areas he traveled. In central Idaho, wolves reintroduced in 1995 formed four breeding pairs. A 1995reintroduced female wolf apparently paired with a wolf of unknown origin near the Idaho/Montana border west of Missoula, Montana. Based on its location this unknown wolf is suspected to be a male that naturally dispersed into the area from northwestern Montana. It was first seen in late December 1995 and is the only apparently natural-dispersing wolf that has been located in central Idaho. One reintroduced wolf has not been located since March 1995. All five pairs stayed together throughout the February breeding season and are expected to produce pups in spring of 1996. No naturally-occurring wolf pack in northwestern Montana was documented to use any part of either experimental population area. 5. Predictions: During the EIS process, all three states asked for the flexibility to manage wolves in their state. At the start of the reintroduction program in 1995, all three states, while not supporting reintroduction, did consider themselves partners in the effort. It was hope that the states or native American tribes would be the primary managers of wolves by fall 1995. 1995 Results: As the 1996 reintroduction began, the Governors of Montana and Idaho and several members of Congress requested that the reintroduction not continue. By the fall of 1995, the Idaho legislature had rejected their Fish and Game Department’s draft wolf plan. The state of Idaho is currently not participating in wolf management in Idaho. The Nez Perce Tribe prepared an acceptable plan and in cooperation with the USFWS now manages wolves in Idaho. The state of Montana completed public review of its wolf plan and is deciding whether it will manage wolves in Montana. Wyoming prepared an internal draft of a wolf plan but, in part due to uncertainty over federal funding, has not decided a course of action at this time. Meanwhile the USFWS, NPS, and ADC continue to manage wolves in Montana and Wyoming.

19

6. Prediction: Land-use restrictions would be required only around active den sites between st th April 1 and June 30 . Some ADC predator control activities (primarily M-44 use) could be affected by the presence of wolves. 1995 Results: A female wolf in Yellowstone National Park was seen excavating a den hear the highway in may 1995. A temporary no-stopping zone was established along the highway. The female left the area after about a week and never had pups. The no-stopping zone was lifted. No other land-use restrictions were implemented in Yellowstone or the central Idaho area. In December 1995, the soda Butte wolf pack moved off public land. ADC removed M-44 devices and neck snares that were being used for preventative control of coyotes from several ranches near the wolves. The wolves have since moved back and forth between public and private land which may affect some use of ADC control tools in the spring of 1996. 7. Prediction: Wolves were expected to prey primarily on elk in the Yellowstone are. Predictions were that 100 wolves (10 packs) would kill about 1,200 wild ungulates (hoofed mammals) a year (12 ungulates per wolf per year or 120 ungulates per pack per year).The same number of wolves in Idaho were expected to feed more on mule deer and, predicted to kill about 1,600 ungulates a year. Wolf predation was predicted to eventually affect some human hunting opportunities for female ungulates. Wolves were to have more effect on coyotes than any other native wildlife species. 1995 Results: The three wolf packs in the Yellowstone areas killed primarily elk, along with one moose and one mountain goat. Packs made kills about five days apart, indicating that a pack would kill about 73 ungulates annually. Because these packs were small (average five to six wolves) it appeared that this kill rate is slightly higher than predicted; at this rate a pack of 10 would kill about 140 ungulates annually. Wolves in central Idaho were also killing ungulates, but limited information suggested they also often scavenged on old ungulate carcasses (and on at least tow occasions, livestock carcasses) which would mean fewer ungulates killed. However, the actual predation rate in Idaho is unknown because less field work has been funded and the terrain is more inaccessible. Wolf packs in Yellowstone National Park appeared to be killing coyotes regularly. Wolves interacted with grizzly bears on several occasions, but serious conflicts have not been documented. Changes in human harvest of ungulates could not be measured. Hunting opportunity was not affected because hunting seasons were not changed because of wolves. 8. Predictions: It was estimated that between illegal mortality, natural mortality, and wolf control actions about 30% of the wolves would be lost each year and that no wolf pups wold survive until the third year (1997). This meant that nearly 10 out of the 29 reintroduced wolves were expected to be lost the first year. By early summer after the second reintroduction, about 27 wolves were expected to be in each experimental area. A minimum of three years of reintroductions were expected before wolves would be numerous enough to guarantee they would grow to recovery levels on their own. It was estimated that wolf population recovery and delisting would occur in about nine years, resulting in a total taxpayer cost between summer 1994 and late 2002 of about $6.5 million dollars. 1995 Results: Due to fewer conflicts than anticipated, there will likely be more than twice as many wolves in the spring of 1996 as predicted. Therefore, it is doubtful that further reintroductions will be necessary. Fourteen wolves (three packs) were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park in 1995. Nine pups were born in the Yellowstone area. Four wolves died; two were illegally killed, one (pup) was hit on the road, and one was killed after it

20

attacked livestock a second time. Mortality was about 17%. Seventeen (four packs) more wolves were scheduled to be released in April 1996. By June 1996, eight packs in the Yellowstone area may produce pups and it is estimated that about 60 wolves will be present. In central Idaho, 15 wolves were released in 1995 and five breeding pairs formed. One wolf was illegally killed, one was killed by a mountain lion, and another has not been located since March 1995. Mortality is about 20%. Twenty more wolves were reintroduced in January 1996 and several of those traveled together during the breeding season. By June 1996, six pairs may produce pups and it is estimated that about 50-60 wolves will be present in central Idaho. If this rate of increase continues, wolf recovery will be achieved in about seven years and at a total cost of about $5 million dollars. 9. Prediction: It was estimated that a recovered wolf population would increase visitation slightly (up to 8%) and local economies would benefit, ultimately up to $23 million dollars annually. 1995 Results: No reliable figures are available but it is estimated that about 4,000 park visitors saw or heard wolves. People regularly traveled on the Yellowstone park road though the Lamar Valley, attempting to see or hear wolves. Visitor use of the park contact station near Cooke City, Montana increased about 20%. No data were available for central Idaho visitation. Summary It is emphasized that the EIS predicted the average impact of a recovered wolf population (roughly 100 wolves) in the Yellowstone and central Idaho areas. Any comparisons (including the above) between the results of only one year of wolf presence in these areas with the predictions made in the EIS should be undertaken with great caution. Wolves and their possible effects on the environment are very dynamic and can vary greatly from year to year. A wide variety of natural and human-made factors will affect the relationship between wolves and the immediate environment. Only with several years of information on recovered wolf populations will we be able to determine the accuracy of the predictions in the EIS. In many situations, changes as subtle as those predicted in the EIS can not be measure by standard wildlife management surveys due to the natural variation in wild systems. Wolves moved less distance from the release sites than predicted, and used national park and wilderness areas, where potential conflict with people was lowest, more than predicted. Wolf mortality was lower than predicted and successful reproduction occurred sooner than predicted. Wolf reintroduction was more successful than predicted, and if the trends documented in 1995 continue, wolf populations will recover sooner than expected. As predicted, no existing wild wolf population was discovered in either area by the wolves that were reintroduced. The effect of wolf presence on human activities in the Yellowstone and central Idaho areas was slightly less than predicted, except for visitor use which appeared to increase slightly. Wolf conflicts with livestock were lower than predicted and were easily managed. Wolf predation was focused on elk but appeared slightly higher than predicted. Wolves may effect coyote populations, as predicted, but other impacts have not been documented. Based upon a general comparison of the predicted impacts of wolf reintroduction of wolf population growth, wolf mortality, wolf movements, impacts to big game, impacts to hunter harvest, livestock depredations, land-use restrictions, visitor-use, and economic effects compared to the actual impacts obtained form monitoring wolf recovery in the Yellowstone and central Idaho experimental areas, the USFWS concluded that no unexpected impacts occurred nor was the variation in the predicted effects beyond that anticipated and analyzed in the EIS. It appears that, at least to date, the EIS slightly overestimated the potential effect of wolves on the human

21

environment and slightly overestimated the time frames and taxpayer costs of recovering wolf populations. None of the results obtained in 1995 suggest that any further National Environmental Policy Act impact analysis is needed at this time.

Appendix B Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho Experimental Rule

On November 22, 1994, the USFWS approved a plan to establish nonessential-experimental populations of wolves in Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho. Rules published in the Federal Register designated wolves in each area as nonessential experimental populations under Section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act (Act). This provision of the Act allows federal and state resource agencies and private citizens greater flexibility in managing reintroduced animals. The experimental population area for the Yellowstone region includes the entire state of Wyoming, a portion of southeastern Idaho east of Interstate 15, and a portion of Montana east of Interstate 15 and south of the Missouri River (Figure 4). The central Idaho experimental population area includes portions of Idaho south of Interstate 90 and west of Interstate 15. It also includes a corner of Montana south of Interstate 90, east of Highway 93 as it runs south of Missoula, south of Highway 12 to Lolo Pass, and west of Interstate 15 (Figure 4). The current USFWS wolf management program is in the northern Rocky Mountains allows the agency to move or kill wolves that prey on livestock, and that program will continue in Montana, outside of the experimental population area. Within either the Yellowstone or central Idaho experimental population areas that are also within Montana’s borders, the experimental rules apply. Specifically, private property owners and livestock owners can kill wolves in the act of wounding or killing livestock on private lands. The incident must be reported within 24 hours and physical evidence of the attack will be required. In addition, the rules allow private property owners and livestock owners with grazing leases on public land to “harass” wolves without injuring them to discourage conflicts with domestic animals. Wolves be “harassed” by land owners on private property at any time in the experimental area. Incidents of “harassment” must be reported within seven days. Reporting is important as it can provide background information which can benefit the livestock owners should livestock depredation occur later. Killing wolves on public lands by private citizens requires a permit and will be an option only after agency attempts to capture problem wolves have ended and six or more packs are present in the experimental area. In the future, if wild populations of deer, elk, and other large game are severely affected by wolf predations, wolves could be moved under an approved state management plan. No land use restrictions will be imposed within the experimental population areas as a result of wolves, although M-44 devices may not be used in areas occupied by wolves. Land management agencies such as the Forest Service are only required to confer with USFWS regarding actions outside national park or national wildlife refuge lands. The physical boundaries described above relate to the ways in which wolves will be managed in Montana. Should a wolf enter the experimental population area from for example, Glacier National Park, it would then be classified as nonessential experimental and the same rules that apply to the reintroduced wolves would apply if a management situation arises. Dispersing wolves from northwest Montana will probably find their way into these management areas eventually. If a reintroduced wolf leaves the experimental area and moves, for example, north of Interstate 90,

22

the USFWS retains the option of capturing and returning the wolf to the experimental area, whether conflicts have occurred or not. Likewise the USFWS maintains the option of moving any naturally dispersing wolves out of the experimental area, should conflicts with livestock appear likely, or if such movements will enhance recovery of the species. The USFWS is hopeful that the nonessential-experimental designation and the accompanying wolf management flexibility will gain public acceptance and support. Had wolves reestablished themselves naturally, they would have received the full protection of the Endangered Species Act; however, this option was not chosen after thoroughly studying and analyzing information gathered through the Environmental Impact Statement process. The USFWS believes that reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho and classifying them as nonessential experimental populations is the most effective way to promote wolf recovery in the northern Rocky Mountains, and, if implemented as planned, will lead to fully recovered wolf populations by 2002. Complete details of the rules are found in the November 22, 1994, Federal Register. The Yellowstone/Central Idaho Environmental Impact Statement and other USFWS publications provide further information.

23

Figure 1 The location of monitored wolf packs in northwestern Montana, wolf reintroduction during 1995, and wolf pack extirpated in the last eight years.

Figure 2 Home ranges of three Yellowstone wolf packs and an individual wolf, 1995

Figure 3 Location of wolves reintroduced into central Idaho, March 1996

Figure 4 Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho nonessential-experimental recovery area