[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 71 (Thursday, April 13, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18940-18948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9291]




[[Page 18939]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Department of the Interior





_______________________________________________________________________



Fish and Wildlife Service



_______________________________________________________________________



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Red Wolves in North 
Carolina and Tennessee; Revision of the Special Rule for Nonessential 
Experimental Populations; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Rules 
and Regulations 

[[Page 18940]]


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AC03


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revision of the 
Special Rule for Nonessential Experimental Populations of Red Wolves in 
North Carolina and Tennessee

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Service amends the special rule for the nonessential 
experimental populations of red wolves (Canis rufus) in North Carolina 
and Tennessee to; revise and clarify the incidental take provision; 
apply the incidental take provision to both reintroduced populations; 
revise the livestock owner take provision; apply the livestock owner 
take provisions to both reintroduced populations; add harassment and 
take provisions for red wolves on private property; revise and clarify 
the vaccination and recapture provision; and apply the same taking 
(including harassment) provisions to red wolves outside the 
experimental population area, except for reporting requirements.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 13, 1995.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection, 
by appointment, during normal business hours at the Asheville Field 
Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 330 Ridgefield Court, 
Asheville, North Carolina 28806.
    Requests for the summary report on the 5-year experimental 
reintroduction at the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 
(Alligator River) should be sent to the Alligator River National 
Wildlife Refuge, P.O. Box 1969, Manteo, North Carolina 27954.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. V. Gary Henry, Red Wolf 
Coordinator, at the above Asheville, North Carolina, address (Telephone 
704/665-1195, Ext. 226).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Effective Date

    The usual 30-day delay between date of publication of a final rule 
and its effective date may be waived for good cause, as provided by 50 
CFR 424.18(b)(1) and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 
553(d)(3)). The Service finds that this period be waived for this rule 
as its immediate promulgation is necessary to avoid potential conflict 
between Federal provisions for the taking of red wolves on private 
property and corresponding State of North Carolina provisions that 
become effective on January 1, 1995.

Background

    A proposed rule to introduce red wolves into Alligator River 
National Wildlife Refuge (Alligator River), Dare County, North 
Carolina, was published in the Federal Register July 24, 1986 (51 FR 
26564). A final rule making a determination to implement the proposed 
action with some modifications was published November 19, 1986 (51 FR 
41790). The red wolf population in Dare County and adjacent Tyrrell, 
Hyde, and Washington Counties was determined to be a nonessential 
experimental population according to section 10(j) of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). A revision published November 4, 
1991, added Beaufort County to the list of counties where the 
experimental population designation would apply (56 FR 56325). The 
status of the population was to be reevaluated within 5 years, and the 
process was to include public meetings.
    A proposed rule to introduce red wolves into the Great Smoky 
Mountains National Park (Park), Haywood and Swain Counties, North 
Carolina; and Blount, Cocke, and Sevier Counties, Tennessee, was 
published in the Federal Register August 7, 1991 (56 FR 37513). A final 
rule making determination to implement the proposed action with some 
modifications was published November 4, 1991 (56 FR 56325). This 
population was also determined to be a nonessential experimental 
population according to section 10(j) of the Act. Graham, Jackson, and 
Madison Counties, North Carolina; and Monroe County, Tennessee, were 
also included in the experimental designation because of the close 
proximity of these counties to the Park boundary. The reintroduction 
potential of the Park was to be assessed after a 10- to 12-month 
experimental phase. A positive assessment would result in initiation of 
a permanent reintroduction attempt.
    The red wolf is an endangered species that is currently found in 
the wild only as experimental populations on the Service's Alligator 
River and Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuges and adjacent private 
lands in Dare, Hyde, Tyrrell, and Washington Counties, North Carolina; 
and in the Park in Swain County, North Carolina, and Blount and Sevier 
Counties, Tennessee; and as an endangered species in three small island 
propagation projects located on Bulls Island, South Carolina; Horn 
Island, Mississippi; and St. Vincent Island, Florida. These five 
carefully managed wild populations contain a total of approximately 60 
animals. The remaining red wolves are located in 31 captive-breeding 
facilities in the United States. The captive population presently 
numbers approximately 180 animals.
    Following are summaries of the results from the two experimental 
reintroductions. A more detailed summary for Alligator River is 
available (see ADDRESSES section) as Progress Report No. 6, entitled 
``Reestablishment of Red Wolves in the Alligator River National 
Wildlife Refuge, North Carolina, 14 September 1987 to 30 September 
1992.''

Alligator River 5-Year Summary

    The 5-year experiment to reestablish a population of red wolves in 
Alligator River in northeastern North Carolina ended October 1, 1992.
    From September 14, 1987, through September 30, 1992, 42 wolves 
(adults--10 males, 9 females; yearlings--1 female; pups--12 males, 10 
females) were initially released on 15 occasions. Four releases were 
conducted in 1987, two in 1988, five in 1989, two in 1990, one in 1991, 
and one in 1992. As of September 30, 1992, there were at least 30 free-
ranging wolves in northeastern North Carolina.
    Animals were initially released as members of seven adult pairs, an 
adult and a yearling, an adult and a pup, five families, and one 
sibling pair. Adults are defined as animals 24 months or greater in 
age, yearlings are between 12 and 24 months of age, and pups are 12 
months or less in age. Released adults ranged in age from 2.25 years to 
7.33 years.
    Wide-ranging movements that created management situations or led to 
the death of some animals soon after release were common. Of the 31 
releases of adults and 22 releases of pups, 18 adults and 10 pups 
either had to be returned to captivity or died within 2 months. Length 
of acclimation, release area, location of resident wolves, and type of 
social group released all affected a wolf's probability of successfully 
establishing itself in the wild.
    Of the 42 wolves released, 22 died; 7 were returned to captivity 
for management reasons; 11 were free-ranging through September 30, 
1992; and the fates of 2 are unknown. Length of time in the wild varied 
from 16 days to 3.5 years.
    Reintroduced wolves were killed by one of at least seven mortality 
factors. Vehicles (n = 8), intraspecific aggression 

[[Page 18941]]
(n = 5), and drownings (n = 4) were the most significant sources of 
mortality. It is a measure of the program's success that all but two of 
the deaths were natural or accidental, not as a result of any 
irresponsible action by a private citizen.
    A minimum of 22 wolves were born in the wild. These animals were 
members of eight litters produced by 11 adults (6 males, 5 females). 
Two litters were produced in 1988, at least one in 1990, four in 1991, 
and at least one in 1992. No pups were born in the wild during 1989 
because there were no adult pairs together during the breeding season.
    Only two wild-born wolves died, and the fate of one is unknown. As 
of September 30, 1992, wild-born wolves accounted for 63 percent of the 
known population (19 of 30).
    Of the 11 adults that bred in the wild, 1 was wild-born and 10 were 
captive-born. Wild-born offspring are evidence that captive-born-and-
reared adults can make the transition from captivity to life in the 
wild.
    As expected, wild-born pups exhibited wide-ranging movements as 
they dispersed from natal home ranges. These animals, with the 
exception of one female, traveled up to 192 km before establishing new 
home ranges on private land south or west of Alligator River. One 
female was killed by a vehicle before she established a new home range. 
Dispersal age ranged between 7 and 22 months. The youngest dispersers 
were siblings that left their natal home range after their parents were 
returned to captivity. Likewise, another female dispersed at a young 
age after her mother was returned to captivity. It is likely that some 
or all of these pups would not have dispersed had their families 
remained intact.
    Twenty-four of the released wolves were recaptured 63 times, and 17 
of the wild-born wolves were recaptured 39 times. Most recaptures were 
necessary in order to meet program objectives (replace radio collars, 
place a specific wolf with a mate, translocate an animal to a suitable 
site, etc.). Every management problem was resolved without inflicting 
significant long-term damage to animals and with little or no 
inconvenience to residents of the area.
    Captive breeding was an integral component of the reintroduction. 
Since 1986, 79 wolves have been held in captivity at Alligator River 
for varying periods of time. As of September 30, 1992, 10 wolves were 
in captivity. During the 5-year experiment, 20 captive adult pairs 
produced 34 pups. With access to 12 pens, Alligator River will continue 
to be an important component of the red wolf captive-breeding program.
    By almost every measure, the reintroduction experiment was 
successful and generated benefits that extended beyond the immediate 
preservation of red wolves to positively affect local citizens and 
communities, larger conservation efforts, and other imperiled species. 
During the last 5 years, four important points surfaced:
    1. Since every management problem was resolved without inflicting 
long-term damage to animals and with little inconvenience to residents 
of the area, it is evident that red wolves can be restored in a 
controlled manner.
    2. Significant land-use restrictions were not necessary in order 
for red wolves to survive. Indeed, hunting and trapping regulations for 
Alligator River remained unchanged or were further relaxed during the 
experiment. Additionally, no restrictions were needed in order for red 
wolves to survive on private land.
    3. Red wolves and sportsmen can coexist. Many hunters and trappers 
expressed support, while others actively contributed to the success of 
the experiment by reporting sightings of red wolves.
    4. The reintroduction area, which encompasses about 250,000 acres 
(111,750 hectares), probably cannot support 30 red wolves for an 
extended period of time. Dispersal outside the reintroduction area by 
wild-born red wolves has occurred and will continue. Efforts will be 
made to work with private landowners to allow wolves on private 
property. In addition to dispersal, the future of the red wolf 
population is threatened by its smallness; many events (e.g., disease 
outbreaks) can cause extinction of small populations.
    Increasing the size of the wolf population minimizes threats to its 
survival. The primary factor limiting population size is the size of 
the reintroduction area. A larger reintroduction area would provide 
habitat for dispersing wolves and provide the Service with 
opportunities to release additional wolves. Fortunately, the 
reintroduction area can easily be enlarged by adding to the project the 
112,000-acre (45,327-hectare) Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 
(Pocosin Lakes). Purchased in 1990 and located in Washington, Tyrrell, 
and Hyde Counties, North Carolina, Pocosin Lakes is ideal for probably 
15 to 25 wolves because of its large size, remoteness, abundant prey 
populations, and proximity to Alligator River.
    Meetings with the public and local governments were held to present 
the results of the first 5 years and to solicit input on a proposal to 
maintain the current population and expand the reintroduction westward 
to encompass Pocosin Lakes beginning in 1993. The seven public meetings 
were held in the communities of Engelhard, Manteo, Stumpy Point, East 
Lake, Columbia, Swanquarter, Washington, and Plymouth. Attendance at 
these meetings ranged from 7 to 90 people at each and totaled 146 at 
all locations. Meetings were also held with the county commissioners in 
Washington, Dare, Beaufort, Tyrrell, and Hyde Counties.
    Reintroductions are generally supported by local, State, and 
Federal agencies; elected officials; and the general public, except for 
some private landowners and the county boards of commissioners in Hyde 
and Washington Counties, North Carolina. Most people who commented 
supported the restoration project, although some expressed concern 
about the effect of red wolves on activities on private land. The 
Service assured them that, because free-ranging wolves are legally 
classified as members of an experimental nonessential population, the 
wolves would not negatively impact legal activities on private or 
Federal land.
    Some citizens used the meetings to express frustration about other 
matters involving the Service. No significant complaints were voiced 
specifically about the red wolf reintroduction experiment. However, 
Hyde and Washington Counties did pass resolutions opposing red wolf 
project expansion. These resolutions seemed to be based on anti-
government sentiment and a fear of prohibitions on private land use.
    After consideration of the results from the 5-year experimental 
reintroduction and public input received in public meetings and 
meetings with State and local governments and agencies, the Service 
determined that it would maintain the present populations at Alligator 
River and has expanded this population with reintroductions at Pocosin 
Lakes beginning in 1993. The reintroductions at Pocosin Lakes are 
within counties previously designated for the experimental population 
and require no changes in the existing rule.

Park 1-Year Summary

    On November 12, 1991, the Service, in cooperation with the National 
Park Service (Park Service), experimentally released a single family 
group of red wolves into the Cades Cove area of the Park. This release 
was designed to assess the feasibility of eventually establishing a 
self-sustaining red wolf population on Park Service and 

[[Page 18942]]
surrounding U.S. Forest Service property. The experimental period ended 
in late September 1992 with the capture of the remaining three members 
of the release group.
    Specific technical objectives of the experimental release were to 
document and respond to movements and activities of the wolves in 
mountainous terrain and in the presence of high human activity, 
livestock interests, and an increasing coyote population. However, 
another objective was to establish an informative and cooperative 
relationship with the involved agencies and local citizens. Through 
continuous telemetric contact, direct and relayed sightings, and the 
dedicated efforts of project personnel, valuable information was 
gathered with respect to all of these categories; some problems were 
encountered as well.
    Cades Cove is unique within the Park; it possesses a great 
diversity and abundance of prey species, making it highly attractive to 
a large predator. As a result, the average home range for the four 
released wolves was 15 km\2\ (3,700 acres), scarcely larger than Cades 
Cove itself. As yet, an accurate prediction of red wolf home ranges for 
habitat typical of the other 99.3 percent of the Park cannot be made. 
Wolves made exploratory movements up to 16 km (10 miles) from the 
release site. Individuals strayed off Park property (less than 5 miles 
or less than 8 km) four times. Twice they were recaptured within 
several hours, and twice they returned of their own accord within 24 
hours. The primary prey species taken by the wolves were deer, rabbit, 
ground-hog, and raccoon. Samples are currently being analyzed for 
percentages and seasonal variation.
    Wolves were sighted on numerous occasions by visitors and project 
personnel throughout the experiment. This was somewhat expected in an 
area where prey species are extremely visible and comfortable with the 
intense attention of as many as 15,000 visitors daily. However, the two 
adult wolves, especially the male, repeatedly tolerated people at close 
distances. This was attributed to the amount of time (e.g., 6 years for 
the male) that the adults had spent in captivity. The male was 
eventually recaptured and removed from the experiment in late January 
1992. The female tolerated human presence to a lesser degree, but she 
presented no problems and was allowed to roam free for the duration of 
the experimental period. The two female pups were often sighted 
crossing roads or, at a distance, hunting in pastures. They developed 
an increasing wariness to human activity as they spent more time in the 
wild. The behaviors of these wolves support the theory that younger 
wolves, with minimal exposure to human contact, make better release 
candidates.
    The private land surrounding the Park and throughout the Southern 
Appalachians supports a variety of livestock interests. The perceived 
potential economic threat of a large predator is perhaps the single 
greatest political barrier to establishing a self-sustaining red wolf 
population in the Southern Appalachians. The documentation and 
management of the wolves' interaction with domestic livestock is likely 
to be a major factor in deciding whether to expand the project. Thus, a 
$25,000 depredation account was established to compensate livestock 
owners for losses.
    Throughout the experiment, the adult male was responsible for 
taking one chicken and three domestic turkeys in two separate 
incidents. The remaining three wolves took one of five injured or 
missing newborn calves. One additional depredation attempt occurred but 
did not result in injury to the calf. Reimbursements for the chicken 
and the calf totaled $253. Offers to reimburse for the turkeys were 
declined by the owner.
    Cades Cove supports a 300-head black angus cattle-breeding 
operation, leased to a private stock owner. During the 6-month calving 
season, the wolves and calving operation were intensely monitored. The 
wolves were located disjunct from five of six attempted depredations. 
Day and night (using night-vision equipment) visual observations 
revealed cooperative hunting by small groups of coyotes. Nightly 
spotlight observations by the stock owner revealed continuous coyote 
activity in calving pastures. Accurate records of lost calves prior to 
the experimental release of wolves were not kept. Estimates by the 
stock owner indicated approximately five to ten calves per year were 
lost to bears, coyotes, and other predators/scavengers.
    Of significance is that all of the six depredation attempts during 
the experimental release involved calves less than 1 week old, and all 
the events occurred along wood lines away from the main herd of cattle. 
Project personnel began assisting the stock owner in moving newborn 
calves into the main herd, and no further depredations by coyotes or 
wolves occurred.
    Prior to the red wolf release, the Service contracted the 
University of Tennessee to conduct a census of coyotes in the Park and 
to study interactions between resident coyotes and released wolves. 
Seven coyotes were outfitted with telemetry collars and were monitored 
for 18 months, or until they permanently left the study area. Only one 
coyote remained ``on the air'' in Cades Cove by the time the wolves 
were released. This collar expired 3 months later. Interaction data was 
then gathered by direct observation.
    Initial information indicated aggressive behavior between the adult 
wolves and resident coyotes, with the wolves apparently dominating. 
After the removal of the adult male wolf, greater numbers determined 
the dominating species.
    In preparation for the experimental release, project and Park 
personnel met with area business, citizenry, and natural resource 
organizations for comment on the proposal. Modifications to the release 
plans included the addition of a ``non-injurious harassment clause'' to 
the experimental rule package, prevention of reproduction in the wild, 
immediate recapture of wolves straying off Park property, and recapture 
of all wolves at the end of the experiment.
    To facilitate information exchange, an information committee 
(composed of representatives from Federal and State wildlife resource 
agencies, Farm Bureau Federations, and conservation organizations) was 
established. The Heartland Series, a local television environmental 
program, produced a documentary entitled ``Front Runner,'' focusing on 
the reestablishment effort in the Southern Appalachians. The ``Front 
Runner'' video, a teacher's guide, and an activity poster were 
distributed free to all requesting educational institutions. The 
project gained national television exposure on ``Zoo Life with Jack 
Hanna,'' a weekly public education broadcast. Presentations and 
workshops were given at wildlife exhibitions and to a variety of groups 
from elementary to college students and to senior citizens. Other media 
contact included interviews with local and regional newspapers, popular 
magazines, free-lance writers, and television news teams.
    During the final weeks of the experimental period, the Service 
reviewed and presented their findings to the Park Service and members 
of the information committee. The decision was made to proceed with a 
full reintroduction effort at a very conservative pace, with two 
releases in the fall of 1992.
    On October 9, 1992, a family of six red wolves (two adults, four 
pups) were released into Cades Cove. To date, these wolves have shown 
restricted movements and food habits very similar to the experimental 
group. Within 

[[Page 18943]]
several weeks after release, the adult pair had taken a large European 
wild hog--an exotic species in the Park.
    On December 9, 1992, a second group of six wolves (two adults, four 
pups) was released from a remote backcountry site several miles east of 
Cades Cove. It is expected that these animals will be more difficult to 
track. However, they will provide needed information about the home 
range requirements of red wolves in habitat that is typical of the vast 
majority of the Park and surrounding Federal lands.
    All released wolves will wear transmitters and will be monitored as 
closely as the experimental group. There are no scheduled plans to 
recapture these animals, except to replace aging transmitters in 
approximately 2 to 3 years.
    The possibility of expanding the Park reintroduction to include 
adjacent national forest lands within the Nantahala and Pisgah National 
Forests in North Carolina, the Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee, 
and the Chattahoochee National Forest in Georgia will be evaluated over 
the next few years. This evaluation will include meetings with 
congressional representatives, State wildlife and agriculture agencies, 
Farm Bureau Federations, local agriculture and hunting interests, 
conservation organizations, county commissioners, and a variety of 
local organizations. A final decision will be made after public 
meetings in the local areas where reintroductions are proposed.

Special Rule Changes for Both Reintroductions

    In the period since publication of the special rules for the 
experimental population introduced on Alligator River and the Park, 
published in the Federal Register on November 19, 1986 (51 FR 41796) 
and November 4, 1991 (56 FR 56333), it has become apparent that changes 
are needed in the rule for these populations. These changes will also 
provide consistency by treating both reintroductions the same.
    The provision for taking red wolves incidental to lawful 
recreational activities (50 CFR 17.84(c)(4)(ii)) is revised and 
clarified by this final rule. Current policy at Alligator River applies 
this provision to all lawful activities, not just to recreational 
activities. For example, 11 wolves (includes 8 within the 5-year 
experimental release) have been killed by vehicles not involved in 
recreational pursuits, but certainly otherwise lawful. No problems have 
been encountered at Alligator River in the application of a more 
liberalized provision. Therefore, the Service deletes the word 
``recreational.'' In addition, incidental take was defined at Alligator 
River as ``unavoidable, unintentional, and not resulting from negligent 
conduct lacking reasonable due care.'' This definition is changed for 
clarification and is included in the incidental take provision of the 
special rule.
    The Service revised the rule for the Park reintroduction, based on 
input by the North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation which stated that 
livestock owners should be allowed to take red wolves engaged in 
livestock depredation. The Tennessee Citizens for Wilderness Planning 
supported the revision. The final rule permitted private livestock 
owners to harass red wolves actually engaged in the pursuit or killing 
of livestock on private lands. Such conflicts must be reported to the 
superintendent of the Park. Service or State officials will respond to 
these conflicts within 48 hours and attempt to live-capture the 
offending animals. If an early response by the Service or State 
officials results in a failure to capture offending animals, the 
livestock owner will be permitted to take the offending animal.
    These provisions worked well in all five depredation incidents 
recorded the first year. Offending animals were recaptured, when 
necessary, and in at least two of the instances, private landowners did 
harass the animals away but did not take offending animals. Including 
the experimental release in 1991, there have been 17 incidents of 
animals moving out of the Park onto private lands. In three incidents, 
they returned on their own; in the other 14 incidents, they were 
recaptured. No indication of abuse of these provisions were encountered 
in these incidents. However, experience with offending animals has 
indicated potential problems.
    It is highly objectionable to owners of livestock and pets to be 
unable to kill a predator that is engaged in killing their livestock or 
pets. This, in turn, leads to the erosion of public support for 
predator reintroductions, which is essential if this effort is to be 
successful. Also, there may be a time lapse before offending animals 
settle into a predictable pattern whereby they can be recaptured. 
During this time period, private landowners will not be allowed to take 
the animals themselves. The Service will respond to reported incidents 
within 48 hours. However, the existing special rule 
(Sec. 17.84(c)(4)(iv)) does not establish a definitive time when 
Service or State attempts to recapture the animal are deemed 
unsuccessful and the private landowner is then permitted to take the 
offending animals. This is a decision that must be made by the Service 
project leader or biologist in the field at the depredation location. 
Therefore, a rule revision provides that private landowners will be 
permitted to take offending animals upon written approval by the 
Service project leader or biologist on site of the depredation. This 
approval will be provided when the Service abandons attempts to capture 
the offending animal and will specify the authorized personnel 
(landowner and a limited number of his agents), the number of animals, 
and the time period (not to exceed 6 months). Also, private landowners 
will be allowed to take red wolves in the act of killing livestock or 
pets on private lands without the need for Service approval.
    Experience at Alligator River and the Park indicates a need to 
extend the harassment and take provisions now in place for private 
livestock owners to include all private landowners. Wolves that come in 
close proximity to private residences may cause property damage by 
killing pets or removing and/or physically defacing small property 
items. In addition, private individuals may not want the animals on 
their property because they fear them or consider them a nuisance. 
Although currently not covered by such rule provisions, these 
stipulations have been implemented as reasonable law enforcement 
procedures. To date, there have been at least 15 incidents where 
animals on private property were harassed by private individuals. The 
special rule is revised to provide the legal basis for a provision now 
being implemented as a reasonable procedure.
    Currently, there are at least 12 red wolves once present at 
Alligator River whose fate is unknown. Three of these wolves were 
observed but never captured. Transmitters malfunctioned on the other 
eight wolves. One animal, whose transmitter malfunctioned in December 
1989, would now be 7 years old. The remaining 11 animals are 1 to 3 
years of age, and contact with them was lost in 1991, 1992, or 1993. As 
wolves are great wanderers, it is possible that some of these five 
animals may have dispersed outside the experimental population 
boundaries (which could also happen with future animals). There is no 
possibility of such dispersing wolves mixing with populations of red 
wolves that have been classified as endangered, because the only 
existing red wolves in the wild are those introduced as experimental 
populations (and offspring) or those introduced (and offspring) onto 
isolated islands for propagation purposes. As a 

[[Page 18944]]
result, animals dispersing outside the experimental population 
boundaries will not contribute to the conservation of the species.
    As other resident wild canid populations are hunted and trapped, it 
is possible for a dispersing red wolf to be taken incidental to such 
lawful activities. Dispersing red wolves could also enter upon private 
property or attempt to kill livestock or pets. Providing greater 
protection for dispersing red wolves than that provided for red wolves 
within the experimental population boundaries would seriously erode the 
public support that is so essential for the success of reintroductions. 
Therefore, the special rule is revised to apply the same taking 
provisions to red wolves outside the experimental population boundaries 
as within, with one exception. This exception is that taking does not 
need to be reported to the refuge manager or Park superintendent. Such 
reporting will be encouraged to the degree possible, but it will not be 
required. It is impractical to inform the general population of such 
requirements outside the localized experimental population boundaries, 
and red wolves taken are not likely to be recognized as red wolves, 
even after such taking occurs and an animal is in hand.
    The proposed rule for Alligator River provided for any person to 
take red wolves incidental to lawful recreational activities (51 FR 
26564). Objections to this provision from the Defenders of Wildlife, 
the National Audubon Society, the Humane Society of the United States, 
and the National Wildlife Federation, based on lack of necessity and 
risk of misinterpretation, resulted in its deletion from the final 
rule. Instead, the enforcement policy of the Service was clarified in 
the preamble to the final rule to the effect that there would be no 
penalty for taking incidental to otherwise lawful activity providing 
the taking was unavoidable, unintentional, and did not result from 
negligent conduct lacking reasonable due care, and providing the taking 
was immediately reported to the refuge manager. Experience at Alligator 
River did detect a need for this provision and did not detect any 
misinterpretation of the policy by private citizens. Eleven red wolves 
were killed by vehicles; one wolf was killed in a trapping incident; 
and two were shot, one close to a private residence. The vehicle deaths 
were interpreted as incidental to lawful activity, which required 
little investigation. The trapping and shooting incidents were 
investigated and settlements were reached in two cases. In addition, 
the incidental take provision originally proposed and then deleted at 
Alligator River was included in the final rule for the Park. No taking 
of red wolves has occurred despite several instances of wolves visiting 
and having been seen on private lands. Therefore, this is additional 
evidence that the provision is not being misinterpreted by private 
individuals in order to indiscriminately take red wolves. As now 
promulgated for Alligator River, the incidental taking provision is 
ambiguous. The language used for defining incidental take under 
Sec. 17.84(c)(4)(i) used the terms ``unavoidable'', ``unintentional,'' 
and ``lack of reasonable due care,'' which are subject to differing 
legal interpretations. Therefore, for this final rule the Service 
changes the provisions by stating that only intentional or willful take 
will be prosecuted on private lands. The final rule does not change the 
standard for lands owned or managed by Federal, State, or local 
government agencies.
    The basic premise is that a red wolf that is incidentally taken in 
any type of legal activity on private lands will not be a violation of 
the special rule. However, a higher standard of conduct is expected on 
public lands, where the conservation of red wolves is an objective.
    This incidental taking provision places trust in the public to be 
responsible citizens by obeying the special rule. The Service intends 
to revisit this issue to determine if excessive taking of red wolves is 
occurring because of the revised special rule.
    Extensive review of the special rule during preparation of proposed 
and final revisions detected additional needs for clarification. The 
current special rule (Sec. 17.84(c)(10)) provides for the close 
monitoring of reintroduced populations, vaccination against diseases 
prior to release, and immediate recapture of wolves that need special 
care or that move off of Federal lands. Early in the project all 
animals were vaccinated because the entire population consisted of 
released animals. As the project progressed, released wolves and their 
progeny reproduced and expanded their range and population.
    Obviously, vaccination cannot be implemented for wild wolves that 
have never been captured. Therefore, the special rule is clarified by 
revising the statement to the effect that all ``released or captured'' 
wolves will be vaccinated. At present, most wolves are vaccinated 
because the majority of wolves born in the wild are eventually 
captured. However, as populations continue to expand, the percentage of 
wolves that have not been captured will increase. Rule modifications 
also recognize that it may be impossible to capture some wolves. 
However, other provisions provide for the control of wolves that are 
causing conflicts but cannot be captured.
    The intent of the special rule regarding the recapture of wolves 
leaving Federal lands was that it would be implemented only when such 
wolves caused conflicts and/or the landowner wanted the wolves removed. 
This intent is not clear. Red wolves had established themselves on 
private lands within 2 years (1989) of the first reintroduction 
releases, and several private landowners have agreed to allow the 
wolves to inhabit their property. Obviously, there is no need to remove 
wolves from private lands when the landowner has no problem with the 
wolves being there. Therefore, the special rule is modified to provide 
that all landowner requests to remove wolves from their property will 
be honored, but wolves that inhabit lands where the landowner agrees to 
allow them to reside will not be recaptured unless they cause a 
conflict.

Special Rule Changes for Alligator River

    Experiences at Alligator River indicate that a need exists for 
application of the private landowner harassment and take provisions to 
this population as well. Twenty-seven incidents have been reported at 
Alligator River, some of which probably did not involve red wolves. The 
provisions could have been utilized in some of these incidents and may 
have altered the final outcome in a positive manner with regard to 
reducing adverse impacts and increasing public support. As these 
provisions have worked well in incidents in the Park population, with 
no difficulties encountered in their interpretation or application, 
this rule will extend these provisions to the Alligator River 
population.
    The proposed rule called for the addition of Martin and Bertie 
Counties as a buffer zone. However, after further consideration, the 
Service has determined that this addition lacks sufficient 
justification and the counties are not being added to the designated 
reintroduction area (see Issue 7 in the following section).
Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the November 24, 1993, proposed rule (58 FR 62086), all 
interested parties were requested to submit comments or recommendations 
that might contribute to the development of a final rule. Appropriate 
county, State, and Federal agencies; scientific, environmental, and 

[[Page 18945]]
land use organizations; and other interested parties were notified and 
requested to submit questions or comments on the proposed rule. On 
December 6, 1993, the Service mailed copies of the proposed rule to 270 
persons and organizations. A 30-day comment period was provided. Nine 
comments were received, including three from individuals, three from 
State agencies and organizations, and three from national agencies and 
organizations. Six of the nine respondents took the opportunity to 
comment on the reintroductions; there were three who supported the 
reintroductions and three who did not. The three responses supporting 
the reintroductions were from two individuals and one national 
organization. The three responses not supporting the reintroductions 
were from one State agency (North Carolina Department of Agriculture), 
one State organization (North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation), and one 
individual.
    Comments received are presented below as a series of issues, with 
each being followed by the Service's response.
    Issue 1: The North Carolina Department of Agriculture and the North 
Carolina Farm Bureau Federation specifically addressed their nonsupport 
with regard to the expansion of the Alligator River reintroduction to 
Pocosin Lakes. Also, the one individual voicing nonsupport was located 
in the expansion area.
    Service Response: Pocosin Lakes did not exist in 1986 when 
regulations were finalized for the reintroduction of red wolves at 
Alligator River. The final rule stated that the project would be 
reevaluated after 5 years and such reevaluation would include public 
meetings. The result of the reevaluation, which included public 
meetings, was to expand the reintroduction project to Pocosin Lakes. 
This was a logical decision based on the success of the reintroduction 
to that point in time, the establishment of Pocosin Lakes as one of our 
national wildlife refuges which are mandated to conserve and recover 
endangered species, and the location of Pocosin Lakes within the 
existing experimental population boundaries established in the final 
rule of November 19, 1986 (51 FR 41790). The reintroductions per se 
have previously been through the rulemaking process and are outside the 
scope of this revision to the existing rule.
    Issue 2: One individual was opposed, in general, to classifying 
endangered animals as nonessential experimental and, within this 
designation, relaxing protection for them. This individual favored 
more, not less, protection and wondered why the provisions would be 
extended to animals outside the experimental population areas and if 
the provisions would apply in the future to the island propagation 
sites.
    Service Response: The provisions for classifying listed species as 
nonessential experimental were provided by 1982 amendments to the Act. 
These provisions were designed to resolve the dilemma of significant 
local opposition to translocation efforts due to concerns over the 
rigid protection and prohibitions surrounding listed species under the 
Act. The resolution was to provide new administrative flexibility for 
selectively applying the prohibitions of the Act to experimental 
populations. Final regulations establishing procedures for designation 
of experimental populations, determination of such populations as 
``essential'' or ``nonessential,'' and promulgation of appropriate 
protective regulatory measures were published in the Federal Register 
on August 27, 1984 (49 FR 33885). These provisions were necessary to 
obtain public support for attempts to reintroduce red wolves and were, 
therefore, an essential ingredient in success at reestablishment of the 
species. Prior to these provisions, attempts to reintroduce red wolves 
and other endangered species, particularly predators, were routinely 
unsuccessful because of local opposition.
    The reasons for extending the provisions of this rule to animals 
outside the experimental population boundaries are believed to be 
adequately explained in the Background section of this rule. These 
provisions do not apply to the island propagation projects, and the 
Service has no intention of declaring these animals nonessential 
experimental in the future.
    Issue 3: Responses from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources 
Commission (Commission), North Carolina Department of Agriculture 
(Department), and North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation (Federation) 
addressed the reporting requirements. The Department and Federation 
believe that livestock owners should be allowed to take red wolves 
engaged in depredation without notifying the Service and awaiting 
recapture attempts. At the other extreme, the Humane Society of the 
United States (Society) wants no provision for private citizens to take 
red wolves for any purpose. The Commission recommended that 
``immediately'' be defined as 5 business days, and the Commission and 
Federation recommended that ``immediately'' be deleted from the 
provision for taking outside the designated experimental population 
area. The Commission also pointed out that local residents are more 
familiar with and are more likely to call the local State wildlife 
enforcement officer through an available toll free number.
    Service Response: The Service agrees to delete the word 
``immediately'' from the provision for taking outside of the designated 
experimental population area because the intent was to delete reporting 
requirements altogether. In addition, the term ``immediately'' has been 
replaced by ``within 24 hours'' for areas within the experimental 
population areas. It is important to report taking and harassment 
incidents quickly so that Service personnel can respond right away in 
order to minimize conflicts and retrieve any carcasses for necropsy 
before such carcasses deteriorate to the degree that necropsy results 
are compromised. Five days, as recommended by the Commission, would not 
allow such a quick response. Telephone access is such that reporting 
incidents within 24 hours should pose no burden on the public.
    Changes are made to allow private landowners to take wolves that 
are in the act of killing livestock or pets prior to reporting such 
incidents to the Service.
    The Service contacted the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency to 
obtain approval to also list the local State wildlife enforcement 
officer in that State as a contact for meeting the reporting 
requirements. Such approval was received, and this change, as 
recommended by the Commission, has been made. The State enforcement 
officer will, in turn, notify the Park superintendent or refuge manager 
so that Service personnel can respond to such incidents.
    Issue 4: The Commission, Society, Federation, and American Sheep 
Industry Association (Association) commented on the incidental taking 
provision. The Federation supported the inclusion of lawful activities, 
other than recreational, in the provision. The Commission recommended 
that ``incidental'' be defined as ``unavoidable, unintentional, or not 
resulting from negligent conduct, taking reasonable due care'' in order 
to prevent the prosecution of well-intentioned citizens who may kill a 
red wolf, believing it to be a coyote. The Society, on the other hand, 
believes that the broad definition will invite abuse. The Association 
was concerned about whether the provision would be applied to livestock 
owners outside the Park, as well as inside, and who would make the 
decision on negligent conduct. 

[[Page 18946]]

    Service Response: The Service found it necessary to change the 
language in this provision to clarify the intent and to remove any 
ambiguity. Experience during the past several years indicates that 
direct human-induced red wolf mortality is rare. The Service has 
therefore determined that it is appropriate to modify the language of 
the special rule to implement section 9 provisions for the red wolf by 
limiting the section 9 prohibition on private lands to cover 
intentional and willful taking only. Unlike the protection afforded all 
endangered and most threatened species, this provision will make the 
taking of a red wolf on private lands a specific intent crime. This 
provision will apply to all private landowners. The concept of a 
general intent violation (i.e. avoidable take or take through mistaken 
identity) that was present in the earlier rule is now used only on 
lands owned or managed by Federal, State, or local government agencies.
    Issue 5: In addition to comments addressed under reporting 
requirements, the Association's comments indicated overall support for 
the provision but recommended that a maximum of 48 hours Service 
response time be included and that the biologist ``on site of the 
depredation'' give approval in a reasonable time period. The Commission 
recommended that approval be given within 5 days and that takings be 
reported to the Service project leader or biologist. The Federation 
also supported expanding the harassment provisions to private 
individuals around residences. However, the Department and the 
Federation felt that the take provisions did not go far enough in 
protecting the interests of livestock owners and thought that a time 
period should be specified for approval of livestock owners to ``take'' 
offending animals. As indicated in the comments on reporting 
requirements, the Society recommends that private citizens not be 
allowed to take red wolves for any reason and that other provisions in 
the rule are sufficient to protect private residences without allowing 
the taking of animals by private citizens. The Society also believes 
private citizens should have the responsibility to protect pets and 
private property from wildlife.
    Service Response: The Service has revised the provision to allow 
private landowners to harass wolves in an opportunistic manner at any 
time on their property and to take such animals with Service approval 
if the Service's attempts to take the animals are unsuccessful. 
Notification would allow the Service to remove the offending animals, 
which are still valuable to the recovery objectives as breeding 
animals. If unsuccessful in removing the animals, the Service will 
permit the landowner to take action to remove any returning animals. 
The provision has also been revised to make it clear that the Service 
project leader or biologist on site of the depredation will provide 
approval to the private landowner and has indicated in the previous 
sections explaining the rule changes that such approval will be 
provided when the Service abandons attempts to capture the offending 
animal. A definite time period for such approval cannot be provided 
because of the variation in individual wolf behavior; e.g., one wolf 
may stay in the vicinity or return daily, while others may not return 
for days. The Service also adopts the 48-hour Service response time to 
reported incidents, as recommended and indicated in the previous 
sections explaining the rule changes. The Service project leader or 
biologist has been added as a contact for reporting any taking, 
although it was intended that reports to this individual would meet the 
provision as previously stated, because the Service project leader or 
biologist serves as the representative of the Park superintendent or 
refuge manager.
    While the position of the Society regarding responsibility of 
private citizens to protect pets and property is reasonable with regard 
to naturally occurring wildlife species, programs to purposely 
reintroduce predators, such as the red wolf, must be accompanied by 
provisions to protect private property from the presence of such 
reintroduced animals if the landowner does not want them on his 
property. Such protection is necessary in order to obtain local public 
support, which is essential to success. Without such support, 
reintroductions are doomed, because the animals can be efficiently 
eliminated, as evidenced by past history.
    Issue 6: The Federation did not understand the need to list the 
North Carolina counties as part of the historic range of the species 
and stated that it should be presented in the information section 
unless it is absolutely necessary to establish the nonessential 
experimental use population designation.
    Service Response: The Service believes that it is helpful to 
establish experimental population boundaries for reintroduction 
efforts.
    Issue 7: The Commission objected to the addition of any counties to 
the experimental population area because (1) it would increase the 
public's perception of ``government land-grabbing'' and (2) it is 
unnecessary since the provisions for red wolves within the designated 
experimental population area will also be applied to red wolves outside 
the designated experimental population area, except for reporting 
requirements.
    The Association expressed concerns that as red wolves continue to 
disperse from ``core areas,'' the areas will increase in size and more 
private property will be brought under the experimental population 
designation. The Association also expressed concerns that the provision 
for allowing the ``take'' of red wolves under certain circumstances on 
property outside the buffer zone will eventually be removed.
    Service Response: The proposed addition of Martin and Bertie 
Counties was to provide a buffer around the release area. Although red 
wolves would not be released in these counties, their proposed 
addition, for management purposes, was because of their close 
proximity. The Service would expend efforts within these counties to 
provide information on the project and would quickly respond and handle 
any problems caused by dispersing red wolves. Such rapid response would 
necessitate the reporting of such problems to the Service as soon as 
possible. Because the Service will be monitoring the animals and will 
be contacting individual landowners regarding the capture of dispersing 
animals, the more intensive broad-scale management within the counties 
may not be necessary. Therefore, the Service agrees to not designate 
additional counties for the experimental population area.
    The Service has no intention of removing the ``take'' provisions on 
property outside the buffer zone. Reintroduced red wolves will continue 
to be managed as experimental populations until the recovery objective 
of 220 red wolves in the wild is met. At that time, the species would 
be delisted and managed as a resident species by the State.

National Environmental Policy Act

    Environmental assessments were prepared under the authority of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and are available for 
inspection by the public at the Service's Asheville Field Office (see 
ADDRESSES section). These assessments formed the basis for a decision 
that these actions are not major Federal actions which would 
significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the 
meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act 
(implemented at 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508). These minor rule changes do 
not require 

[[Page 18947]]
revision of the environmental assessments.

Executive Order 12866, Paperwork Reduction Act, and Regulatory 
Flexibility Act

    This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The Fish 
and Wildlife Service has determined that the rule would not have a 
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities 
as described in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354). No 
private entities will be affected by this action. The rule does not 
contain any information collection or recordkeeping requirements as 
defined in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-511).

Author

    The principal author of this final rule is V. Gary Henry (see 
ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

    2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by revising the entries for red wolf to read 
as follows:


Sec. 17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) ***

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species                                                                                                                         
--------------------------------------------------------    Historic range         Vertebrate population where      Status     When   Critical   Special
        Common name                Scientific name                                  endangered or threatened                  listed   habitat    rules 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAMMALS:                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
    Wolf, red..............  Canis rufus...............  U.S.A. (SE U.S.A.,        Entire, except where listed as  E         1, 248,        NA        NA
                                                          west to central TX).     Experimental Populations below               449,                    
                                                                                                                                 579                    
    do.....................  do........................  do..................  U.S.A. (portions of NC and TN--see  XN           248,        NA  17.84(C)
                                                                                                Sec. 17.84(c)(9))               449,                    
                                                                                                                                 579                    
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Section 17.84 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(4), 
(c)(9)(i) and (c)(10) of the section to read as follows:


Sec. 17.84  Special rules--vertebrates.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4)(i) Any person may take red wolves found on private land in the 
areas defined in paragraphs (c)(9) (i) and (ii) of this section, 
Provided that such taking is not intentional or willful, or is in 
defense of that person's own life or the lives of others; and that such 
taking is reported within 24 hours to the refuge manager (for the red 
wolf population defined in paragraph (c)(9)(i) of this section), the 
Park superintendent (for the red wolf population defined in paragraph 
(c)(9)(ii) of this section), or the State wildlife enforcement officer 
for investigation.
    (ii) Any person may take red wolves found on lands owned or managed 
by Federal, State, or local government agencies in the areas defined in 
paragraphs (c)(9) (i) and (ii) of this section, Provided that such 
taking is incidental to lawful activities, is unavoidable, 
unintentional, and not exhibiting a lack of reasonable due care, or is 
in defense of that person's own life or the lives of others, and that 
such taking is reported within 24 hours to the refuge manager (for the 
red wolf population defined in paragraph (c)(9)(i) of this section), 
the Park superintendent (for the red wolf population defined in 
paragraph (c)(9)(ii) of this section), or the State wildlife 
enforcement officer for investigation.
    (iii) Any private landowner, or any other individual having his or 
her permission, may take red wolves found on his or her property in the 
areas defined in paragraphs (c)(9) (i) and (ii) of this section when 
the wolves are in the act of killing livestock or pets, Provided that 
freshly wounded or killed livestock or pets are evident and that all 
such taking shall be reported within 24 hours to the refuge manager 
(for the red wolf population defined in paragraph (c)(9)(i) of this 
section), the Park superintendent (for the red wolf population defined 
in paragraph (c)(9)(ii) of this section), or the State wildlife 
enforcement officer for investigation.
    (iv) Any private landowner, or any other individual having his or 
her permission, may harass red wolves found on his or her property in 
the areas defined in paragraphs (c)(9) (i) and (ii) of this section, 
Provided that all such harassment is by methods that are not lethal or 
physically injurious to the red wolf and is reported within 24 hours to 
the refuge manager (for the red wolf population defined in paragraph 
(c)(9)(i) of this section), the Park superintendent (for the red wolf 
population defined in paragraph (c)(9)(ii) of this section), or the 
State wildlife enforcement officer, as noted in paragraph (c)(6) of 
this section for investigation.
    (v) Any private landowner may take red wolves found on his or her 
property in the areas defined in paragraphs (c)(9) (i) and (ii) of this 
section after efforts by project personnel to capture such animals have 
been abandoned, Provided that the Service project leader or biologist 
has approved such actions in writing and all such taking shall be 
reported within 24 hours to the Service project leader or biologist, 
the refuge manager (for the red wolf population defined in paragraph 
(c)(9)(i) of this section), the Park superintendent (for the red wolf 
population defined in paragraph (c)(9)(ii) of this section), or the 
State wildlife enforcement officer for investigation.
    (vi) The provisions of paragraphs (4) (i) through (v) of this 
section apply to red wolves found in areas outside the areas defined in 
paragraphs (c)(9) (i) and (ii) of this section, with the exception that 
reporting of taking or harassment to the refuge manager, Park 
superintendent, or State wildlife enforcement officer, while 
encouraged, is not required.
* * * * * 

[[Page 18948]]

    (9)(i) The Alligator River reintroduction site is within the 
historic range of the species in North Carolina, in Dare, Hyde, 
Tyrrell, and Washington Counties; because of its proximity and 
potential conservation value, Beaufort County is also included in the 
experimental population designation.
* * * * *
    (10) The reintroduced populations will be monitored closely for the 
duration of the project, generally using radio telemetry as 
appropriate. All animals released or captured will be vaccinated 
against diseases prevalent in canids prior to release. Any animal that 
is determined to be in need of special care or that moves onto lands 
where the landowner requests their removal will be recaptured, if 
possible, by Service and/or Park Service and/or designated State 
wildlife agency personnel and will be given appropriate care. Such 
animals will be released back into the wild as soon as possible, unless 
physical or behavioral problems make it necessary to return the animals 
to a captive-breeding facility.
* * * * *
    Dated: December 27, 1994
Mollie H. Beattie,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 95-9291 Filed 4-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P