18940 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

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 freeranging 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 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 captiveborn. 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 captivebreeding 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 longterm 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
18942 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

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 km2 (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 selfsustaining 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, freelance 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 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 (§ 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
18944 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

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

§ 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

(§ 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 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.
18946 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

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 landgrabbing’’ 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 17.11(h) by revising the

entries for red wolf to read as follows:

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened

wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

Species

Historic range Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened Status When

listed

Critical

habitat

Special

rules Common name Scientific name

MAMMALS:

* * * * * * *

Wolf, red ............ Canis rufus ............... U.S.A. (SE

U.S.A., west

to central TX).

Entire, except where listed as

Experimental Populations below

E 1, 248,

449,

579

NA NA

do ...................... do ............................. do ..................... U.S.A. (portions of NC and TN—see

§ 17.84(c)(9))

XN 248,

449,

579

NA 17.84(C)

* * * * * * *

3. Section 17.84 is amended by

revising paragraphs (c)(4), (c)(9)(i) and

(c)(10) of the section to read as follows:

§ 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.

* * * * *
18948 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

(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 captivebreeding 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