A Comprehensive Review and Evaluation of the Red Wolf (Canis rufus) Recovery Program Final Report - 11/14/2014 Wildlife Management Institute, Inc. 2014 Executive Summary The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) contracted with the Wildlife Management Institute (WMI) to conduct an independent review and evaluation of the red wolf (Canis rufus) recovery program. At the direction of the FWS, the review focused on numerous questions with respect to three elements of the recovery program: supporting science, program management, and human dimensions. WMI reviewed more than 200 documents received from the FWS, interviewed 20 FWS employees and 4 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) staff at various management levels, commissioned literature reviews of red wolf genetics and ecology, conducted 2 public meetings in the red wolf restoration area, and conducted public opinion surveys. Our report was reviewed by outside experts in wolf ecology and management. This report is an evaluation and synthesis of the available scientific literature, reports, documents, interviews with FWS staff, and public comments received during the review period. The report is not intended, nor should it be construed, to be a decision document with recommendations relative to the fate of the current red wolf recovery program. The report represents the views of the authors and not necessarily those of the FWS. Supporting Science The experimental release of captive red wolves to the wild in 1987 proved red wolves could survive and successfully reproduce in the wild. The FWS staff directly involved with the red wolf recovery program has a thorough understanding of the current science regarding red wolf ecology in the area. However, WMI has a number of concerns regarding the science behind the recovery program. Canid genetics and taxonomy are complex and there are conflicting theories about the taxonomy of wolves in North America. WMI was not asked to draw definitive conclusions about the status of red wolves as a species; however, this issue was raised throughout the period of our review and has implications that affect science, program management, and the human dimensions aspects of the recovery program. Given the current understanding of wolf taxonomy, maintenance of the current red wolf genome is a prudent endeavor. If red wolves remain a distinct species, the genome would be preserved. Further research may or may not provide more conclusive evidence of the red wolves’ place in the canid taxonomy that occurs in North America. Related to the issue of genetics and the hybridization between red wolves and coyotes (Canis latrans), WMI believes that the FWS placeholder strategy is a valid conceptual technique to reduce the introgression of coyote genes into the red wolf population. However, we were surprised that a rigorous analysis of the effectiveness and efficiency of this technique has not been completed. FWS staff informed us that such an analysis is underway. The results of that analysis are critical to the long-term success or failure of the red wolf recovery program. In any event, WMI identified issues regarding the practicality, expense, and seemingly indeterminate timeframe for the use of the placeholder strategy. WMI identified an alternative approach the FWS could adopt to test the consequences of suspending the placeholder strategy to inform future recovery planning. 2 WMI has concerns about the current level of understanding of red wolf population dynamics, specifically the trends in breeding pair numbers and pup production. In spite of the complexity of monitoring a wild canid population across the 1.7 million acre restoration area, WMI expected a more definitive explanation for the gradual decline in the red wolf population during the last 6-7 years and the recent decline in breeding pair numbers. FWS staff stated that they continue to modify and enhance population-modeling techniques. FWS provided documentation of an improved and more robust population estimate model and WMI is confident that this effort will provide more accurate, precise, and timely information in the near future. The monitoring of mortality rates throughout the year, especially to determine the impact of mortality on breeding behavior and reproduction would benefit the population modeling effort. The FWS underestimated the habitat required to reach its original recovery population goals. The first estimate was 144,000 acres for 35-50 red wolves. Today, approximately 100 red wolves range across a restoration area defined as 1.7 million acres. The stated intent to manage red wolf recovery on National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) in the area demonstrated an overly optimistic and scientifically unsound approach. Shortly after the original red wolf release, red wolves traveled outside the refuge boundaries. It is our belief that habitat management on existing NWRs specifically to create high value red wolf habitat would be insufficient to keep wolves off of private property in the restoration area. Further, climate change impact models indicated that significant portions of the current restoration area on Albemarle Peninsula would succumb to sea level rise. Accordingly, over the long term, current federal lands will not provide sufficient habitat for red wolves in the restoration area. Successful accomplishment of the current recovery plan objectives will require identification of suitable areas and reintroduction of red wolves to 2 other distinct locations within historic red wolf range. Because coyotes occupy all of this range, the FWS may have to continue efforts to reduce or eliminate interspecific breeding between red wolves and coyotes to assure red wolf genome integrity. The restoration area size necessary for these introductions will depend on available resources within the area and the landowner tolerance of red wolves. Future releases would need to be coordinated with and supported by the state wildlife agency or agencies and private landowners involved in the reintroduction sites. Among other issues, the FWS would also need to monitor and address canid disease and parasite issues within all restoration areas. Program Management WMI concluded that throughout much of the life of the red wolf recovery program, local program managers received inadequate oversight and coordination from the regional office. In addition, the program was supervised as a NWR activity rather than a national or regional Ecological Services’ priority. We believe that program authority rested largely with local staff. Decisions made at the local level, although made with the best intentions and with the program’s success in mind, did not always comply with the rules established for the reintroduction program. We would characterize the situation as one where local staff did their best to “make it work” and to build constructive relationships with local 3 landowners. Recent changes in the program structure should improve the situation. A clear understanding of the need for rules and oversight of those rules will be necessary for future compliance. The first 10(j) Rule was deemed necessary to gain public acceptance for the reintroduction in the Alligator NWR. Future reintroductions in other areas of the country would need to evaluate the effectiveness of the 10(j) Rule to assess the appropriateness of developing a similar rule on a case-by-case basis. Given the public interest in predator reintroduction, the FWS must defend a legal designation that maintains the most flexible management strategy possible in order to gain public acceptance of the program. With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that the 10(j) Rules implied that red wolves would stay on refuge property or that they would be immediately recaptured and returned to refuge property. These assumptions were unrealistic and scientifically unsound. The amendments to the 1986 rule were insufficient to address some landowners’ concerns about red wolves on private property. Further complicating the issue was the recent court injunction that prohibited coyote hunting in the 5 county restoration area. WMI expected greater oversight and support for a landmark recovery program involving one of the most imperiled canids in the world. A stable to declining population without a sound scientific explanation, inadequate public outreach, insufficient captive facility capacity, lack of the identification of suitable alternative reintroduction sites, and the lack of rigorous adaptive management approach that included evaluation and analysis, are signs of a recovery program that is in need of additional review and course correction. WMI concluded that the recovery plan would benefit from a review, update and/or revision to incorporate the 27 years of knowledge and experience associated with the 5 county restoration area. This review would benefit from a thorough analysis of: the effectiveness of the placeholder strategy with respect to reducing hybridization, the population dynamics of the wild red wolf, the integrity of the red wolf genome in the wild and in captivity, the population size necessary to insure red wolf survival and genetic integrity, the restoration area size and resource availability necessary to support expanded red wolf populations, and the human dimension research and public outreach activity necessary to garner public support and tolerance for introduced predator populations. Human Dimensions We believe that public outreach and education for private landowners within the restoration area were not major program components