30382 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because SIP approvals are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866; 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: June 14, 2018. 

Chris Hladick, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13861 Filed 6–27–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2018–0035; 

FXES11130900000C2–189–FF09E42000] 

RIN 1018–BB98 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Proposed Replacement of 

the Regulations for the Nonessential 

Experimental Population of Red 

Wolves in Northeastern North Carolina 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of a 

draft environmental assessment, 

opening of comment period, and 

announcement of public hearing. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

replace the existing regulations 

governing the nonessential experimental 

population designation of the red wolf 

(Canis rufus) under section 10(j) of the 

Endangered Species Act, as amended. 

We request public comments, and 

announce a public information session 

and public hearing, on this proposed 

rule. In addition, we announce the 

availability of a draft environmental 

assessment on the proposed 

replacement of the existing nonessential 

experimental population regulations for 

the red wolf. In conjunction with this 

proposed action, we are initiating 

consultation pursuant to section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act and completing 

a compatibility determination pursuant 

to the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997. 

We propose this action to ensure our 

regulations are based on the most recent 

science and lessons learned related to 

the management of red wolves. If 

adopted as proposed, this action would 

further conservation of red wolf 

recovery overall by allowing for the 

reallocation of resources to enhance 

support for the captive population, 

retention of a propagation population 

for future new reintroduction efforts 

that is influenced by natural selection, 

and provision of a population for 

continued scientific research on wild 

red wolf behavior and population 

management. This action would also 

promote the viability of the nonessential 

experimental population by authorizing 

proven management techniques, such as 

the release of animals from the captive 

population into the nonessential 

experimental population, which is vital 

to maintaining a genetically healthy 

population. 

DATES: 

Written comments: We will consider 

comments we receive on or before July 

30, 2018. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, 

below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on the closing date. 

Requests for additional public 

hearings: We must receive requests for 

additional public hearings, in writing, at 

the address shown in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT by July 12, 2018. 

Public information session and public 

hearing: On July 10, 2018, we will hold 

a public information session and public 

hearing on this proposed rule and draft 

environmental assessment. The public 

information session is scheduled from 

5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., and the public 

hearing from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. 

ADDRESSES:

Availability of documents: This 

proposed rule is available on http://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2018–0035 and on our 

website at http://www.fws.gov/Raleigh. 

Comments and materials we receive, as 

well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

are also available for public inspection 

at http://www.regulations.gov. All 

comments, materials, and 

documentation that we considered in 

this document are available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours, at the Raleigh 

Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 551F Pylon 

Drive, Raleigh, NC 27606; telephone 

919–856–4520; or facsimile 919–856– 

4556. Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Relay 

Service at 1–800–877–8339. 

Comment submission: You may 

submit written comments on this 

proposed rule and draft environmental 

assessment by one of the following 

methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–R4–ES–2018–0035, which is 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30383 

the docket number for this rulemaking. 

Then, click on the Search button. On the 

resulting page, in the Search panel on 

the left side of the screen, under the 

Document Type heading, check the 

Proposed Rules box to locate this 

document. You may submit a comment 

by clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R4–ES–2018– 

0035, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls 

Church, VA 22041–3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on http://

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see Public 

Comments, below, for more 

information). 

Public information session and public 

hearing: The public information session 

and public hearing will occur at 

Roanoke Festival Park, One Festival 

Park, Manteo, NC 27954. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pete 

Benjamin, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Ecological 

Services Field Office, 551F Pylon Drive, 

Raleigh, NC 27606; telephone 919–856– 

4520; or facsimile 919–856–4556. 

Persons who use a TDD may call the 

Federal Relay Service at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

This Proposal 

We are proposing to replace the 

regulations governing the northeast 

North Carolina nonessential 

experimental population (NC NEP) of 

the red wolf, codified in 1995 in title 50 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

at § 17.84(c) (50 CFR 17.84(c)). The 

purpose of the proposed action is to 

incorporate the most recent science and 

lessons learned related to the 

management of red wolves to 

implement revised regulations that will 

better further the conservation of the red 

wolf. We propose to establish a more 

manageable wild propagation 

population that will allow for more 

resources to support the captive 

population component of the red wolf 

program (which is the genetic fail safe 

for the species); serve the future needs 

of new reintroduction efforts; retain the 

influences of natural selection on the 

species; eliminate the regulatory burden 

on private landowners; and provide a 

population for continued scientific 

research on wild red wolf behavior and 

population management. 

Why We Need To Publish a Rule 

Significant changes to the red wolf 

population and red wolf management in 

the NC NEP have occurred since 1995; 

since then, management of red wolf and 

coyote interactions has become a 

primary management consideration. The 

current regulations associated with the 

NC NEP are no longer effective in 

addressing the current and future 

management needs of the red wolf and 

preclude the development of sound 

management strategies for this species. 

Replacing the existing regulations is 

necessary to respond to the changing 

landscape and better ensure the 

conservation and recovery of the red 

wolf. Success of the red wolf recovery 

program under the existing regulations 

has been limited, and the current 

regulations lack the necessary flexibility 

to respond to the red wolf’s 

conservation needs. Most specifically, it 

is apparent that the current regulations 

are not effective in terms of fostering 

coexistence between people and red 

wolves, and that changes are needed to 

reduce conflict associated with red wolf 

conservation. 

The Basis for the Action 

The 1982 amendments to the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act), included the addition of 

section 10(j), which allows for the 

designation of reintroduced populations 

of listed species as ‘‘experimental 

populations.’’ Under section 10(j) of the 

Act and our regulations in 50 CFR part 

17, subpart H (Experimental 

Populations), the Service may designate 

an experimental population of 

endangered or threatened species that 

has been or will be released into 

suitable natural habitat outside the 

species’ current natural range (but 

within its probable historical range, 

absent a finding by the Director of the 

Service in the extreme case that the 

primary habitat of the species has been 

unsuitably and irreversibly altered or 

destroyed). With the experimental 

population designation, the relevant 

population is treated as threatened 

regardless of the species’ designation 

elsewhere in its range. Section 4(d) of 

the Act allows us to adopt any 

regulations that we deem necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation of a threatened species. 

Treating the experimental population as 

threatened allows us the discretion of 

devising special regulations and 

management to ensure the population 

supports conservation and recovery of 

the species. 

We have prepared a draft 

environmental assessment (DEA) 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA). On May 23, 2017, 

we published an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking and notice of 

intent to prepare a NEPA document (82 

FR 23518). This initiated a public 

scoping process that included a request 

for written comments and two public 

scoping meetings in June 2017. We have 

incorporated information collected 

since that scoping process began in the 

development of a DEA and this 

proposed rule. We will use information 

from this analysis to inform our final 

decision. 

Public Comment Procedures 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule will be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

information from State agencies, other 

concerned governmental agencies, 

Native American tribes, the scientific 

community, industry, or any other 

interested parties concerning this 

proposed rule. 

We particularly seek comments 

regarding: 

(a) Contribution of the NC NEP to 

recovery goals for the red wolf; 

(b) The relative effects that 

management of the NC NEP under the 

proposed rule would have on the 

conservation of the species; 

(c) The extent to which the NC NEP 

may be affected by existing or 

anticipated Federal or State actions or 

private activities within or adjacent to 

the proposed NC NEP management area; 

(d) Appropriate provisions for 

protections and ‘‘take’’ of red wolves; 

(e) Ideas and strategies for promoting 

tolerance of red wolves on private 

property outside the NC NEP 

management area; and 

(f) Appropriate means to evaluate the 

effectiveness of the proposed action, 

including relevant performance 

measures. 

Additionally, we seek comments on 

the identification of direct, indirect, 

beneficial, and adverse effects that may 

result from this proposed 10(j) rule for 

red wolves. You may wish to consider 

the extent to which the proposed rule 

will affect the following when providing 

comments: 

(a) Impacts on floodplains, wetlands, 

wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically 

sensitive areas; 

(b) Impacts on Federal, State, local or 

Tribal park lands; refuges and natural 

areas; and cultural or historic resources; 

(c) Impacts on human health and 

safety; 

(d) Impacts on air, soil, and water; 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
30384 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

(e) Impacts on prime agricultural 

lands; 

(f) Impacts to other species of wildlife, 

including other endangered or 

threatened species; 

(g) Disproportionately high and 

adverse impacts on minority and low 

income populations; 

(h) Any socioeconomic or other 

potential effects; and 

(i) Any potential conflicts with other 

Federal, State, local, or Tribal 

environmental laws or requirements. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Raleigh Ecological Services 

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Public Information Session and Public 

Hearing 

On July 10, 2018, we will hold a 

public information session and public 

hearing on this proposed rule and draft 

environmental assessment. The times 

and location of the public information 

session and public hearing are provided 

under DATES and ADDRESSES, above. 

We are holding the public hearing to 

provide interested parties an 

opportunity to present verbal testimony 

(formal, oral comments) or written 

comments regarding this proposed rule 

and the associated DEA. A formal public 

hearing is not, however, an opportunity 

for dialogue with the Service; it is only 

a forum for accepting formal verbal 

testimony. 

In contrast to the public hearing, the 

information session will allow the 

public the opportunity to interact with 

Service staff, who will be available to 

provide information and address 

questions on this proposed rule and the 

DEA. We cannot accept verbal 

testimony at the information session; 

verbal testimony can only be accepted at 

the public hearing. 

Anyone wishing to make an oral 

statement at the public hearing for the 

record is encouraged to provide a 

written copy of their statement to us at 

the hearing. In the event there is a large 

attendance, the time allotted for oral 

statements may be limited. Speakers can 

sign up at the hearing if they desire to 

make an oral statement. Oral and 

written statements receive equal 

consideration. There are no limits on 

the length of written comments 

submitted to us. 

Persons needing reasonable 

accommodations to participate in the 

information session or public hearing 

should contact the person listed above 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. Reasonable accommodation 

requests should be received no later 

than July 5, 2018, to help ensure 

availability; American Sign Language or 

English as a second language interpreter 

needs should be received no later than 

June 29, 2018. 

Background 

Biological Information 

A species status assessment (SSA) 

report was prepared for the red wolf 

(USFWS 2018). The SSA report 

represents a compilation of the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

concerning the status of the species, 

including the impacts of past, present, 

and future factors (both negative and 

beneficial) affecting the red wolf. The 

SSA report underwent independent 

peer review by scientists with expertise 

in wolf biology, habitat management, 

and stressors (factors negatively 

affecting the species) to the species. The 

SSA report can be found on the 

Southeast Region website at https://

www.fws.gov/southeast/ and at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2018–0035. 

Why We Need To Replace the 

Regulations 

On April 13, 1995, we published a 

final rule (60 FR 18940) amending the 

regulations at 50 CFR 17.84(c) for the 

nonessential experimental populations 

of red wolves in North Carolina and 

Tennessee. We refer to that final rule as 

the ‘‘1995 final rule.’’ 

Under the provisions of the 1995 final 

rule, the NC NEP is declining more 

rapidly than the worst-case scenarios 

described in the most recent population 

viability analysis (Faust et al. 2016). As 

described in the Red Wolf Recovery 

Team Report (2016), there is consensus 

that the current direction and 

management of the NC NEP is 

unacceptable to the Service and 

stakeholders. Based on the SSA review, 

there are significant threats to the NC 

NEP and conditions for recovery of the 

species are not favorable, indicating a 

self-sustainable population may not be 

possible. Significant changes to 

management actions in the NC NEP 

recovery area have occurred since the 

1995 final rule, which was promulgated 

before management of red wolf and 

coyote interactions became a primary 

management consideration. The current 

rule associated with the NC NEP is no 

longer effective in addressing the 

current and future management needs of 

the red wolf recovery program, and the 

regulations need to be revised to allow 

for the development of sound 

management strategies for this species. 

The current regulations at 50 CFR 

17.84(c) lack the needed flexibility to 

adapt to the arrival and proliferation of 

coyotes in eastern North Carolina. For 

example, the current regulations do not 

explicitly incorporate Red Wolf 

Adaptive Management Work Plan 

(RWAMWP) activities (discussed further 

below). Since issuance of the 1995 final 

rule, the coyote population has 

continued to expand in eastern North 

Carolina, thus significantly increasing 

the risk of hybridization between red 

wolves and coyotes. The risk of 

hybridization is exacerbated by the fact 

that there is a high degree of 

anthropogenic mortality (e.g., gunshot, 

poisoning) in the NC NEP that presents 

additional challenges. Human-caused 

mortality, particularly during red wolf 

breeding season, significantly increases 

breeding pair disbandment, facilitating 

hybridization with coyotes. 

Furthermore, red wolf habitat in the NC 

NEP recovery area is discontinuous, 

further increasing the risk for 

hybridization. Additionally, sea level 

rise will be additive year after year and 

will impact the long-term viability of 

the current NC NEP. Based on these 

conditions, the Service must adapt its 

management to better conserve the red 

wolf. 

The red wolf remains a conservation 

reliant species (i.e., cannot be recovered 

without intense human management). 

Due to the spread of coyotes across the 

entire historical range of the red wolf, 

there are no coyote-free habitats where 

a reintroduction program could be 

successful without active coyote 

management. Furthermore, while the 

red wolf’s genetic viability can be 

managed through the captive 

population, there is little chance of a 

naturally occurring wild population 

existing without active management for 

the foreseeable future, although the 

intensity of active management can vary 

with potential management scenarios 

and time. The RWAMWP proved 

successful in limiting coyote 

introgression and maintaining red wolf 

territories, but it was not designed to 

address other factors affecting the 

conservation of the species, such as 

anthropogenic mortality (Hinton et al. 

2017). We anticipate the RWAMWP 

strategy will remain necessary for the 

NC NEP and any future NEPs. 

We also believe it is apparent that the 

current regulations are not effective in 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30385 

terms of fostering coexistence between 

people and red wolves, and that changes 

are needed to reduce conflict associated 

with red wolf conservation and allow 

for effective management of coyotes. As 

discussed by Henry and Lucash (2000), 

without private landowner support, we 

will not be able to recover the red wolf. 

Due to the importance of private 

landowners’ support to red wolf 

conservation (over 90 percent of lands 

in the Southeast are privately owned), 

socio-political factors are as important, 

if not more important, than ecological 

factors. Fundamental change is needed 

in the way stakeholders are engaged in 

management of wild red wolf 

populations. State agencies, nongovernmental organizations (NGO) and 

the Service will need to engage with the 

public and develop strategies for 

managing coyotes. 

Recovery of the red wolf has 

conflicted with private landowners’ 

ability to manage coyote populations. 

This has led to excessive losses of red 

wolves to anthropogenic mortality and 

disruption of established packs of red 

wolves and breeding pairs, allowing for 

the further expansion of coyote 

populations and increasing risk of red 

wolf/coyote hybridization. Coyote 

management was not a factor in 1986, 

when the NC NEP was first established, 

because coyotes were not present in the 

five-county NC NEP recovery area 

(Beaufort, Dare, Hyde, Tyrrell and 

Washington). Coyotes began to appear 

in the recovery area in the early 1990s, 

and they were well established in the 

area by 2000. This led to increased 

interest on the part of landowners to 

control coyotes and pursue them for 

recreational hunting and trapping. This 

brought regulation of coyotes by the 

North Carolina Wildlife Resources 

Commission (NCWRC) into increasing 

conflict with Service efforts to manage 

red wolves. 

The Service and the NCWRC entered 

into an agreement in 2013, in order to 

improve coordination and collaboration 

regarding canid management and 

conservation on the Albemarle 

Peninsula. This agreement focused on 

improving collaboration between the 

agencies in areas of canid management, 

research, outreach, regulation, and 

enforcement. In 2013, a number of 

groups filed suit challenging the 

NCWRC’s decision to authorize night 

hunting of coyotes in the red wolf 

recovery area, claiming that it would 

lead to unauthorized take of red wolves. 

The lawsuit was subsequently amended 

to include all coyote hunting in the red 

wolf recovery area. On May 14, 2014, 

the Court issued a preliminary 

injunction that prohibited all hunting of 

coyote (day or night) in the five-county 

NC NEP recovery area. Under the terms 

of a subsequent settlement agreement 

among the plaintiffs and the NCWRC, 

the NCWRC was able to reinstitute 

coyote hunting in the recovery area; 

however, hunting is allowed by permit 

only, all harvest must be reported to the 

NCWRC, and night hunting is 

prohibited. In January 2015, the NCWRC 

approved a set of resolutions requesting 

that the Service declare the red wolf 

extinct in the wild, terminate red wolf 

recovery efforts in North Carolina, and 

remove all red wolves from the wild. 

Current regulations are not effective 

in terms of fostering coexistence 

between people and red wolves, and 

changes are needed to reduce conflict 

associated with red wolf conservation. 

Additionally, the current regulations 

limit the number of red wolves that can 

be released on the landscape. The 

release of up to 12 wolves was explicitly 

authorized in the 1986 regulations (51 

FR 41790; November 19, 1986). No 

additional releases were authorized 

during subsequent rule revisions in 

1991 (56 FR 56325; November 4, 1991) 

and 1995 (60 FR 18940; April 13, 1995). 

Movement of wolves between the 

captive and wild populations is needed 

to maintain the genetic integrity of the 

NC NEP and the overall red wolf 

population. 

In summary, the existing regulations 

lack the flexibility necessary to ensure 

the conservation and recovery of the red 

wolf. The Service is proposing 

replacement regulations that will allow 

active coyote management and better 

ensure active participation by 

landowners and the State and local 

officials in canid management, thereby 

increasing the probability of persistence 

of the wild population of red wolves. 

These wild red wolves would be the 

main source of animals for future 

establishment of new experimental 

populations elsewhere within the 

historical range of the species. 

Proposed Replacement Regulations for 

the NC NEP 

Our intent with this proposed rule is 

to establish a fundamentally different 

paradigm for red wolf conservation. The 

rule itself would ensure protection and 

effective management of red wolves 

within the Federal lands of the Alligator 

River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

and the Dare County Bombing Range 

(NC NEP management area). 

This rule proposes to establish a NC 

NEP management area to include the 

Alligator River NWR and the Dare 

County Bombing Range (NC NEP 

management area). A small group (i.e., 

one or two packs likely consisting of 

fewer than 15 animals) of red wolves 

would be maintained in the NC NEP 

management area. The wolves in this 

NC NEP management area would be 

actively managed under the RWAMWP. 

The primary role of this population 

relative to the conservation of the 

species would be to provide a source of 

red wolves that are raised in, and 

adapted to, natural conditions for the 

purpose of facilitating future 

reintroductions. 

It is anticipated that some red wolves 

would leave the NC NEP management 

area on a fairly regular basis. Although 

these red wolves would be considered 

part of the NC NEP, the proposed 

regulations would contain no take 

prohibitions of these animals on private 

lands and non-Federal public lands. As 

such, the Service has determined that 

no take prohibitions will apply outside 

the NC NEP management area. The 

proposed rule would require only that 

the Service be notified within 24 hours 

regarding the take of any collared 

animals and that the collars be returned 

to the Service. 

A species status assessment (SSA) 

report was prepared for the red wolf 

(USFWS 2018) that contains additional 

information regarding the biology and 

status of the species. The SSA report 

can be found on the Southeast Region 

website at https://www.fws.gov/ 

southeast/ and at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2018–0035. 

Focusing management on Federal 

lands while removing the cumbersome 

procedural provisions for take of red 

wolves should reduce overall program 

costs and facilitate the State and other 

partners to take a more active leadership 

role in canid management and 

conservation on non-Federal lands. 

Limiting the designated NC NEP 

management area to Federal lands 

should also reduce conflicts between 

the State, the Service and any other 

stakeholders regarding authorized 

management of coyotes on private 

lands. 

Despite the challenges and limitations 

facing the NC NEP, managing a smaller 

wild population is important to 

fostering the species in the wild. This 

management approach will allow more 

resources to support the captive 

population and ability to establish other 

wild populations. It will also help retain 

some of the influences of natural 

selection, serve as a small propagation 

population for future new 

reintroduction efforts, and could 

provide a population for continued 

scientific research on wild behavior. 

Research would be authorized and 

encouraged and could be targeted at 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
30386 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

filling key knowledge gaps to inform 

future reintroduction efforts at other 

sites, specifically focused on better 

understanding the behavioral and 

ecological factors that reproductively 

separate red wolves and coyotes with a 

view toward developing more efficient 

and sustainable management 

techniques. This research would focus 

on predator-prey dynamics, 

maintenance of genetic integrity, and 

management of hybridization. Public 

education and outreach activities would 

continue. 

Statutory and Regulatory Framework 

The 1982 amendments to the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) included the 

addition of section 10(j), which allows 

for the designation of reintroduced 

populations of listed species as 

‘‘experimental populations.’’ Before 

section 10(j) created the ‘‘experimental’’ 

designation, ‘‘[l]ocal opposition to 

reintroduction efforts, . . . stemming 

from concerns about the restrictions and 

prohibitions on private and Federal 

activities contained in sections 7 and 9 

of the Act, severely handicapped the 

effectiveness of [reintroductions] as a 

management tool’’ (51 FR 41790; 

November 19, 1986). The provisions of 

section 10(j) were enacted to ameliorate 

concerns that reintroduced populations 

will negatively impact landowners and 

other private parties by giving the 

Secretary of the Interior greater 

regulatory flexibility and discretion in 

managing the reintroduction of listed 

species to encourage recovery in 

collaboration with partners, especially 

private landowners. Congress 

specifically contemplated that the 

release of experimental populations of 

predators, such as red wolves, could 

allow for the directed taking of these 

animals if the release were frustrated by 

public opposition. Also, Congress noted 

that permits for takings of experimental 

populations would not be necessary if 

such populations were treated as 

threatened, thus indicating take would 

not be prohibited. See H.R. Rep 97–567 

(1982). 

Under section 10(j) of the Act and our 

regulations at 50 CFR 17.81, the Service 

may designate an endangered or 

threatened species that has been or will 

be released into suitable natural habitat 

outside the species’ current natural 

range (but within its probable historical 

range, absent a finding by the Director 

of the Service in the extreme case that 

the primary habitat of the species has 

been unsuitably and irreversibly altered 

or destroyed) as an experimental 

population. 

Before authorizing the release as an 

experimental population of any 

population (including eggs, propagules, 

or individuals) of an endangered or 

threatened species, and before 

authorizing any necessary 

transportation to conduct the release, 

the Service must find, by regulation, 

that such release will further the 

conservation of the species. 

Conservation is defined by the Act as 

the use of all methods and procedures 

which are necessary to bring any 

endangered or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

pursuant to the Act are no longer 

necessary. In short, experimental 

populations must further a species’ 

recovery. In making such a finding, the 

Service uses the best scientific and 

commercial data available to consider: 

(1) Any possible adverse effects on 

extant populations of a species as a 

result of removal of individuals, eggs, or 

propagules for introduction elsewhere; 

(2) the likelihood that any such 

experimental population will become 

established and survive in the 

foreseeable future; (3) the relative effects 

that establishment of an experimental 

population will have on the recovery of 

the species; and (4) the extent to which 

the introduced population may be 

affected by existing or anticipated 

Federal or State actions or private 

activities within or adjacent to the 

experimental population area. 

Furthermore, as set forth at 50 CFR 

17.81(c), all regulations designating 

experimental populations under section 

10(j) must provide: (1) Appropriate 

means to identify the experimental 

population, including, but not limited 

to, its actual or proposed location, 

actual or anticipated migration, number 

of specimens released or to be released, 

and other criteria appropriate to identify 

the experimental population(s); (2) a 

finding, based solely on the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available, and the supporting factual 

basis, on whether the experimental 

population is, or is not, essential to the 

continued existence of the species in the 

wild; (3) management restrictions, 

protective measures, or other special 

management concerns of that 

population, which may include but are 

not limited to, measures to isolate and/ 

or contain the experimental population 

designated in the regulation from 

natural populations; and (4) a process 

for periodic review and evaluation of 

the success or failure of the release and 

the effect of the release on the 

conservation and recovery of the 

species. 

Under 50 CFR 17.81(d), the Service 

must consult with appropriate State 

game and fish agencies, local 

governmental entities, affected Federal 

agencies, and affected private 

landowners in developing and 

implementing experimental population 

rules. To the maximum extent 

practicable, section 10(j) rules represent 

an agreement between the Service, the 

affected State and Federal agencies, and 

persons holding any interest in land that 

may be affected by the establishment of 

an experimental population. Based on 

the best available information, we must 

determine whether the experimental 

population is essential or nonessential 

to the continued existence of the 

species. The regulations (50 CFR 

17.80(b)) state that an experimental 

population is considered essential if its 

loss would be likely to appreciably 

reduce the likelihood of survival of that 

species in the wild. 

Under this NEP designation, all 

members of the population are treated 

as if they were listed as a threatened 

species for the purposes of establishing 

protective regulations, regardless of the 

species’ designation elsewhere in its 

range. This approach allows us to 

develop tailored conservation measures 

that we deem necessary and advisable to 

provide for the conservation of the 

species. In these situations, the general 

regulations at 50 CFR 17.31 do not 

apply. The protective regulations 

adopted for an experimental population 

in a section 10(j) rule contain the 

applicable prohibitions and exceptions 

for that specific population. We find it 

necessary and advisable to apply section 

9 prohibitions for endangered species 

and section 10 exceptions within the NC 

NEP management area. 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires that 

Federal agencies, in consultation with 

the Service, ensure that any action they 

authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

an endangered or threatened species or 

adversely modify its critical habitat. For 

the purposes of section 7(a)(2), we treat 

an NEP as a threatened species only 

when the NEP is located within a 

National Wildlife Refuge or unit of the 

National Park Service. Under the 

proposed rule, this means intra-agency 

consultation would be required for 

activities on the Alligator River NWR. 

When members of an NEP are located 

outside a National Wildlife Refuge or 

National Park Service unit (in this case, 

on Dare County Bombing Range), then, 

for the purposes of section 7, they are 

treated as species proposed for listing, 

not as threatened species. This means 

section 7(a)(2) of the Act does not apply. 

Instead, section 7(a)(4) applies. This 

provides the Service with additional 

flexibility because under section 7(a)(4), 

Federal agencies are only required to 

confer (rather than consult) with the 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30387 

Service on actions that are likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

species proposed to be listed. Section 

7(a)(4) conference recommendations are 

non-binding and optional to the 

agencies carrying out, funding, or 

authorizing the action at issue. 

Therefore, section 7(a)(2) consultation 

would not be required for actions that 

occur outside of Alligator River NWR 

(i.e., on Dare County Bombing Range). 

Previous Federal Actions 

The red wolf was originally listed as 

a species threatened with extinction 

under the Endangered Species 

Preservation Act of 1966 (32 FR 4001; 

March 11, 1967). This species is 

currently listed as an endangered 

species under the Act. The demise of 

the red wolf was directly related to 

human activities, such as predator 

control efforts at the private, State, and 

Federal levels and conversion of prime 

habitat to other purposes. 

Historically, the red wolf range 

included Texas and Louisiana to the 

Ohio River Valley and up the Atlantic 

Coast into northern Pennsylvania or 

southern New York, and perhaps farther 

north (Wildlife Management Institute 

(WMI) 2014; for reference, see http://

www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS– 

R4–ES–2017–0006). However, by the 

mid-1970s, the only remaining 

population occurred in southeastern 

Texas and southwestern Louisiana 

(WMI 2014). In 1975, it became 

apparent that the only way to save the 

red wolf from extinction was to capture 

as many wild animals as possible and 

place them in a secured captivebreeding program. This decision was 

based on the critically low numbers of 

animals left in the wild, poor physical 

condition of those animals due to 

disease and internal and external 

parasites, the threat posed by an 

expanding coyote (Canis latrans) 

population, and consequent 

hybridization. 

The Service removed the remaining 

red wolves from the wild and used them 

to establish a breeding program with the 

objective of restoring the species to a 

portion of its former range. Ultimately, 

14 animals formed the basis of the Red 

Wolf Captive Breeding Program with the 

Point Defiance Zoo and Aquarium in 

Tacoma, Washington. By 1986, the 

captive-breeding program held 80 red 

wolves in seven facilities and public 

and private zoos across the United 

States. With the red wolf having been 

extirpated from its entire historical 

range, the Service took action to 

reestablish a wild population. 

In 1986, the Service published a final 

rule in the Federal Register (51 FR 

41790; November 19, 1986) to 

reintroduce red wolves into Alligator 

River NWR, Dare County, North 

Carolina. Alligator River NWR was 

chosen due to the absence of coyotes, 

lack of major livestock operations, and 

availability of prey species. The red 

wolf population in Dare County 

(Alligator River NWR) and adjacent 

Tyrrell, Hyde, and Washington Counties 

was determined to be a nonessential 

experimental population (NEP) under 

section 10(j) of the Act (a ‘‘10(j) rule’’). 

In 1991, the Service published a final 

rule (56 FR 56325; November 4, 1991) 

that added Beaufort County to the 

counties where the 1986 NEP 

designation would apply and provided 

for introduction of a second NEP of red 

wolves in the Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park (Park), Haywood and 

Swayne Counties, North Carolina, and 

Blount, Cocke, and Sevier Counties in 

Tennessee. The second NEP’s efforts 

were discontinued in 1998 (63 FR 

54151, October 8, 1998; USFWS 2007) 

due to lack of resources in the area, poor 

pup survival, and the dispersal patterns 

of red wolves released onsite. The 

surviving animals from the Park were 

placed in captivity or transferred to the 

NC NEP. 

From 1987 through 1992, recovery 

officials released 42 red wolves to 

establish the NC NEP. In 1993, the 

experimental population was expanded 

with reintroductions at Pocosin Lakes 

NWR in North Carolina. The 10(j) rule 

was modified again in 1995 (60 FR 

18940; April 13, 1995) to revise and 

clarify the incidental take provision; 

revise the livestock owner take 

provision; 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. 

Today, the only population of red 

wolves in the wild is the NC NEP 

established in the five counties of the 

Albemarle peninsula (see map in 

supporting documents at http://

www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS– 

R4–ES–2018–0035). All other 

individuals of this species are found in 

captive facilities around the country. 

The NC NEP has been closely monitored 

and managed since the first 

introductions in 1986. 

Management of red wolves in the NC 

NEP has changed over the years in 

response to our expanding knowledge of 

red wolf behavior and ecology and 

changing conditions within the NC NEP 

recovery area. The 1986 10(j) rule 

anticipated that red wolves would stay 

within the bounds of Alligator River 

NWR and the Dare County Bombing 

Range. Red wolves leaving this area 

were to be captured and returned to the 

NWR or placed in captivity. We quickly 

learned the shortcomings of this 

approach, as red wolves left the NWR 

within a few months of the initial 

releases. Some red wolves were 

captured and returned. In other cases, 

the Service entered into agreements 

with landowners to authorize the 

management of red wolves on private 

lands. In 1995, we amended the 10(j) 

rule to revise and clarify the incidental 

take provision, revise the livestock 

owner take provision, add harassment 

and take provisions for red wolves on 

private property, and apply the same 

taking (including harassment) 

provisions to red wolves outside the 

experimental population area (NC NEP 

recovery area) (60 FR 18940; April 13, 

1995). In the early 1990s, expansion of 

coyotes into the NC NEP recovery area 

resulted in interbreeding and coyote 

gene introgression into the red wolf 

population. In 1999, to reduce 

interbreeding between red wolves and 

coyotes, the Service developed the 

RWAMWP, which utilized sterilized 

coyotes as territorial ‘‘placeholders.’’ 

Placeholders, which could not produce 

offspring should they mate, were 

expected to hold territory, thereby 

excluding other coyotes. Placeholders 

would eventually be replaced on the 

landscape either through competition 

with red wolves or through management 

actions. Throughout the history of the 

program, red wolves (and since 2000), 

placeholders have been monitored via 

telemetry, vaccinated against diseases 

prevalent in canids, and intensively 

studied in conjunction with a number of 

field research projects. 

As provided in the current regulations 

at 50 CFR 17.84(c), our staff has 

implemented management actions 

involving direct take of red wolves. This 

has included recapture of red wolves to: 

Replace telemetry collars; provide 

routine veterinary care; move red 

wolves from place to place to establish 

breeding pairs or to address 

management issues; and to remove 

animals from the wild population that 

were a threat to human safety or 

property, or that were severely injured 

or diseased. Also, as provided for in the 

current regulations, animals have been 

captured when private landowners 

requested their removal, and lethal take 

authorizations have been issued 

pursuant to 50 CFR 17.84(c)(4)(v). 

In 2013, the Service initiated a formal 

review of the NC NEP due to concerns 

regarding its effectiveness and high 

costs. The Service contracted with the 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
30388 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Wildlife Management Institute (WMI) to 

conduct a review. The WMI review 

(WMI 2014) found multiple areas of 

concern related to NC NEP management 

and regional oversight; interpretation of 

the 10(j) rule; program costs and 

efficacy; the relationship of the NEP to 

other aspects of red wolf recovery; and 

landowner, community, and State 

support. Based on the findings of the 

WMI review (WMI 2014), the Service 

decided to suspend those management 

activities not explicitly authorized in 

the 1995 final rule and related 

compliance documents (e.g., section 7 

consultation under the Act, NEPA), 

including release of additional red 

wolves from the captive population into 

the NC NEP recovery area and 

deployment of placeholder coyotes. 

Additionally, a Department of the 

Interior Office of the Inspector General 

(OIG) Report found that the Red Wolf 

Recovery Program released more wolves 

than it originally proposed and acted 

contrary to its rules by releasing wolves 

on to private lands (OIG 2016). 

Findings 

As discussed under Statutory and 

Regulatory Framework, several findings 

are required before establishing an 

experimental population. Below are our 

findings. 

Is the experimental population wholly 

separate geographically from nonexperimental populations of the same 

species? 

Yes. The red wolf was considered 

extinct in the wild by 1980 (USFWS 

1990). As such, red wolves of the NC 

NEP will be wholly separate from any 

non-experimental population and will 

have no effect on any extant wild 

population of red wolves. 

Most red wolves in existence today 

are held in captivity as part of the Red 

Wolf Species Survival Plan (SSP). 

Currently, there are approximately 221 

red wolves at over 43 facilities across 

the country that support the captive 

population. Among others, two of the 

main goals of the Red Wolf SSP are to 

maintain 80 to 85 percent of the genetic 

diversity found in the original founder 

stock diversity for a period of 150 plus 

years, and to achieve a captive 

population size of 330 animals (USFWS 

1990). There are currently 24 known 

(e.g., radio-collared) red wolves in the 

wild within the five-county NC NEP 

with an estimated total population in 

the wild of approximately 30 to 35 

individuals. 

Is the experimental population area in 

suitable natural habitat outside the 

species’ current range, but within its 

probable historical range? 

Yes. In North Carolina, reintroduced 

wolves have used many habitats, 

including agricultural lands, pine 

forests, and pocosins (e.g., a wetland 

found in coastal areas with sandy peat 

soil and shrubs throughout; Kelly et al. 

2004, Trani and Chapman 2007). The 

WMI (2016) conducted a review of all 

available information related to the 

historical range of the red wolf. It 

concluded that previous range maps 

developed and used by the Service for 

the Red Wolf Recovery Program were 

too restrictive. An accurate predictor of 

the historical red wolf range includes all 

or parts of several Level II ecoregions 

including the Mississippi Alluvial and 

Southeast United States Coastal Plains, 

Ozark/Ouachita Appalachian Forests, 

South Central Semi-Arid Prairies, 

Southeastern United States Plains, and 

the Texas-Louisiana Coastal Plains. This 

area encompasses the southeastern 

United States, from southern Texas 

northeastward through eastern 

Oklahoma, southern and central 

Missouri into Illinois and southern 

Iowa; then east across southern Indiana 

and Ohio, and across Pennsylvania and 

New Jersey to the New York Bight; then 

south to the tip of the Florida Peninsula. 

Therefore, the NC NEP is within the 

probable historical range. 

The fact that red wolves have existed 

on the Albemarle Peninsula since 1986, 

and have successfully established packs 

and territories (especially within the 

Alligator River NWR), survived, and 

reproduced, indicates that the habitat is 

suitable. Despite anticipated future 

habitat changes related to sea level rise, 

we expect the habitat to remain suitable 

for the foreseeable future. Therefore, the 

NC NEP is within suitable habitat for 

the red wolf. 

Is the experimental population essential 

to the continued existence of the 

species? 

Before authorizing the release of any 

experimental population outside the 

current range of the species, the Act 

instructs us to determine whether an 

experimental population is essential to 

the continued existence of an 

endangered or threatened species. Our 

regulations define essential 

experimental populations as those 

‘‘whose loss would be likely to 

appreciably reduce the likelihood of the 

survival of the species in the wild’’ (50 

CFR 17.80(b)). The Service defines 

‘‘survival’’ as the condition in which a 

species continues to exist in the future 

while retaining the potential for 

recovery (USFWS and National Marine 

Fisheries Service 1998). Inherent in our 

regulatory definition of essential is the 

impact the potential loss of the 

experimental population would have on 

the species as a whole (USFWS 1984). 

All experimental populations not 

meeting this bar are considered 

nonessential (50 CFR 17.80(b)). 

The Service previously determined 

that this experimental population of red 

wolves was nonessential in the 1986 

final rule because even if the entire 

experimental population was lost, it 

would not appreciably reduce the 

prospects for future survival of the 

species because red wolves are still 

maintained in the captive-breeding 

program and we have proven capacity to 

successfully start a wild population 

from captive stock. As these 

circumstances have not changed, the NC 

NEP remains a nonessential population 

as it was established in 1986, and 

remained through subsequent 

amendments to the regulations. It is 

instructive that Congress did not put 

requirements in section 10(j) of the Act 

to reevaluate the determination of 

essentiality after a species has been 

reestablished in the wild. While our 

regulations require a ‘‘periodic review 

and evaluation of the success or failure 

of the release and the effect of the 

release on the conservation and 

recovery of the species’’ (50 CFR 

17.81(c)(4)), this has not been 

interpreted as requiring reevaluation 

and reconsideration of a population’s 

essentiality status (USFWS 1991; 

USFWS 1994; USFWS 1996). Recently a 

ruling in a case in the U.S. District Court 

for the District of Arizona (Center for 

Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 2018 WL 

1586651 (D. Ariz. March 31, 2018)) 

found that the Service should have 

revisited the essentiality determination 

for the experimental population of the 

Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) 

when revising the 10(j) rules governing 

that population. An important 

difference between the revision of the 

Mexican gray wolf 10(j) rule revision 

and this proposed rule is that the 

revision of the Mexican gray wolf 10(j) 

rule expanded the area covered by the 

experimental population designation 

into areas not previously included; 

whereas this proposed rule for the red 

wolf does not. All of the considered 

alternatives either sustain, reduce, or 

terminate the existing NEP rather than 

expanding it into new areas outside the 

species’ current range. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30389 

Does the establishment of the 

experimental population and release 

into the NC NEP further the 

conservation of the species? 

Yes. 

(1) Are there any possible adverse 

effects on existing populations of the 

red wolf as a result of removal of 

individuals for introduction elsewhere? 

As stated above, the only other known 

red wolves in existence are held in 

captivity as part of the captive 

population. While one of the primary 

functions of the captive population is to 

provide animals for reintroduction to 

the wild, such reintroductions could 

adversely affect the captive population 

by reducing its size and genetic 

diversity. The Red Wolf Population 

Viability Analysis (Faust et al. 2016) 

indicates that the captive population at 

its current size can support the releases 

from the captive population into the NC 

NEP without adversely affecting the 

captive population, but this capacity is 

limited and releases above this level 

(such as those that may be needed to 

establish additional NEP sites) may 

adversely affect the captive population. 

The Service is currently working with 

our SSP partners and others to expand 

the captive population in order to better 

conserve genetic diversity and support 

additional reintroduction efforts. 

(2) What is the likelihood that any such 

experimental population will become 

established and survive in the 

foreseeable future? 

Between the initial designation of the 

nonessential experimental population in 

North Carolina in 1986 and 1995, the 

reintroduction experiment was 

successful and generated benefits that 

extended beyond the immediate 

conservation of red wolves (60 FR 

18940; April 13, 1995). However, by 

approximately 2005, the red wolf 

population within the five-county NC 

NEP had leveled off and begun to 

decline. It was also during this time (the 

mid-1990s through early 2000s) that a 

change occurred that fundamentally 

altered the dynamics of the NC NEP and 

red wolf conservation generally: The 

arrival of coyotes on the Albemarle 

Peninsula and the impacts of that arrival 

on human tolerance of red wolves. 

By the early to mid-1990s, coyotes 

had become established on the 

Albemarle Peninsula and had begun to 

breed with red wolves (Kelly et al. 1999; 

Phillips et al. 2003). As noted above, the 

fact that red wolves and coyotes can and 

do interbreed when mature was a key 

factor that threatened the red wolf with 

extinction in southeastern Texas and 

southwestern Louisiana in the mid1970s. One of the factors that led to the 

selection of the Alligator River NWR as 

the first reintroduction site in 1987 was 

that the range of the coyote had not yet 

expanded to include eastern North 

Carolina. The arrival of coyotes in the 

five-county NC NEP renewed the threat 

that the red wolf genome would be 

subsumed into the coyote genome 

through genetic introgression. 

In 1999, a workshop was convened 

that brought together over 40 red wolf 

experts (Kelly et al. 1999). At this 

workshop, information was presented 

indicating that genetic introgression 

with coyotes could result in the loss of 

a unique red wolf genome within a few 

generations. Recognizing the urgency of 

the threat posed by coyotes, the 

workshop participants developed the 

RWAMWP (Kelly et al. 1999). 

The RWAMWP divided the Albemarle 

Peninsula into management zones with 

different objectives for red wolf and 

coyote management within each. The 

zones were designed to prioritize 

management activities with the 

objective of maintaining a gradient from 

east to west across the Albemarle 

Peninsula; with the eastern end of the 

peninsula populated almost exclusively 

with red wolves (Zone 1), the western 

end populated with coyotes (Zone 3), 

and a zone in the middle (Zone 2) where 

coyote-red wolf interactions would be 

closely monitored and adaptively 

managed (USFWS 2013; for reference, 

see http://www.regulations.gov, Docket 

No. FWS–R4–ES–2018–0035). 

One of the challenges in 

implementing the RWAMWP was the 

need for reliable methods to quickly 

distinguish between red wolves, 

hybrids, and coyotes, as adult hybrids 

can vary greatly in appearance from 

nearly wolf-like to nearly coyote-like, 

and puppies are essentially 

indistinguishable. Miller et al. (2003) 

were able to develop a reliable test 

based on blood samples. The RWAMWP 

also depended on the development of an 

effective means of managing 

intraspecific matings. The Service’s 

experience in Texas and Louisiana had 

demonstrated that efforts focused on 

eradicating coyotes from the area were 

ineffective. The RWAMWP pioneered 

the use of sterile placeholders to manage 

space and red wolf-coyote interactions 

(Seidler and Gese 2012; Gese and 

Terletzky 2015). Implementation of 

these management practices also 

required the continued cooperation of 

private landowners to gain access to the 

animals and dens off Federal lands 

(Kelly et al. 1999). 

By implementing the intense 

management described in the 

RWAMWP and constant releases from 

captivity (e.g., pup fostering), genetic 

introgression from the growing coyote 

population into the red wolf population 

was reduced (Bohling et al. 2016). The 

RWAMWP appeared in 2015 to be 

effectively limiting genetic introgression 

(less than 4 percent coyote ancestry 

from introgression since the 

reintroduction began) into the red wolf 

population, although hybridization is 

seen as an ongoing challenge (Gese et al. 

2015; USFWS 2018). With this intense 

management strategy and continued 

strategic releases of red wolves from the 

SSP, the red wolf population continued 

to increase and by 2005, reached a peak 

population of approximately 130 and 

150 animals and over 20 breeding pairs 

(USFWS 2007; Hinton et al. 2016). 

The RWAMWP effectively addressed 

the immediate threat to red wolves 

posed by the arrival of the coyote, 

namely genetic introgression (Bohling et 

al. 2016). It did not address the indirect 

threat posed by the arrival of the coyote 

(loss of red wolves associated with 

coyote control activities), and this threat 

would not begin to manifest itself until 

approximately 2005. As coyotes 

expanded their range and numbers 

throughout North Carolina and the 

eastern United States, citizens 

(including landowners and land 

managers on the Albemarle Peninsula) 

became increasingly concerned about 

the growing coyote population and 

interested in pursuing measures to 

control them (North Carolina Wildlife 

Resources Commission 2012). 

Since approximately 2005, red wolf 

numbers within the five-county NC NEP 

have declined significantly. At present, 

in the five-county NC NEP, the birth rate 

is not sufficient to overcome the losses 

to mortality. This situation is further 

aggravated by introgression, which 

effectively reduces births of pure red 

wolves. There are now insufficient 

unrelated red wolves to replace lost 

breeders, and, therefore, the population 

cannot recover from their losses and 

overcome mortality. This has resulted in 

a steadily declining population (USFWS 

2018). Without substantial intervention, 

complete loss of the NC NEP will likely 

occur within as few as 8 years (Faust et 

al. 2016). The NC NEP could avoid 

extirpation and be viable (less than 10 

percent chance of extirpation in 125 

years) as a population with intervention 

(Faust et al. 2016; see also USFWS 

2018). 

However, based on our experience 

over the past decade and the current 

status of the species, we conclude that 

our current regulations are not 

conducive to increases in red wolf 

reproduction and survival in the NC 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
30390 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

NEP, and, in fact, the likelihood of the 

NC NEP persisting under the current 

regulations is very low. Indeed, the red 

wolf PVA indicates that under current 

management, the NC NEP is projected to 

be extirpated in as few as 8 years (Faust 

et al. 2016). The current conditions in 

the NC NEP are not favorable for red 

wolf self-sustainability and survival 

(Hinton et al. 2017a). Hinton et al. 

(2017a) concluded that ‘‘[a]lthough the 

RWAMWP was successful in limiting 

coyote introgression (Gese and Terletzky 

2015, Gese et al. 2015), it was not 

successful in providing conditions 

favorable for red wolf survival.’’ Despite 

the considerable financial, personnel, 

and logistical investment, basic 

conditions conducive to wolf 

population self-sufficiency simply have 

not been achieved. The main reasons for 

the presence of these unfavorable 

conditions include lack of authorization 

to release additional animals from the 

captive population. The current 

regulations do not authorize the release 

of animals from the captive population 

beyond the 12 specified in the original 

1986 10(j) rule (51 FR 41790; November 

19, 1986). An additional issue creating 

unfavorable conditions is anthropogenic 

mortality and subsequent population 

decline and hybridization with coyotes, 

the combination of which the 

RWAMWP was not designed to address 

(Hinton et al. 2017). The proposed 

regulations seek to address these issues 

by authorizing the release of up to five 

animals per year from the captive 

population into the NC NEP 

management area and the 

implementation of the RWAMWP. By 

providing a new framework for 

managing red wolves on the Alligator 

River National Wildlife Refuge and the 

Dare County Bombing Range, we 

anticipate having at least two packs of 

red wolves in the NC NEP management 

area. 

As noted above, the RWAMWP was 

implemented to establish a framework 

to limit hybridization between red 

wolves and coyotes, not to address 

factors affecting red wolf survival such 

as excessive anthropogenic mortality. 

Serenari et al. (2018) stated that red wolf 

recovery efforts will need to overcome 

political and logistical obstacles to 

human coexistence with red wolves. 

They analyzed data regarding human 

attitudes toward red wolf and coyote 

management in the context of Stone’s 

(2002) policy goals framework (equity, 

liberty, security, and efficiency). This 

proposed rule offers the opportunity to 

foster coexistence by increasing freedom 

of private landowners regarding 

management of canids on their lands. 

The current five-county NC NEP is the 

only area in the State requiring a permit 

for coyote hunting and a prohibition on 

nighttime coyote hunting, due to the 

presence of red wolves and the 

increased risk of mistaken identity. This 

disparate treatment of landowners in the 

five-county NC NEP raises equity issues 

that foster resentment towards the 

presence of red wolves and has limited 

access to private lands for red wolf 

managers. This resentment is one of the 

most important factors hindering the 

conservation of the red wolf. 

Implementing this proposed rule is 

expected to minimize or even eliminate 

landowner resentment toward the red 

wolf, therefore furthering the 

conservation of the species. 

Implementing this proposed rule will 

also increase local residents’ sense of 

security, as having private lands 

identified as part of a Federal 

endangered species recovery program 

has raised landowner concerns about 

potential land use restrictions, although 

no restrictions have ever been proposed 

by the Service. 

Implementing this proposed rule will 

also increase the efficiency of red wolf 

conservation efforts by focusing Service 

resources within the smaller NC NEP 

management area. This could have the 

further benefit of allowing Service 

resources to be redirected to other 

species recovery efforts, increasing 

capacity of the captive population and 

exploring additional reintroduction 

opportunities. 

Fostering coexistence between people 

and wolves is an essential element of all 

wolf conservation efforts, particularly so 

for the red wolf given that the vast 

majority of its historical range is 

comprised of private land. The extent to 

which this proposed rule fosters 

coexistence will depend on the ability 

of the Service and stakeholders to define 

policy goals related to red wolf recovery 

in terms of equity, liberty, security, and 

efficiency that balance the interests of 

those who support red wolf 

conservation and those with grave 

concerns regarding red wolf 

conservation. Red wolves in the NC NEP 

would continue to use private lands. 

Animals having genetic importance may 

be trapped and moved to either the NC 

NEP management area or captivity; 

however, most would remain on the 

landscape with their survival dependent 

on landowner tolerance and cooperation 

without regulation. It is unknown 

whether such a balance can be struck in 

eastern North Carolina or elsewhere, but 

this proposed rule seeks to find that 

balance. The Service is committed to 

investing locally in public education 

and outreach, with a goal towards local 

red wolf appreciation and peaceful 

coexistence with landowners since 

landowners will have no take 

prohibitions of red wolves on private 

lands. 

(3) What are the relative effects that 

establishment of an experimental 

population will have on the recovery of 

the red wolf? 

This proposed rule would have 

several beneficial effects that further the 

conservation of the species. First and 

foremost, it would retain a wild 

population of red wolves to exercise 

natural behaviors and adaptations to 

wild conditions. At a minimum, these 

animals would be important for 

retaining these aspects of red wolf 

behavioral ecology and serve as a wild 

stock for future reintroduction efforts. 

Second, it would enable the Service to 

focus limited resources on broader 

recovery efforts such as working with 

partners to grow the captive population 

to the established recovery goal and 

exploring additional reintroduction 

sites. Third, this proposed rule has a 

goal of furthering red wolf appreciation 

and peaceful coexistence with local 

landowners since landowners will have 

no take prohibitions of red wolves on 

private lands. If successful, this would 

be invaluable tools for red wolf recovery 

range-wide. 

The risk associated with the proposed 

action is that the very small number of 

red wolves that can be supported within 

the proposed NC NEP management area 

itself would face a continuing high risk 

of extirpation. We expect that there 

could still be some level of gunshot 

mortality, but we believe that, over time, 

if landowners adjacent to but outside 

the NC NEP management area are no 

longer regulated differently from the rest 

of the State, these circumstances would 

improve. Countering the risk of 

increased mortality outside the smaller 

NC NEP management area risk would 

require regular augmentation of the NC 

NEP with releases from the captive 

population. Absent careful management, 

such releases could have an adverse 

effect on the captive population. We 

believe this risk could be minimized or 

eliminated by carefully managing the 

captive population and increasing the 

capacity of the captive breeding 

facilities. Additionally, red wolves 

released from the captive population 

into the wild may engage in 

intraspecific strife with existing 

members of the NC NEP, which could 

upset group dynamics of established 

packs. We believe this risk can also be 

effectively managed through careful 

consideration of the number, timing, 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30391 

location, and methods of adding new 

animals to the NC NEP. 

There have been significant changes 

to the red wolf population and red wolf 

management in the NC NEP since the 

regulations were revised in 1995. As 

discussed earlier, the 1995 final rule 

was promulgated before management of 

red wolf and coyote interactions became 

a primary management consideration. 

As such, the current regulations do not 

explicitly incorporate RWAMWP 

activities. Additionally, the 1986 

regulations explicitly authorized the 

release of only 12 red wolves into the 

NC NEP, whereas many more than 12 

red wolves have been released outside 

the authorities under the current 

regulations, and evidence indicates that 

continuing additional releases are 

necessary to maintain the size and 

genetic health of the population (Faust 

et al. 2016). Further, we believe it is 

apparent that the current regulations are 

not effective in terms of fostering 

coexistence between people and red 

wolves, and that changes are needed to 

reconcile red wolf conservation with 

landowner needs and State efforts to 

manage coyotes. The current regulations 

are no longer effective in addressing the 

current and future management needs of 

the red wolf, and preclude the 

development of sound management 

strategies for this species. This proposed 

rule would explicitly authorize actions 

needed to carry out the RWAMWP, 

authorize additional releases from the 

captive population, and provide a new 

means of fostering coexistence between 

landowners and red wolves and 

cooperation among the Service, state, 

and landowners. 

(4) What is the extent to which the 

introduced population may be affected 

by existing or anticipated Federal or 

State actions or private activities within 

or adjacent to the experimental 

population area? 

In terms of the Federal lands within 

the proposed NC NEP management area, 

we anticipate that ongoing actions to 

manage red wolves would continue and 

be accompanied with additional 

measures to further the conservation of 

red wolves and their habitat (as 

appropriate in consideration of 

budgetary and other management 

considerations), including 

implementation of the RWAMWP 

within the NC NEP management area. 

Beyond the proposed NC NEP 

management area the ability of our 

partners and stakeholders to foster 

coexistence between people and red 

wolves on private land will largely 

determine the potential effects on the 

population. Potential changes from the 

State regarding lifting coyote hunting 

restrictions based on the proposed NC 

NEP management area is expected to 

decrease public dissent over red wolves, 

once landowners feel unencumbered to 

deal with coyote issues on their land. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our Interagency 

Cooperative Policy for Peer Review in 

Endangered Species Act Activities, 

which was published on July 1, 1994 

(59 FR 34270), and an August 22, 2016, 

memorandum clarifying the Service’s 

interpretation and implementation of 

that policy, we will seek the expert 

opinion of at least three appropriate, 

independent specialists regarding 

scientific data and interpretations 

contained in this proposed rule. We will 

send copies of this proposed rule to the 

peer reviewers immediately following 

publication in the Federal Register. The 

purpose of such a review is to ensure 

that our decisions are based on 

scientifically sound data, assumptions, 

and analysis. Accordingly, the final 

decision may differ from this proposal. 

Supporting Documents 

A draft environmental assessment 

(DEA) has been prepared for this action. 

The DEA and other materials relating to 

this proposal can be found on our 

website at http://www.fws.gov/Raleigh 

and at http://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2018–0035. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563) 

Executive Order 12866 provides that 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 

Management and Budget will review all 

significant rules. OIRA has determined 

that this proposed rule is not significant. 

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the 

principles of E.O. 12866 while calling 

for improvements in the nation’s 

regulatory system to promote 

predictability, to reduce uncertainty, 

and to use the best, most innovative, 

and least burdensome tools for 

achieving regulatory ends. The 

executive order directs agencies to 

consider regulatory approaches that 

reduce burdens and maintain flexibility 

and freedom of choice for the public 

where these approaches are relevant, 

feasible, and consistent with regulatory 

objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes 

further that regulations must be based 

on the best available science and that 

the rulemaking process must allow for 

public participation and an open 

exchange of ideas. We have developed 

this proposed rule in a manner 

consistent with these requirements. 

Executive Order 13771—Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

This proposed rule is not an 

Executive Order (E.O.) 13771 (82 FR 

9339, February 3, 2017) regulatory 

action because this proposed rule is not 

significant under E.O. 12866. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(as amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

(SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 60 et seq.), 

whenever a Federal agency is required 

to publish a notice of rulemaking for 

any proposed or final rule, it must 

prepare, and make available for public 

comment, a regulatory flexibility 

analysis that describes the effect of the 

rule on small entities (small businesses, 

small organizations, and small 

government jurisdictions). However, no 

regulatory flexibility analysis is required 

if the head of an agency certifies that the 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. SBREFA 

amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

to require Federal agencies to provide a 

statement of the factual basis for 

certifying that a rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. We 

are certifying that, if adopted as 

proposed, this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The following discussion explains our 

rationale. 

The area that would be affected under 

this rule includes Federal lands (NWR 

and Department of Defense) in portions 

of Dare and Hyde Counties. We do not 

expect this proposed rule would have 

significant effects on any activities 

within Federal, State, or private lands 

because of the regulatory flexibility for 

Federal agency actions provided by the 

proposed rule. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

requires that Federal agencies, in 

consultation with the Service, ensure 

that any action they authorize, fund, or 

carry out is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of an endangered or 

threatened species or adversely modify 

its critical habitat. For the purposes of 

section 7(a)(2) of the Act, we treat an 

NEP as a threatened species only when 

the NEP is located within a National 

Wildlife Refuge or unit of the National 

Park Service. Under this proposed rule, 

this means intra-agency consultation 

would be required for activities on the 

Alligator River NWR. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
30392 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

When members of a NEP are located 

outside a National Wildlife Refuge or 

National Park Service unit (in this case, 

on Dare County Bombing Range), then, 

for the purposes of section 7, they are 

treated as species proposed for listing, 

not as threatened species. This means 

section 7(a)(2) does not apply. Instead, 

section 7(a)(4) applies. This provides 

the Service with additional flexibility 

because under section 7(a)(4), Federal 

agencies are only required to confer 

(rather than consult) with the Service on 

actions that are likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of a species 

proposed to be listed. Additionally, 

section 7(a)(4) conference only results in 

nonbinding recommendations that are 

optional to the agencies carrying out, 

funding, or authorizing the action at 

issue. Applying this framework to the 

proposed rule, section 7(a)(2) 

consultation would not be required for 

actions that occur outside of Alligator 

River NWR (i.e., on Dare County 

Bombing Range). Additionally, the 

experimental population of red wolves 

being proposed in this rule has been 

determined to be ‘‘nonessential’’; that 

means the NEP is, by definition, not 

essential to the survival of the species. 

As a result, no action affecting the NEP 

could be likely to jeopardize the species 

under section 7(a)(4) of the Act. 

Therefore, some modifications to 

proposed Federal actions within 

Alligator River NWR and Dare County 

Bombing Range may occur to benefit the 

red wolf, but we do not expect projects 

to be substantially modified because 

these lands are already being 

administered in a manner that is 

compatible with the existing red wolf 

NC NEP. 

This proposed rule would authorize 

all forms of take of red wolves outside 

of the NEP management area except on 

Federal Lands and prescribe the forms 

of incidental take within the NC NEP 

management area, as described below. 

The regulations implementing the Act 

define ‘‘incidental take’’ as take that is 

incidental to, and not the purpose of, 

the carrying out of an otherwise lawful 

activity such as, agricultural activities 

and other rural development, camping, 

hiking, hunting, vehicle use of roads 

and highways, and other activities in 

the NC NEP management area that are 

in accordance with applicable laws and 

regulations. Intentional take for 

purposes other than authorized data 

collection or recovery purposes would 

not be authorized. Intentional take for 

research or recovery purposes would 

require a section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery 

permit under the Act. 

The principal activities on private 

property near the NC NEP management 

area are timber production, agriculture, 

outdoor recreation, and activities 

associated with private residences. We 

believe the presence of the red wolf will 

not affect the use of lands for these 

purposes because there will be no new 

or additional economic or regulatory 

restrictions imposed upon States, nonFederal entities, or private landowners 

due to the presence of the red wolf, and 

Federal agencies would have to comply 

with section 7(a)(4) of the Act only in 

areas outside Alligator River NWR lands 

(i.e., Dare County Bombing Range). 

Therefore, this proposed rule is not 

expected to have any significant adverse 

impacts to activities on private lands. In 

fact, the proposed rule would represent 

a substantial increase in regulatory 

flexibility on non-Federal lands due to 

the proposed changes in the regulation 

of take of red wolves outside the NC 

NEP management area. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.): 

(1) This rule would not ‘‘significantly 

or uniquely’’ affect small governments. 

We have determined and certify under 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 

U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this rulemaking 

would not impose a cost of $100 million 

or more in any given year on local or 

State governments or private entities. A 

Small Government Agency Plan is not 

required. As explained above, small 

governments would not be affected 

because the NEP designation would not 

place additional requirements on any 

city, county, or other local 

municipalities. 

(2) This rule would not produce a 

Federal mandate of $100 million or 

greater in any year (i.e., it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act). 

The NEP area designation for the red 

wolves would not impose any 

additional management or protection 

requirements on the States or other 

entities. 

Takings (E.O. 12630) 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12630, the rule does not have significant 

takings implications. This proposed rule 

would allow for the take of reintroduced 

red wolves when such take is incidental 

to an otherwise legal activity, in 

accordance with Federal, State, and 

local laws and regulations. Therefore, 

we do not believe that the NC NEP 

would conflict with existing or 

proposed human activities. 

A takings implication assessment is 

not required because this rule (1) would 

not effectively compel a property owner 

to suffer a physical invasion of property, 

and (2) would not deny all economically 

beneficial or productive use of the land 

or aquatic resources. If adopted as 

proposed, this rule would substantially 

advance a legitimate government 

interest (conservation and recovery of a 

listed species) and would not present a 

barrier to all reasonable and expected 

beneficial use of private property. 

Federalism (E.O. 13132) 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132, we have considered whether this 

rule has significant Federalism effects 

and have determined that a federalism 

summary impact statement is not 

required. This rule would not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the Federal 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. In keeping with 

Department of the Interior policy, we 

requested information from and 

coordinated development of this 

proposed rule with the affected resource 

agencies in North Carolina. Achieving 

the recovery goals for this species will 

contribute to its eventual delisting and 

its return to State management. No 

intrusion on State policy or 

administration is expected; roles or 

responsibilities of Federal or State 

governments would not change; and 

fiscal capacity would not be 

substantially directly affected. The 

proposed rule maintains the existing 

relationship between the State and the 

Federal Government, and is undertaken 

in coordination with the State of North 

Carolina. Therefore, this proposed rule 

does not have significant Federalism 

effects or implications to warrant the 

preparation of a federalism summary 

impact statement under the provisions 

of Executive Order 13132. 

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12988, the Office of the Solicitor has 

determined that this rule will not 

unduly burden the judicial system and 

meets the requirements of sections (3)(a) 

and (3)(b)(2) of the Order. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not contain any new 

collection of information that require 

approval by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). OMB has previously approved 

the information collection requirements 

associated with endangered and 

threatened wildlife—experimental 

populations (50 CR 17.84) and assigned 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30393 

OMB Control Number 1018–0095 

(expires 12/31/2020). We estimate the 

annual burden associated with this 

information collection to be 52.5. An 

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and 

a person is not required to respond to, 

a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To ensure that we consider the 

environmental impacts associated with 

this proposed rule, we have prepared a 

DEA pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). In May 2017, we 

published an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking and notice of 

intent to prepare a NEPA document (82 

FR 23518; May 23, 2017). This initiated 

a public scoping process that included 

a request for written comments and two 

public scoping meetings in June 2017. 

We have incorporated information 

collected since that scoping process 

began in the development of a DEA. We 

will use information from this analysis 

to inform our final decision. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the presidential 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951; May 4, 

1994), Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 

67249; November 9, 2000), and the 

Department of the Interior Manual 

Chapter 512 DM 2, we have considered 

possible effects on federally recognized 

Indian tribes and have determined that 

there are no tribal lands affected by this 

proposed rule. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

(E.O. 13211) 

Executive Order 13211 requires 

agencies to prepare Statements of 

Energy Effects when undertaking certain 

actions. This proposed rule is not 

expected to significantly affect energy 

supplies, distribution, or use. Because 

this action is not a significant energy 

action, no Statement of Energy Effects is 

required. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this proposed rule is available at 

http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 

No. FWS–R4–ES–2018–0035 or upon 

request from the Raleigh Ecological 

Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are staff members of the Service’s 

Southeast Region. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by revising the 

entry for ‘‘Wolf, red’’ under MAMMALS 

in the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife to read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and applicable rules 

MAMMALS

* * * * * * * 

Wolf, red ................ Canis rufus ........... Wherever found, except where 

listed as an experimental 

population.

E 32 FR 4001, 3/11/1967; 51 FR 41790, 11/19/1986; 56 FR 

56325, 11/4/1991; 60 FR 18941, 4/13/1995. 

Wolf, red ................ Canis rufus ........... U.S.A. (portions of NC—see 

§ 17.84(c)(4)).

XN 51 FR 41790, 11/19/1986; 56 FR 56325, 11/4/1991; 60 

FR 18941, 4/13/1995; [Federal Register citation of the 

final rule]; 50 CFR 17.84(c)10j. 

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 17.84 by revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 17.84 Special rules—vertebrates. 

* * * * * 

(c) Red wolf (Canis rufus). 

(1) Purpose. The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service) finds it 

necessary to establish regulations 

governing management of the 

experimental population of red wolves 

to further the conservation of the red 

wolf. 

(2) Determinations. (i) The red wolf 

population established in the designated 

area identified in paragraph (c)(4) of this 

section is a nonessential experimental 

population under § 17.81(c)(2) and is 

referred to as the North Carolina 

nonessential experimental population 

(NC NEP). This nonessential 

experimental population will be 

managed according to the provisions of 

this paragraph. The Service does not 

intend to change the nonessential 

experimental designation to essential 

experimental. Critical habitat cannot be 

designated under the nonessential 

experimental classification (16 U.S.C. 

1539(j)(2)(C)(ii)). 

(ii) The designated experimental 

population area the NC NEP is within 

the species’ probable historical range. 

The red wolf is otherwise extirpated in 

the wild, and, therefore, this 

experimental population is wholly 

separate from any other known red 

wolves. 

(3) Definitions. Key terms used in this 

paragraph have the following 

definitions: 

(i) Depredation means the confirmed 

killing or wounding of lawfully present 

domestic animals by one or more red 

wolves. The Service or other Servicedesignated agencies will confirm cases 

of red wolf depredation. 

(ii) Designated agency means a 

Federal, State, tribal or private agency or 

entity designated by the Service to assist 

in implementing this paragraph, all or 

in part, consistent with a Serviceapproved management measure, 

conference opinion pursuant to section 

7(a)(4) of the Act, cooperative agreement 

pursuant to section 6(c) of the Act as 

described in § 17.31 for State 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
30394 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

conservation agencies with authority to 

manage red wolves, or a valid permit 

issued by the Service through § 17.32. 

(iii) Domestic animal means livestock, 

defined at paragraph (c)(3)(ix) of this 

section; pets; and non-feral dogs. 

(iv) Federal land means public land 

under the administration of Federal 

agencies including, but not limited to, 

the Service, Department of Defense, 

National Park Service, or U.S. Forest 

Service. 

(v) Feral dog means any dog (Canis 

familiaris) or wolf-dog hybrid that, 

because of absence of physical restraint 

or conspicuous means of identifying it 

at a distance as non-feral, is reasonably 

thought to range freely without 

discernible, proximate control by any 

person. Feral dogs do not include 

domestic dogs that are penned, leased, 

or otherwise restrained (e.g., by shock 

collar) or which are working livestock or 

being lawfully used to trail or locate 

wildlife. 

(vi) Harass means intentional or 

negligent actions or omissions that 

create the likelihood of injury to 

wildlife by annoying it to such an extent 

as to significantly disrupt normal 

behavioral patterns, which include, but 

are not limited to, breeding, feeding or 

sheltering. 

(vii) Intentional harassment means 

deliberate, pre-planned harassment of 

red wolves, including by less-thanlethal means (such as 12-gauge shotgun 

rubber bullets and bean-bag shells) 

designed to cause physical discomfort 

and possible temporary physical injury, 

but not death. Intentional harassment 

includes situations where red wolves 

may have been unintentionally 

attracted—or intentionally tracked, 

waited for, chased, or searched out— 

and then harassed. 

(viii) Livestock means cattle, goats, 

sheep, horses or other domestic animals 

defined as livestock in Service-approved 

State management plans. Poultry is not 

considered livestock under this 

paragraph. 

(ix) Non-Federal land means any 

lands not owned by the Federal 

government. 

(x) Opportunistic harassment means 

scaring any red wolf from the immediate 

area by taking actions such as 

discharging firearms or other projectilelaunching devices in proximity to, but 

not in the direction of, the wolf; 

throwing objects at the wolf; or making 

loud noise in proximity to the wolf. 

Such harassment might cause 

temporary, non-debilitating physical 

injury, but is not reasonably anticipated 

to cause permanent physical injury or 

death. 

(xi) Problem red wolves means red 

wolves that, for purposes of 

management and control by the Service 

or its designated agency, are: 

(A) Individuals or members of a group 

or pack (including adults, yearlings, and 

pups greater than 4 months of age) that 

were involved in a depredation on 

lawfully present domestic animals; 

(B) Habituated to humans, human 

residences, or other facilities largely 

occupied by humans; or 

(C) Aggressive towards humans when 

unprovoked. 

(xii) Service-approved management 

plan means a management plan 

approved by the Regional Director or 

Director of the Service through which 

Federal, State, or tribal agencies may 

become a designated agency. The 

management plan must address how red 

wolves will be managed to achieve 

conservation goals in compliance with 

the Act, these regulations, and other 

Service policies. If a Federal, State, 

tribal or private agency becomes a 

designated agency through a Serviceapproved management plan, the Service 

will help coordinate activities while 

retaining authority for program 

direction, oversight, guidance and 

authorization for red wolf removals. 

(xiii) Take means to harass, harm, 

pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 

capture, or collect, or to attempt to 

engage in any such conduct (16 U.S.C. 

1532(19)). 

(xiv) Translocation means the release 

of red wolves back into the wild that 

have previously been in the wild. 

(xv) Unintentional take means the 

take of a red wolf by a person if the take 

is unintentional and occurs while 

engaging in an otherwise lawful activity, 

occurs despite the use of due care, is 

coincidental to an otherwise lawful 

activity, and is not done on purpose. 

Taking of a red wolf by poisoning or 

shooting within the NC NEP 

management area will not be considered 

unintentional take. 

(xvi) Wounded means exhibiting 

scraped or torn hide or flesh, bleeding, 

or other evidence of physical damage 

caused by a red wolf bite. 

(4) Designated area. The boundaries 

of the NC NEP management area 

correspond to all lands within the 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

and the Dare County Bombing Range. 

All red wolves in the wild are 

considered part of the NC NEP. Red 

wolves that disperse outside the 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

and the Dare County Bombing Range 

will be managed according to the 

measures set forth in this paragraph for 

red wolves outside the NC NEP 

management area. 

(5) Prohibitions. Take of any red wolf 

in the NC NEP management area is 

prohibited, except as provided at 

paragraph (c)(7) of this section. 

Additionally, the following actions are 

prohibited: 

(i) This paragraph does not alter or 

supersede the rules governing the take 

of wildlife on units of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. In accordance 

with 50 CFR 27.21, no person shall take 

any animal or plant on any national 

wildlife refuge, except as authorized 

under 50 CFR 27.51 and 50 CFR parts 

31, 32, and 33. 

(ii) No person may possess, sell, 

deliver, carry, transport, ship, import, or 

export by any means whatsoever any 

red wolf or wolf part except as 

authorized in this paragraph or by a 

valid permit issued by the Service under 

§ 17.32. If a person kills or injures a red 

wolf or finds a dead or injured red wolf 

or red wolf parts within the NC NEP 

management area, the person must not 

disturb them (unless instructed to do so 

by the Service or a designated agency), 

must minimize disturbance of the area 

around the carcass, and must report the 

incident to the Eastern North Carolina 

Ecological Services Field Sub-Office in 

accordance with paragraph (c)(6) of this 

section. 

(iii) Purposely taking a red wolf with 

a trap, snare, or other type of capture 

device within the NC NEP management 

area is prohibited (except as authorized 

in paragraph (c)(7) of this section) and 

will not be considered unintentional 

take. 

(6) Reporting requirements. Unless 

otherwise specified in this paragraph or 

in a permit, any take of a red wolf must 

be reported to the Service or a 

designated agency within 24 hours. 

Report any take of red wolves, including 

opportunistic harassment, to the Service 

either by U.S. mail at Eastern North 

Carolina Ecological Services Field SubOffice, 100 Conservation Way, Manteo, 

NC 27954; or by telephone at (252) 473– 

1132. Additional contact information 

can also be found on the Red Wolf 

Recovery Program’s website at https://

www.fws.gov/southeast/wildlife/ 

mammal/red-wolf/. Unless otherwise 

specified in a permit, any red wolf or 

red wolf part taken legally must be 

turned over to the Service, which will 

determine the disposition of any live or 

dead red wolves. 

(7) Allowable forms of take of red 

wolves within the NC NEP Management 

Area. Take of red wolves in the NC NEP 

management area is allowed as follows: 

(i) Take in defense of human life. 

Under 16 U.S.C. 1540(a)(3) and 

§ 17.21(c)(2), any person may take 

(which includes killing as well as 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30395 

nonlethal actions such as harassing or 

harming) a red wolf in self-defense or 

defense of the lives of others. This take 

must be reported in accordance with 

paragraph (c)(6) of this section. If the 

Service or a designated agency 

determines that a red wolf presents a 

threat to human life or safety, the 

Service or the designated agency may 

kill the red wolf or place it in captivity. 

(ii) Take for research purposes. The 

Service may issue permits under 

§ 17.32, and designated agencies may 

issue permits under State and Federal 

laws and regulations, for individuals to 

take red wolves pursuant to scientific 

study proposals approved by the agency 

or agencies with jurisdiction for red 

wolves and for the area in which the 

study will occur. Such take should lead 

to management recommendations for, 

and thus provide for the conservation 

of, the red wolf. 

(iii) Unintentional take. (A) Take of a 

red wolf within the NC NEP 

management area by any person is 

allowed if the take is unintentional take 

and occurs while engaging in an 

otherwise lawful activity such as while 

driving the speed limit. Such take must 

be reported in accordance with 

paragraph (c)(6) of this section. 

Permitted hunters hunting on the refuge 

have the responsibility to identify their 

quarry or target before shooting; 

therefore, shooting a red wolf as a result 

of mistaking it for another species will 

not be considered unintentional take. 

(B) Federal or State agency employees 

or their contractors may take a red wolf 

or wolf-like animal if the take is 

unintentional and occurs while 

engaging in the course of their official 

duties. This includes, but is not limited 

to, military training and testing. Take of 

red wolves by Federal or State agencies 

must be reported in accordance with 

paragraph (c)(6) of this section. 

(C) Take of red wolves by U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service, 

Wildlife Services (USDA–APHIS–WS) 

employees while conducting official 

duties associated with wildlife damage 

management activities for species other 

than red wolves may be considered 

unintentional if it is coincidental to a 

legal activity and the USDA–APHIS–WS 

employees have adhered to all 

applicable USDA–APHIS–WS policies, 

red wolf standard operating procedures, 

and reasonable and prudent measures or 

recommendations contained in USDA– 

APHIS–WS biological and conference 

opinions. 

(8) Allowable forms of take of red 

wolves outside the NC NEP Management 

Area. On non-Federal lands anywhere 

outside the NC NEP management area, 

there are no prohibitions on the take of 

red wolves. Reporting take to the 

Service is encouraged. If the animal 

taken has a telemetry collar, said collar 

is the property of the Service or the 

NCWRC and must be returned. While 

there are no take prohibitions outside of 

the NC NEP management area, the 

prohibition on possessing, selling, 

delivering, carrying, transporting, 

shipping, importing, or exporting red 

wolves or red wolf parts set forth at 

paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this section 

applies to red wolves taken outside the 

NC NEP management area. 

(9) Take by Service personnel or a 

designated agency. The Service or a 

designated agency may take any red 

wolf in a manner consistent with a 

Service-approved management plan, 

biological opinion pursuant to section 

7(a)(2) of the Act, conference opinion 

pursuant to section 7(a)(4) of the Act, 

cooperative agreement pursuant to 

section 6(c) of the Act as described at 

§ 17.31 for North Carolina Wildlife 

Resources Commission, or a valid 

permit issued by the Service through 

§ 17.32. 

(A) The Service or designated agency 

may use leg-hold traps and any other 

effective device or method for capturing 

or killing red wolves to carry out any 

measure that is a part of a Serviceapproved management plan or valid 

permit issued by the Service under 

§ 17.32. The disposition of all red 

wolves (live or dead) or their parts taken 

as part of a Service-approved 

management activity must follow 

provisions in Service-approved 

management plans or interagency 

agreements or procedures approved by 

the Service on a case-by-case basis. 

(B) The Service or designated agency 

may capture, kill, subject to genetic 

testing, place in captivity, or euthanize 

any wolf hybrid found within the NC 

NEP that shows physical or behavioral 

evidence of hybridization with other 

canids, such as domestic dogs or 

coyotes; that was raised in captivity, 

other than as part of a Service-approved 

red wolf recovery program; or that has 

been socialized or habituated to 

humans. If determined to be a red wolf, 

the wolf may be returned to the wild onsite, released within the NC NEP 

management area or put in captivity. 

(C) To manage any wolves determined 

to be problem red wolves, as defined at 

paragraph (c)(3)(xii) of this section, the 

Service or designated agency may carry 

out intentional or opportunistic 

harassment, nonlethal control measures, 

capture, sterilization, translocation, 

placement in captivity, or lethal control. 

To determine the presence of problem 

red wolves, the Service will consider all 

of the following: 

(1) Evidence of wounded domestic 

animal(s) or remains of domestic 

animal(s) that show that the injury or 

death was caused by red wolves; 

(2) The likelihood that additional red 

wolf-caused depredations or attacks of 

domestic animals may occur if no 

harassment, nonlethal control, 

translocation, placement in captivity, or 

lethal control is taken; 

(3) Evidence of attractants or 

intentional feeding (baiting) of red 

wolves; and 

(4) Evidence that red wolves are 

habituated to humans, human 

residences, or other facilities regularly 

occupied by humans, or evidence that 

red wolves have exhibited unprovoked 

and aggressive behavior toward humans. 

(10) Management. (i) Within the NC 

NEP management area, the Service or 

designated agencies or partners will 

develop and implement a plan for the 

adaptive management of red wolves. 

This plan will include all actions 

needed to implement the Red Wolf 

Adaptive Management Work Plan 

including, but not limited to: Release of 

up to five animals per year from the 

captive population or the St. Vincent 

NWR propagation site into the NC NEP; 

deployment of placeholder animals; 

movement of animals within the NC 

NEP; trapping, handling, and 

monitoring members of the NC NEP 

population; and moving animals from 

the NC NEP into captivity as needed. 

Any updates to the adaptive 

management plan will be made public. 

(ii) The Service may develop and 

implement other management actions to 

benefit red wolf recovery in cooperation 

with the North Carolina Wildlife 

Resources Commission, willing private 

landowners, and other stakeholders. 

Such actions may include actions 

identified in biological opinions 

pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act, 

conference opinions pursuant to section 

7(a)(4) of the Act, cooperative 

agreements pursuant to section 6(c) of 

the Act as described in § 17.31 for North 

Carolina Wildlife Resources 

Commission, or a valid permit issued by 

the Service through § 17.32. 

(11) Evaluation. The Service will 

evaluate the effectiveness of these 

regulations at furthering the 

conservation of the red wolf. At 5-year 

intervals concurrent with the species’ 5 

year reviews, the Service will evaluate 

the experimental population program, 

focusing on modifications needed to 

improve the efficacy of these 

regulations, and the contribution the 

experimental population is making to 

the conservation of the red wolf. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
30396 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Evaluation will be based on explicit 

objective and measurable criteria that 

encompass relevant scientific, 

management, human-dimension, and 

available resources considerations. 

* * * * * 

Dated: June 15, 2018. 

James W. Kurth, 

Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Exercising the Authority of the 

Director for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13906 Filed 6–27–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1