Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Replacement of the Regulations for the Nonessential Experimental Population of Red Wolves in Northeastern North Carolina, 30382-30396 [2018-13906]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 125 (Thursday, June 28, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30382-30396]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13906]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-0035 and on our 
website at https://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 https://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: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2018-0035, 
which is

[[Page 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 https://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 Sec.  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;

[[Page 30384]]

    (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 https://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 
https://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

[[Page 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, non-governmental 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 
https://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

[[Page 30386]]

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

[[Page 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 https://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 captive-
breeding 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 https://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

[[Page 30388]]

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 non-
experimental 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.

[[Page 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 mid-1970s. 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 https://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

[[Page 30390]]

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,

[[Page 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 https://www.fws.gov/Raleigh and at https://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.

[[Page 30392]]

    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, non-Federal 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

[[Page 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 https://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

0
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.

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h) by revising the entry for ``Wolf, red'' under 
MAMMALS in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to read as 
follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Listing citations and
        Common name                Scientific name          Where listed        Status       applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Mammals
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Wolf, red..................  Canis rufus...............  Wherever found,     E            32 FR 4001, 3/11/1967;
                                                          except where                     51 FR 41790, 11/19/
                                                          listed as an                     1986; 56 FR 56325, 11/
                                                          experimental                     4/1991; 60 FR 18941,
                                                          population.                      4/13/1995.
Wolf, red..................  Canis rufus...............  U.S.A. (portions    XN           51 FR 41790, 11/19/
                                                          of NC--see Sec.                  1986; 56 FR 56325, 11/
                                                          17.84(c)(4)).                    4/1991; 60 FR 18941,
                                                                                           4/13/1995; [Federal
                                                                                           Register citation of
                                                                                           the final rule]; 50
                                                                                           CFR 17.84(c)10j.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Amend Sec.  17.84 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Service-designated 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 Service-approved 
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 Sec.  17.31 for State

[[Page 30394]]

conservation agencies with authority to manage red wolves, or a valid 
permit issued by the Service through Sec.  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-than-lethal 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 
projectile-launching 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 Service-approved 
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 Sec.  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 Sub-
Office, 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 
Sec.  17.21(c)(2), any person may take (which includes killing as well 
as

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  17.31 for North Carolina Wildlife 
Resources Commission, or a valid permit issued by the Service through 
Sec.  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 Service-approved management 
plan or valid permit issued by the Service under Sec.  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 on-site, 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 Sec.  17.31 for North 
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, or a valid permit issued by the 
Service through Sec.  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.

[[Page 30396]]

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