Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revision of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Black-Footed Ferrets (Mustela nigripes) in the Southwest, 69045-69073 [2023-21978]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
69045
Figure 1 to § 803.1
[Amended]
3. Amend § 803.3 by:
a. In paragraph (a), removing
‘‘Director, Office of Administration’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘Chief Human
Capital Officer’’; and
■ b. In paragraph (b), removing
‘‘Director, Office of Administration’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘Chief Human
Capital Officer’’.
■
■
§ 803.5
[Amended]
4. Amend § 803.5, in paragraph (c), by
removing ‘‘Director, Office of
Administration’’ and ‘‘20594–003’’ and
adding in their place ‘‘Chief Human
Capital Officer’’ and ‘‘20594’’,
respectively.
■
William T. McMurry, Jr.,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2023–22193 Filed 10–4–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7533–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2020–0123;
FXES11130200000–223–FF02ENEH00]
RIN 1018–BD61
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Revision of a Nonessential
Experimental Population of BlackFooted Ferrets (Mustela nigripes) in
the Southwest
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), are revising
the regulations for the nonessential
experimental population of the blackfooted ferret (Mustela nigripes; ferret) in
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Oct 04, 2023
Jkt 262001
Arizona. We established the Aubrey
Valley Experimental Population Area
(AVEPA) in 1996 in accordance with
section 10(j) of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). This
rule allows the introduction of ferrets
across a larger landscape as part of a
nonessential experimental population
and includes the AVEPA within a larger
‘‘Southwest Experimental Population
Area’’ (SWEPA), which includes parts of
Arizona and identified contiguous
Tribal lands in New Mexico and Utah.
This revision provides a framework for
establishing and managing reintroduced
populations of ferrets that will allow
greater management flexibility and
increased landowner and manager
cooperation. The best available data
indicate that additional reintroductions
of the ferret into more widely
distributed habitat in the SWEPA is
feasible and will promote the
conservation of the species.
DATES: This rule is effective November
6, 2023.
ADDRESSES: This final rule, an
environmental assessment (EA), and a
finding of no significant impact (FONSI)
are available at the following website:
https://www.regulations.gov in Docket
No. FWS–R2–ES–2020–0123. Comments
and materials received, as well as
supporting documentation used in the
preparation of this rule, will also be
available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business
hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Arizona Ecological Services Field
Office, 2500 South Pine Knoll Drive,
Flagstaff, AZ 86001; telephone 928–
556–2001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Heather Whitlaw, Field Supervisor,
Phone: 602–242–0210. Direct all
questions or requests for additional
information to: BLACK-FOOTED
FERRET QUESTIONS, U.S. Fish and
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological
Services Office, 9828 North 31st
Avenue, Suite C3, Phoenix, AZ 85051.
Individuals in the United States who are
deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have
a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY,
TDD, or TeleBraille) to access
telecommunications relay services.
Individuals outside the United States
should use the relay services offered
within their country to make
international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes;
ferrets), medium-sized members of the
weasel family (Mustelidae), are
carnivorous, extremely specialized
predators that are highly dependent on
prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.) for food
and shelter (Hillman 1968, p. 438;
Sheets et al. 1972, entire; Campbell et al.
1987, entire; Forrest et al. 1988, p. 261;
Biggins 2006, p. 3). Because ferrets are
dependent on prairie dogs in this way,
occupied prairie dog habitat is
considered synonymous with ferret
habitat (USFWS 2019, pp. 5–6). The
USFWS listed the ferret as an
endangered species in 1967 under the
Endangered Species Preservation Act of
1966, which was the predecessor to the
current Endangered Species Act (ESA;
16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (32 FR 4001,
March 11, 1967). With the passage of the
ESA, we incorporated the ferret into the
Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife under the ESA, found at 50
CFR 17.11 (39 FR 1175, January 4,
1974).
The 1982 amendments to the ESA
included the addition of section 10(j),
which allows for the designation of
reintroduced populations of listed
species as ‘‘experimental populations.’’
Our implementing regulations for
section 10(j) of the ESA are in 50 CFR
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
ER05OC23.064
§ 803.3
69046
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
17.81. These regulations state that the
USFWS may designate as an
experimental population a population of
endangered or threatened species that
we will release into habitat that is
capable of supporting the experimental
population outside the species’ current
range. Hereafter in this document, we
refer to a species-specific rule issued
under section 10(j) of the ESA as a ‘‘10(j)
rule.’’
This Rulemaking Action
On June 25, 2021, we published a
proposed rule to expand the existing
Aubrey Valley Experimental Population
Area (AVEPA) to encompass a larger
area, the ‘‘Southwest Experimental
Population Area’’ (SWEPA), which
includes parts of Arizona and identified
contiguous Tribal lands in New Mexico
and Utah (86 FR 33613). The proposed
rule provided a framework for
establishing and managing reintroduced
populations of ferrets in this area that
will allow for greater management
flexibility and increased landowner
cooperation. The best available data
indicate that additional reintroductions
of the ferrets into more widely
distributed habitat in the proposed
SWEPA is feasible and will promote the
conservation of the species.
We sought comments on the proposed
rule and on a draft environmental
assessment of the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed
rule until August 24, 2021. We received
20 comment submissions by that date.
In accordance with our joint policy on
peer review published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270,
July 1, 1994), and our August 22, 2016,
memorandum updating and clarifying
the role of peer review, we also sought
the expert opinion of six appropriate
independent specialists regarding the
scientific data and interpretations
contained in the proposed rule. The
purpose of such peer review is to ensure
that we base our decisions on
scientifically sound data, assumptions,
and analyses. This final rule
incorporates, and addresses comments
received during the public comment
and peer review processes.
Under 50 CFR 17.81(b), before
authorizing the release as an
experimental population of any
population of an endangered or
threatened species, the USFWS must
find by regulation that such release will
further the conservation of the species.
In making such a finding, the USFWS
shall use 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Oct 04, 2023
Jkt 262001
propagules for introduction elsewhere
(see ‘‘Possible Adverse Effects on Wild
and Captive-Breeding Populations’’
below);
(2) The likelihood that any such
experimental population will become
established and survive in the
foreseeable future (see ‘‘Likelihood of
Population Establishment and Survival’’
below);
(3) The relative effects that
establishment of an experimental
population will have on the recovery of
the species (see ‘‘Effects of the SWEPA
on Recovery Efforts for the Species’’
below);
(4) The extent to which the
introduced population may be affected
by existing or anticipated Federal,
Tribal, or State actions or private
activities within or adjacent to the
experimental population area (see
‘‘Actions and Activities that May Affect
the Introduced Population’’ below); and
(5) When an experimental population
is being established outside of its
historical range, any possible adverse
effects to the ecosystem that may result
from the experimental population being
established.
Furthermore, under 50 CFR 17.81(c),
any regulation designating experimental
populations under section 10(j) of the
ESA shall 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) (see
‘‘Identifying the Location and
Boundaries of the SWEPA’’ below);
(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 (see ‘‘Is the Experimental
Population Essential or Nonessential?’’
below);
(3) Management restrictions,
protective measures, or other special
management concerns of that
population, which may include but are
not limited to, measures to isolate,
remove, and/or contain the
experimental population designated in
the regulation from nonexperimental
populations (see ‘‘Management
Restrictions, Protective Measures, and
Other Special Management’’ below);
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
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
species (see ‘‘Review and Evaluation of
the Success or Failure of the SWEPA’’
below).
Under 50 CFR 17.81(e), the USFWS
consults with appropriate State fish and
wildlife agencies, affected Tribal
governments, local governmental
entities, affected Federal agencies, and
affected private landowners in
developing and implementing
experimental population rules. To the
maximum extent practicable, 10(j) rules
represent an agreement between the
USFWS, affected Tribal governments,
State and Federal agencies, local
governments, and persons holding any
interest in land or water that may be
affected by the establishment of an
experimental population.
Under 50 CFR 17.81(f), the Secretary
may designate critical habitat as defined
in section 3(5)(A) of the ESA for an
essential experimental population. The
Secretary will not designate critical
habitat for nonessential populations.
The term essential experimental
population means an experimental
population the loss of which would be
likely to appreciably reduce the
likelihood of the survival of the species
in the wild. We classify all other
experimental populations as
nonessential (50 CFR 17.80).
Under 50 CFR 17.82, we treat any
population determined by the Secretary
to be an experimental population as if
we had listed it as a threatened species
for the purposes of establishing
protective regulations with respect to
that population. The protective
regulations adopted for an experimental
population will contain applicable
prohibitions, as appropriate, and
exceptions for that population, allowing
us discretion in devising management
programs to provide for the
conservation of the species.
Under 50 CFR 17.83(a), for the
purposes of section 7 of the ESA, we
treat nonessential experimental
populations as threatened when located
in a National Wildlife Refuge or unit of
the National Park Service (NPS), and
Federal agencies follow conservation
and consultation requirements per
paragraphs 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the
ESA, respectively. We treat nonessential
experimental populations outside of a
National Wildlife Refuge or NPS unit as
species proposed for listing, and Federal
agencies follow the provisions of
paragraphs 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(4) of the
ESA. In these cases, nonessential
experimental population designation
provides additional flexibility, because
it does not require Federal agencies to
consult under section 7(a)(2). Instead,
section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies
to confer (not consult) with the USFWS
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
on actions that are likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of a species
proposed to be listed. A conference
results in conservation
recommendations, which are
discretionary. Because the nonessential
experimental population is, by
definition, not essential to the
continued existence of the species in the
wild, the effects of proposed actions on
the population will generally not rise to
the level of ‘‘jeopardy.’’ As a result,
Federal agencies will likely never
request a formal conference for actions
that may affect ferrets established in the
SWEPA. Nonetheless, some Federal
agencies voluntarily confer with the
USFWS on actions that may affect a
species proposed for listing.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Legal Status
We listed the ferret as an endangered
species in 1967 under the Endangered
Species Preservation Act of 1966 (32 FR
4001, March 11, 1967). We later codified
this list in part 17 of title 50 in the U.S.
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (35
FR 16047, October 13, 1970). With the
passage of the ESA in 1973 (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), we incorporated those
species previously listed in the CFR into
the Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants under the ESA,
found at 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12 (39 FR
1175, January 4, 1974).
In 1996, we designated the population
of ferrets established via reintroduction
in Aubrey Valley as a nonessential
experimental population (61 FR 11320,
March 20, 1996). The AVEPA includes
parts of Coconino, Mohave, and Yavapai
Counties in northwestern Arizona. At
the time of its designation, the AVEPA
consisted of 22 percent State lands, 45
percent lands of the Hualapai Tribal
Nation, and 33 percent deeded lands
owned by the Navajo Nation.
We treated ferrets as an endangered
species outside the AVEPA, and the
provisions and exceptions of the
experimental population designation
did not apply. In 2013, the USFWS
developed a rangewide programmatic
Safe Harbor Agreement (SHA) to
encourage non-Federal landowners to
voluntarily undertake conservation
activities on their properties to benefit
the ferret (USFWS 2013b, entire) (see
‘‘Historical Range’’ below). Through
certificates of inclusion, we enrolled
willing landowners in our SHA through
enhancement of survival permits issued
under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA.
Through the SHA, incidental take of
ferrets outside of the AVEPA by
participating landowners and
nonparticipating neighboring
landowners was permissible.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Oct 04, 2023
Jkt 262001
Under state law, general provisions of
Arizona Revised Statutes, title 17,
protect all of Arizona’s native wildlife,
including federally listed threatened
and endangered species. Under Navajo
Nation law, it is unlawful for any person
to take ferrets. All wildlife on the Hopi
Reservation is the property of the Hopi
Tribe, and Hopi Tribal law provides for
take (see ‘‘Management Restrictions,
Protective Measures, and Other Special
Management’’ below, for more
information on State and Tribal legal
status).
Biological Information
Species Description
The ferret is a medium-sized member
of the weasel family (Mustelidae)
weighing approximately 1.4 to 2.5
pounds (645 to 1125 grams) and
measuring approximately 19 to 24
inches (480 to 600 millimeters) in total
length. Its body color includes
yellowish-buff, occasionally whitish,
upper parts, and black feet, tail tip, and
‘‘mask’’ across the eyes (Hillman and
Clark 1980, p. 1; Anderson et al. 1986,
pp. 15–16).
Ecology/Habitat Use/Movement
Ferrets are carnivorous, extremely
specialized predators highly dependent
on prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.) (Hillman
1968, p. 438; Biggins 2006, p. 3). Ferrets
prey predominantly on prairie dogs
(Sheets et al. 1972, entire; Campbell et
al. 1987, entire), occupy prairie dog
burrows, and do not dig their own
burrows (Forrest et al. 1988, p. 261).
Ferrets select areas within prairie dog
colonies that contain high burrow
densities and thus high densities of
prairie dogs (Biggins et al. 2006, p. 136;
Eads et al. 2011, p. 763; Jachowski et al.
2011a, pp. 221–223; Livieri and
Anderson 2012, pp. 201–202). Given
their obligate tie to prairie dogs, ferret
populations associated with larger,
highly connected prairie dog colonies
are more likely to be resilient and less
likely to be extirpated by stochastic
events compared to those associated
with smaller, isolated colonies (Miller et
al. 1994, p. 678; Jachowski et al. 2011b,
entire). Resiliency is the ability of
populations to tolerate natural, annual
variation in their environment and to
recover from periodic or random
disturbances (USFWS 2019, p. 2). Such
stochastic events include epizootics,
such as sylvatic plague (plague), and
extreme weather or climate, including
drought.
The last naturally occurring wild
ferret population, in Wyoming, averaged
approximately 25 breeding adults
throughout intensive demographic
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
69047
studies from 1982 to 1985 (USFWS
2019, p. 10). Based on this and
population modeling, the USFWS
considers 30 breeding adults a
minimum for a population of ferrets to
be self-sustaining (USFWS 2013a, p. 70).
Ferrets require large, contiguous prairie
dog colonies to meet their individual
needs, with colonies no more than
approximately 4.35 miles (7 kilometers
[km]) apart (Biggins et al. 1993, p. 78).
A conservative estimate of habitat
requirements to support one female
ferret is 222 acres (ac) (90 hectares [ha])
of black-tailed prairie dog (C.
ludovicianus) colonies, or 370 ac (150
ha) of Gunnison’s prairie dog (C.
gunnisoni) colonies (USFWS 2013a, p.
73). Assuming a two-to-one female-tomale sex ratio and overlapping male and
female home ranges (Biggins et al. 1993,
p. 76), we estimate that a population of
30 breeding adult ferrets may require
4,450 ac (1,800 ha) of black-tailed
prairie dog colonies, or approximately
7,415 ac (3,001 ha) of Gunnison’s prairie
dog colonies (USFWS 2013a, p. 74).
Natal dispersal, defined as a
permanent movement away from the
birth area, occurs in the fall months
among the young-of-the-year, although
adults occasionally make permanent
moves (Forrest et al. 1988, p. 268).
Newly released captive-born ferrets
have dispersed up to approximately 30
miles (48 km) (Biggins et al. 1999, p.
125), and wild-born ferrets more than
approximately 12 miles (19 km)
(USFWS 2019, p. 7). Males tend to move
greater distances than females.
Historical Range
The black-footed ferret is the only
ferret species native to the Americas
(Anderson et al. 1986, p. 24). Before
European settlement, ferret occurrence
coincided with the ranges of three
prairie dog species (black-tailed, whitetailed [C. leucurus], and Gunnison’s),
which collectively covered about 100
million ac (40.5 million ha) of Great
Plains, mountain basins, and semi-arid
grasslands extending from Canada to
Mexico (Anderson et al. 1986, pp. 25–
50; Biggins et al. 1997, p. 420). This
amount of habitat could have supported
500,000 to one million ferrets (Anderson
et al. 1986, p. 58). We have records of
ferret specimens from Arizona,
Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska,
New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and
Wyoming in the United States and from
Saskatchewan and Alberta in Canada
(Anderson et al. 1986, pp. 25–50).
Ferrets likely additionally occurred in
Mexico, based on the proximity of a
specimen to Mexico, fossil records, and
prairie dog distribution (USFWS 2019,
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
69048
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
p. 42). A rancher discovered the last
wild population of ferrets (from which
all existing ferrets descend) near
Meeteetse, Wyoming, in 1981, after they
were presumed extinct (Lockhart et al.
2006, p. 8). By 1987, the USFWS and
partners removed all known surviving
wild ferrets (18 individuals) from this
area to initiate a captive-breeding
program following disease outbreaks
(Lockhart et al. 2006, p. 8). Since then,
no naturally occurring wild populations
have been located, despite extensive
and intensive rangewide searches; it is
unlikely any undiscovered natural wild
populations remain. For these reasons,
the USFWS considers the ferret to be
extant in reintroduced populations and
extirpated throughout the rest of its
historical range (USFWS 2017, p. 2).
In the Southwest, in Arizona,
Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah,
ferrets occurred within the historical
range of Gunnison’s prairie dogs
(Hillman and Clark 1980, entire); and in
New Mexico, Mexico, and likely
southeastern Arizona they occurred
within the historical range of blacktailed prairie dogs (Hillman and Clark
1980, entire; Hoffmeister 1986, p. 194).
In Arizona, historical ferret collections
(1929–1931) come from three locations
in Coconino County (Belitsky et al.
1994, p. 29). In 1967, U.S. Department
of Agriculture Federal Animal Damage
Control personnel (now known as
Wildlife Services) reported seeing ferret
sign while poisoning prairie dogs (pers.
comm. 1993, as cited in Belitsky et al.
1994, p. 2). Anderson et al. (1986, p. 25)
speculated that prairie dog populations
of sufficient size to support ferrets may
have existed in northeastern Arizona on
the Navajo Nation; however, the ferret
currently is not present in that area
(Navajo Nation 2020, n.p.). Prairie dogs
currently occur in substantial numbers
on Hopi (Johnson et al. 2010, entire) and
Hualapai Tribal lands, the latter of
which the AVEPA partially overlaps.
Dramatic historical declines in prairie
dogs, coupled with prevalence of plague
throughout the ferret’s historical range,
and the failure to locate new wild
ferrets, suggests the species is extirpated
in Arizona except where it has been
reintroduced (USFWS 2017, p. 2). The
date of historical ferret extirpation in
the Southwest is unknown; in Arizona,
we have no verified reports for ferrets
from 1931 through 1995, after which we
initiated reintroduction efforts in the
AVEPA. We consider the historical
range of the ferret in Arizona to coincide
with the historical ranges of the
Gunnison’s and black-tailed prairie
dogs.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Oct 04, 2023
Jkt 262001
Threats/Causes of Decline
Ferret populations decreased
historically for three main reasons. First,
major conversion of native range to
cropland, primarily in the eastern
portion of the species’ range, began in
the late 1800s. Second, widespread
poisoning of prairie dogs to reduce
perceived competition with domestic
livestock for forage began in the early
1900s. Third, in the 1930s, plague began
to appreciably adversely affect both
prairie dogs and ferrets (Eskey and Hass
1940, p. 62). By the 1960s, prairie dog
occupied habitat reached a low of about
1.4 million ac (570,000 ha) in the United
States (Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife 1961, n.p.). For these reasons,
ferret numbers declined to the point of
perceived extinction. These threats
resulted in a substantial loss of prairie
dogs, which led to an even greater
decline in ferret populations due to the
species’ dependence on prairie dog
colonies (Lockhart et al. 2006, p. 7).
Such population bottlenecks can result
in loss of genetic diversity and fitness
and can manifest following even a
temporary loss of habitat (USFWS
2013a, p. 23).
In Arizona, the combined effects of
prairie dog poisoning and plague
decreased the area occupied by
Gunnison’s prairie dogs from about 6.6
million ac (2.7 million ha) historically
to about 445,000 ac (180,000 ha) in 1961
(Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
1961, n.p.; Oakes 2000, pp. 169–171).
Estimates of historical black-tailed
prairie dog habitat in Arizona range
from 650,000 ac (263,000 ha) to
1,396,000 ac (565,000 ha) (Van Pelt
1999, p. 1; Black-footed Ferret Recovery
Foundation 1999, n.p.). Extirpation of
black-tailed prairie dogs in Arizona
probably occurred around 1960 (Van
Pelt 1999, pp. 3–4). As with the
rangewide effects, these prairie dog
losses also resulted in the loss of ferrets,
and by the 1960’s, ferrets were
considered extirpated in Arizona
(Lockhart et al. 2006, pp. 7–8).
Cropland Conversion
Major conversion of native range to
cropland eliminated millions of acres of
ferret habitat in the eastern portion of
the ferret’s range, particularly blacktailed prairie dog colonies (USFWS
2013a, p. 23). Land conversion caused
far less physical loss of Gunnison’s
prairie dog habitat, because outside of
riparian corridors and proximate
irrigated lands, much of the habitat
occupied by this species is not suitable
for crops (Lockhart et al., 2006, p. 7).
Knowles (2002, p. 12) noted
displacement of prairie dogs from the
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
more productive valley bottomlands in
Colorado and New Mexico, but not in
Arizona. Instead of converting native
rangeland to irrigated crop and pasture
lands, land-use of the range in Arizona
was and continues to consist primarily
of cattle grazing, with relatively
minimal crop development. Cropland
conversion in Arizona, while affecting
ferrets locally, was not a major cause of
decline in the State.
Prairie Dog Poisoning
Poisoning was a major cause of the
historical declines of prairie dogs and
subsequently ferrets (Forrest et al. 1985,
p. 3; Cully 1993, p. 38; Forrest and
Luchsinger 2005, pp. 115–120). Similar
to other threats limiting ferret recovery,
poisoning affects ferrets through
inadvertent secondary effects, poisoning
caused by consumption of poisoned
prairie dogs, or indirectly, through the
loss of the prairie dog prey base.
In Arizona, from 1916 to 1933, rodent
control operations treated 4,365,749 ac
(1,766,756 ha) of prairie dog colonies
(Oakes 2000, p. 179). A 1961 Predator
and Rodent Control Agency report
showed a 92 percent decline in
occupied prairie dog habitat in Arizona
since 1921, with Gunnison’s prairie
dogs occupying 445,370 ac (180,235 ha).
Only 9,956 ac (4,029 ha) of prairie dog
colonies in the 1961 surveys were
located on non-Tribal lands. The 1961
Predator and Rodent Control Agency
report also documented the extirpation
of black-tailed prairie dogs from
Arizona. This historical prairie dog
poisoning was a major cause of decline
of ferrets in Arizona.
Plague
Sylvatic plague is the most significant
challenge to ferret recovery (USFWS
2019, p. 21), with the USFWS
classifying it as an imminent threat of
high magnitude (USFWS 2020, p. 5).
Plague is an exotic disease, caused by
the bacterium Yersinia pestis,
transmitted by fleas, which steamships
inadvertently introduced to North
America in 1900. Because it was foreign
and unknown to their immune systems,
both prairie dogs and ferrets were and
continue to be extremely susceptible to
mortality from plague (Barnes 1993,
entire; Cully 1993, entire; Gage and
Kosoy 2006, entire). Plague can be
present in a prairie dog colony in an
epizootic (swift, large-scale die-offs) or
enzootic (persistent, low level of
mortality) state. Most of the information
we have about the effects of plague is
from epizootic events. Although its
effects are not as dramatic as an
epizootic outbreak, enzootic plague may
result in negative growth rates for
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
prairie dog and ferret populations and
hinder ferret recovery (USFWS 2013a,
pp. 33, 100). Other factors that reduce
prairie dog numbers and fitness (e.g.,
shooting, poisoning, and drought)
increase the flea-to-individual host
ratio, and thus may contribute to plague
epizootic events (Biggins and Eads 2019,
p. 7).
The first confirmation of plague in
Gunnison’s prairie dogs in Arizona
occurred in 1932, but we have limited
historical data on the extent of its effects
(Wagner and Drickamer 2003, p. 5). In
2003, Wagner et al. (2006, p. 337)
reported that in the previous 7 to 15
years, there had been a large reduction
in the number of active Gunnison’s
prairie dog colonies in Arizona,
primarily due to outbreaks of plague,
which they said was the dominant
negative effect on Arizona prairie dog
populations. Prairie dogs in northern
Arizona will likely continue to
experience effects from enzootic plague
and epizootic plague outbreaks (Biggins
and Eads 2019, pp. 6–8; Wagner et al.
2006, p. 337).
Other Impediments to Recovery
To recover ferrets, purposeful
management of prairie dog populations
is needed to provide habitat of sufficient
quality and in a stable spatial
configuration suitable to support and
maintain new populations of
reintroduced ferrets. Unfortunately,
current management efforts for the
species are failing to meet these
conservation objectives, rangewide
(USFWS 2013a, pp. 46, 58, table 6;
USFWS 2020 p. 5). The keys to
correcting current management
inadequacies are active plague
management and ongoing widespread
partner involvement (USFWS 2013a, pp.
46–48) to facilitate establishment of new
ferret reintroduction sites and
appropriately manage the quality and
configuration of ferret habitat and
potential ferret habitat within the
species’ range.
In addition, consideration of other
factors that may act alone or in concert
with threats is necessary when planning
and implementing recovery efforts. For
example, canine distemper, a disease
endemic to the United States, posed a
challenge to early ferret reintroduction
efforts (Wimsatt et al. 2006, pp. 249–
250). Today, however, the use of
commercial vaccines deployed in
captive and wild ferret populations has
minimized the threat of catastrophic
population losses due to canine
distemper (USFWS 2013a, pp. 29–30).
As discussed in the Black-Footed Ferret
Recovery Plan and Species Status
Assessment Report (USFWS 2013a, pp.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Oct 04, 2023
Jkt 262001
53–55; USFWS 2019, pp. 25, 68), we
anticipate that climate change will alter
and reduce prairie dog habitat and
influence plague outbreaks. We also
discuss prairie dog shooting and Federal
and non-Federal actions and activities
in ‘‘Actions and Activities that May
Affect the Introduced Population’’
below.
Recovery, Captive Breeding, and
Reintroduction Efforts to Date
Recovery Strategy and Criteria
The goal of the Black-footed Ferret
Recovery Plan (Recovery Plan) is to
recover the ferret to the point at which
it can be reclassified to threatened status
(downlisted) and ultimately removed
(delisted) from the List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife (USFWS
2013a, pp. 5, 59). The strategy of the
Recovery Plan is to involve many
partners across the historical range of
the species in order to establish
multiple, widely spaced populations,
within the range of all three prairie dog
species. Such distribution will
safeguard the ferret, as a whole, from the
widespread chronic effects of plague as
well as other periodic or random
disturbances that may result in the loss
of a population in one or more given
areas. Partner involvement is critical for
the development of new reintroduction
sites and their long-term management
because not only the USFWS, but also
our partners, have the authority to
manage prairie dogs and prairie dog
habitat on respective State, Tribal,
Federal, or privately owned lands.
Although ferret habitat is substantially
decreased relative to historical times, if
potential habitat is appropriately
managed to support ferret
reintroductions, a sufficient amount of
habitat remains to support ferret
recovery (USFWS 2013a, p. 5). The
Recovery Plan provides objective,
measurable criteria to achieve
downlisting and delisting of the ferret.
Recovery Plan downlisting and
delisting criteria include managing a
captive-breeding population of at least
280 adults as a source population to
establish and supplement free-ranging
populations and repopulate sites in the
event of local extirpations. Downlisting
criteria include establishing at least
1,500 free-ranging breeding adults in 10
or more populations, in at least 6 of 12
States in the species’ historical range,
with no fewer than 30 breeding adult
ferrets in any population, and at least 3
populations in colonies of Gunnison’s
and white-tailed prairie dogs. Delisting
criteria include at least 3,000 freeranging breeding adults in 30 or more
populations, in at least 9 of 12 States in
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
69049
the species’ historical range. There
should be no fewer than 30 breeding
adults in any population, and at least 10
populations with 100 or more breeding
adults, and at least 5 populations in
Gunnison’s and white-tailed prairie dog
colonies. We must meet these
population objectives for at least 3 years
prior to downlisting or delisting.
Habitat-related recovery criteria include
maintaining 247,000 ac (100,000 ha) of
prairie dog colonies at reintroduction
sites for downlisting, and 494,000 ac
(200,000 ha) for delisting (USFWS
2013a, pp. 61–62).
Additionally, for each State in the
historical range of the species, the
Recovery Plan includes State-level
recovery guidelines proportional to the
amount of prairie dog habitat
historically present to equitably help
support and achieve the overall
recovery strategy and criteria (USFWS
2013a, p. 69). Guidelines for Arizona’s
contribution to downlisting are 74 freeranging breeding adult ferrets on 17,000
ac (6,880 ha) of Gunnison’s prairie dog
occupied habitat; delisting guidelines
are 148 breeding adults on 34,000 ac
(13,760 ha) (USFWS 2013a, table 8). The
guidelines for New Mexico and Utah are
220 and 25 breeding adult ferrets for
downlisting, respectively, and 440 and
50 breeding adults for delisting; most of
these individuals would occur in blacktailed or white-tailed prairie dog habitat.
Captive Breeding
The USFWS and partners established
the ferret captive-breeding program from
18 ferrets captured from the last known
wild population at Meeteetse, Wyoming,
from 1985 to 1987 (Lockhart et al. 2006,
pp. 11–12). Of those 18 ferrets, 15
individuals, representing the genetic
equivalent of 7 distinct founders
(original genetic contributor, or
ancestor), produced a captive
population that is the foundation of
present recovery efforts (Garelle et al.
2006, p. 4). All extant reintroduced
ferrets descended from those seven
founders. The purpose of the captivebreeding program is to maintain a
secure and stable ferret population with
maximum genetic diversity, to provide
a sustainable source of ferrets for
reintroduction to achieve recovery of
the species (USFWS 2013a, pp. 6, 81).
The captive-breeding population of
ferrets is the primary repository of
genetic diversity for the species. There
are currently six captive-breeding
facilities maintained by the USFWS and
its partners: the USFWS National Blackfooted Ferret Conservation Center near
Wellington, Colorado; the Cheyenne
Mountain Zoological Park, Colorado
Springs, Colorado; the Louisville
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
69050
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Zoological Garden, Louisville,
Kentucky; the Smithsonian’s National
Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute,
Virginia; the Phoenix Zoo, Phoenix,
Arizona; and the Toronto Zoo, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada. The combined
population of all 6 facilities is currently
about 300 ferrets (USFWS 2020, p. 2).
The USFWS and our partners manage
the demography and genetics of the
captive population consistent with
guidance from the Association of Zoos
and Aquariums (AZA) Black-footed
Ferret Species Survival Plan (SSP®).
This includes maintaining a stable
breeding population of at least 280
animals with a high level of genetic
diversity and providing a sustainable
source of ferrets for reintroduction. The
captive-breeding facilities produce
about 250 juvenile ferrets annually and
have produced about 9,300 ferrets in
total (Graves et al. 2018, p. 3; Santymire
and Graves 2020, p. 12). The
distribution of ferrets across six
widespread facilities protects the
captive population from catastrophic
events. Currently, we retain about 80
juveniles annually in AZA SSP®
facilities for continued captive-breeding
purposes. We consider the remaining
juveniles genetically redundant and
excess to the AZA SSP®, and available
for reintroductions (USFWS 2013a, p.
81).
Each year the USFWS solicits
proposals for allocations of ferrets to
establish new reintroduction sites or
augment existing sites, or for
educational or scientific purposes (e.g.,
plague vaccine research). The limited
number of ferrets available for release
each year requires that we efficiently
allocate ferrets to the highest priority
sites first (see ‘‘Ferret Allocations’’
below for allocation and prioritization
protocols). A ranking procedure
developed by Jachowski and Lockhart
(2009, pp. 59–60) with recent
modifications to the factors evaluated
and application of weighted values
(Black-footed Ferret Recovery
Implementation Team 2014, Table 1) is
used by the USFWS to guide allocation
of ferrets to reintroduction sites.
Ranking criteria include project
background and justification, involved
agencies/parties, habitat conditions,
ferret population information, predator
management, disease monitoring and
management, contingency plans,
potential for preconditioning of released
ferrets, veterinary and husbandry
support, and research contributions.
Members of the Black-footed Ferret
Recovery Implementation Team review
the proposals and the USFWS’s
rankings of the proposals (USFWS
2013a, pp. 87–88).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Oct 04, 2023
Jkt 262001
Each year, the USFWS allocates 150
to 220 ferrets for reintroduction into the
wild from the captive-breeding
population; from 1994 to August 2022,
we allocated 5,533 ferrets for release
rangewide (J. Hughes, USFWS, pers.
comm., August 4, 2022). The number of
ferrets we allocate to a site depends on
site size and prey density (USFWS
2016a, pp. 1, 21). It also depends on
purpose and needs; for example,
whether the purpose is to initiate
establishment of a population or
augment a site, which may entail
multiple releases in a year. Although a
release can involve a single ferret, for
initial releases, the USFWS typically
recommends releasing up to 20 to 30
individuals (P. Gober, USFWS, pers.
comm., March 4, 2018).
Rangewide Reintroduction Efforts to
Date
To date, the USFWS and partners
have reintroduced ferrets at 31 sites in
the western United States, Canada, and
Mexico. In the United States, we have
conducted 11 ferret reintroductions
through experimental population
designations under section 10(j) of the
ESA, 17 under section 10(a)(1)(A), and
1 under section 7 of the ESA (J. Hughes,
USFWS, pers. comm., December 13,
2021). Additionally, there has been one
reintroduction each in Chihuahua,
Mexico, and Saskatchewan, Canada. In
our Species Status Assessment Report
for the Black-footed Ferret (Mustela
nigripes) (USFWS 2019, table 11; SSA),
we evaluated the current condition of 29
reintroduction sites (2 sites were
initiated after we began the SSA). We
estimated a wild population of about
340 individuals in those sites, of which
254 occurred on 4 sites (USFWS 2019,
table 3). The USFWS determined 2 of
the reintroduction sites were in high
condition (high resiliency) and 8 were
in moderate condition (moderate
resiliency) (USFWS 2019, table 11). We
estimated 240,173 ac (97,197 ha) of
occupied prairie dog habitat on all sites
combined (USFWS 2019, p. 45).
Currently, 18 sites are considered active;
the other 13 sites are considered
extirpated, primarily due to plague (J.
Hughes, USFWS, pers. comm.,
December 13, 2021; USFWS 2019, p.
43).
Arizona-Specific Reintroduction Efforts
to Date
The USFWS and our partners have
carried out multiple ferret
reintroductions and augmentations in
northern Arizona. In 1996, we
reintroduced ferrets to the AVEPA in
cooperation with the Arizona Game and
Fish Department (AZGFD), the Hualapai
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Tribe, and the Navajo Nation (61 FR
11320, March 20, 1996). The AVEPA
was the fifth ferret reintroduction site in
the United States and the first
reintroduction site in a Gunnison’s
prairie dog population (USFWS 2013a,
figure 1). In 2012, ferrets were observed
outside of the AVEPA, including on the
adjacent Double O Ranch, presumably
dispersing from the AVEPA. We now
consider the AVEPA and the Double O
Ranch one reintroduction site. In 2012,
the number of breeding adults at the
Aubrey Valley/Double O Ranch site was
123. Both the number of ferrets at the
site and the amount of occupied prairie
dog habitat (about 65,500 ac [26,500 ha]
in 2018) exceeded the numbers in the
Recovery Plan recommended
downlisting guidelines for Arizona
(USFWS 2013a, table 2, table 8). Since
then, substantially fewer ferrets have
been documented over several years
(AZGFD 2016, p. 3; USFWS 2019, p.
45). The USFWS suspects that enzootic
plague may have caused this decline;
however, we do not know if the
observed trend is cyclical, meaning
plague reoccurs from time to time, or
linear, meaning that plague is constant
through time. Despite lower numbers,
we consider the Aubrey Valley/Double
O Ranch population to be persistent (J.
Hughes, USFWS, pers. comm.,
December 13, 2021).
In 2007, the USFWS established the
Espee Ranch (a.k.a. Allotment)
reintroduction site in Arizona under a
section 10(a)(1)(A) research and
recovery permit in cooperation with
Babbitt Ranches, LLC, the U.S.
Geological Survey, and AZGFD. The
status of the Espee Ranch population is
currently unknown but likely extirpated
due to plague (AZGFD, unpub. data).
The extirpation of the Espee Ranch
population and the decline of the
Aubrey Valley/Double O Ranch
population emphasize the need for
additional ferret reintroduction sites in
Arizona to guard against stochastic or
catastrophic events at any given site.
The Babbitt Ranches, LLC, for the
Espee Allotment (the existing Espee
Ranch reintroduction site), and Seibert
Land Company LLC, for the Double O
Ranch, enrolled in the programmatic
ferret SHA with the USFWS in 2014 and
2016, respectively. The figure at the end
of this rule identifies these SHA lands
in the SWEPA. The Aubrey Valley/
Double O Ranch reintroduction site
contains the only known ferrets
currently occurring in the SWEPA.
Plague Mitigation Efforts
Researchers continue making
advances to address plague, even as it
remains the most substantial challenge
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
to ferret recovery. Rocke et al. (2006,
entire) developed a vaccine (F1–V) to
prevent plague in ferrets; all ferrets
provided for reintroduction receive the
vaccine (Abbott and Rocke 2012, p. 54).
Another vaccine developed is the
sylvatic plague vaccine (SPV), which is
delivered via treated baits to wild
prairie dogs. SPV has been effective in
a laboratory setting (Rocke et al. 2010,
entire; Abbott and Rocke 2012, pp. 54–
55), and a broad-scale experiment to test
efficacy in the field found it prevented
prairie dog colony collapse where
plague epizootics were documented
(Rocke et al. 2017, p. 443). A recent
study, however, found SPV applied in
the field might not provide sufficient
protection for prairie dog populations to
support a ferret population (Matchett et
al. 2021, entire). In addition to vaccines,
the powder form of the insecticide
deltamethrin is applied at prairie dog
burrows to control fleas and manage
both enzootic and epizootic plague
(Seery et al. 2003, entire; Seery 2006,
entire; Matchett et al. 2010, pp. 31–33;
USFWS 2013a, p. 101). However, the
application of insecticidal dust is costly
and labor-intensive, and there are
concerns about the development of
deltamethrin resistance in fleas.
Therefore, the USFWS continues to
work with our partners to improve the
application and efficacy of the
insecticide deltamethrin and to research
other pesticides, such as fipronil, a
systemic pulicide (insecticide effective
on fleas) that is incorporated into grain
baits for prairie dog consumption
(Poche´ et al. 2017, entire; Eads et al.
2019, entire; Eads et al. 2021, entire).
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Summary
Ferret recovery is a dynamic process,
requiring long-term active management
(e.g., plague control) and involving
reintroduced populations rangewide in
various stages of suitability and
sustainability—with some populations
undergoing extirpation concurrently as
others are established or reestablished
after extirpation. The AVEPA
population illustrates the dynamic
nature of ferret recovery and
conservation, which at one point
exhibited ferrets dispersing outside of
the experimental population area but
subsequently experienced a substantial
population decline, presumably due to
plague, in 2013. Therefore, ferret
recovery is dependent on the
establishment of additional, spatially
distributed populations of reintroduced
ferrets in Arizona to contribute to
species recovery, which establishment
of the SWEPA will help to achieve.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Oct 04, 2023
Jkt 262001
Experimental Population
We revise and replace the existing
nonessential experimental population
designation for black-footed ferrets in
Arizona (the AVEPA) with the SWEPA,
under section 10(j) of the ESA. We base
the boundaries of the 40,905,350-ac
(16,554,170-ha) SWEPA on the
historical range of Gunnison’s and
black-tailed prairie dogs, which
coincides with the presumed historical
range of ferrets in Arizona. The only
ferrets currently occurring within the
SWEPA are within the AVEPA and
adjacent areas and constitute a single
population. Therefore, the SWEPA,
which will encompass the AVEPA, will
be wholly geographically separate from
other populations (see ‘‘Actual or
Anticipated Movements’’ below).
Currently, scattered throughout the
SWEPA there are approximately
358,000 ac (144,880 ha) of prairie dog
colonies (H. Hicks, AZGFD, pers.
comm., January 26, 2018; Johnson et al.,
2010, p. iv) inhabiting about 0.875
percent of the area. The SWEPA
encompasses all potential ferret habitat
within the boundaries of the State of
Arizona, including the Hopi Reservation
(excluding Hopi Villages within District
6), the Hualapai Reservation, and the
Navajo Nation in its entirety, which
includes the Navajo Nation’s contiguous
areas in New Mexico and Utah (see the
figure entitled ‘‘Southwest Nonessential
Experimental Population Area (SWEPA)
for the black-footed ferret’’ below). Land
ownership within the SWEPA includes
Federal, private, State, and Tribal lands.
Potential Release Sites
We consider all potential habitat
within the SWEPA as possible
experimental population reintroduction
locations, as we currently lack
information about the distribution of
habitat to appropriately identify all
prospective reintroduction sites. Some
portions of the SWEPA may become
suitable for ferrets in the future with
appropriate management, and ferrets
may disperse from successful
reintroduction sites as observed
previously with the AVEPA. By
including all potential habitat within
the SWEPA where ferrets may be
reintroduced or may disperse, this
experimental population designation
will extend regulatory flexibility across
all areas in which ferrets might occur.
Because potential ferret habitat is, by
definition, not yet suitable for ferrets,
and the USFWS is not solely
responsible for the management of
wildlife outside of the National Wildlife
Refuge System, we rely on partnerships
with landowners or those responsible
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
69051
for wildlife management on their
respective lands or based on their legal
authorities to contribute to conservation
necessary for ferret reintroduction and
recovery. As the primary management
agency for wildlife in Arizona,
excluding Tribal lands, AZGFD’s efforts
and commitment to prairie dog
conservation and management are key
in identifying potential ferret
reintroduction sites in Arizona. AZGFD
developed an Interagency Management
Plan for Gunnison’s Prairie Dogs in
Arizona, with the purpose of identifying
and implementing management
strategies to conserve Gunnison’s prairie
dogs (Underwood 2007, p. 24), and a
Management Plan for the Black-footed
Ferret in Arizona (AZGFD 2016, entire;
Management Plan) to further their
commitment to meeting the USFWS
Recovery Plan guidelines for Arizona
(USFWS 2013a, table 2, table 8). The
USFWS reviewed and commented on
the AZGFD Management Plan, ensuring
that it complements the USFWS Blackfooted Ferret Recovery Plan by
incorporating current research and
techniques that the USFWS uses to
guide ferret recovery rangewide.
Within the SWEPA, the USFWS
anticipates the need for at least five
ferret reintroduction sites to buffer
against plague or other stochastic or
catastrophic events and to reliably meet
Recovery Plan guidelines for Arizona in
support of the rangewide recovery
criteria (USFWS 2022a, n.p.). Currently
six areas are considered to be
established or potential reintroduction
sites. The active Aubrey Valley/Double
O Ranch and inactive Espee Ranch,
which is being actively managed for
prairie dogs, are established
reintroduction sites in which future
releases may occur. Four potential
reintroduction sites have also been
identified (see AZGFD 2016 pp. 8–10)
and occur on: (1) Kaibab National
Forest, Williams/Tusayan Ranger
Districts; (2) CO Bar Ranch; (3) Petrified
Forest National Park; and (4) Lyman
Lake (see ‘‘Identifying the Location and
Boundaries of the SWEPA’’ below for
more information on these sites). These
potential reintroduction sites currently
lack sufficient prairie dog occupied
acreage and require management to
improve prairie dog populations before
they can support ferrets. The USFWS is
working with partners to encourage and
implement purposeful prairie dog
management and to identify additional
potential reintroduction sites within the
SWEPA.
Ferret Allocations
The USFWS approves sites for ferret
reintroductions and allocates ferrets to
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
69052
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
those sites through an annual process
(see ‘‘Captive Breeding’’ above), giving
greater consideration to sites that have
plague management and monitoring
plans (USFWS 2022b, p. 2). To qualify
for the annual application and ranking
process, States, Tribes, and/or other
land managers develop annual sitespecific reintroduction plans and
submit them to the USFWS by midMarch for consideration. Site-specific
reintroduction plans may require
implementation of plague management
(e.g., applying Delta Dust®
[deltamethrin]) at the proposed
reintroduction site, as determined by
the USFWS and partners.
The USFWS allocates ferrets to
proposed reintroduction sites that
contain sufficient prairie dog occupied
habitat. The USFWS estimates sufficient
prairie dog occupied habitat for
Gunnison’s prairie dogs as typically
equating to 7,415 ac (3,000 ha), and for
black-tailed prairie dogs, typically 4,450
ac (1,800 ha); (USFWS 2013a, pp. 73–
74; USFWS 2019, p. 10). Our estimates,
based in part on data from the Conata
Basin/Badlands site in South Dakota,
are likely on the high end of ferrets’
actual habitat needs (USFWS 2013a, pp.
73–74). The actual amount of prairie
dog occupied habitat needed varies
across the ferret’s range, depending on
site conditions such as the density of
prairie dogs. In Arizona, available
research and prairie dog density data
from Aubrey Valley suggests that a
minimum of 5,540 ac (2,242 ha) of
Gunnison’s prairie dog occupied habitat
is needed to consider a site potentially
suitable for a ferret reintroduction
(AZGFD 2016, pp. 6–7, 15). We may
adjust our area estimates in the future,
if further monitoring suggests that
ferrets require a smaller area of habitat
than our conservative estimates suggest
(USFWS 2013a, p. 74). For more
information about allocations, see
‘‘Possible Adverse Effects on Wild and
Captive-Breeding Populations’’ below.
Release Procedures
The USFWS and partners release
ferrets according to the guidance on
release techniques in the Black-footed
Ferret Field Operations Manual
(USFWS 2016a, entire; Operations
Manual), allowing for adjustments to the
techniques according to USFWSapproved management plans. All
captive-reared ferrets receive adequate
preconditioning in outdoor pens at the
National Black-footed Ferret
Conservation Center, or other USFWSapproved facility, prior to release.
Ferrets exposed to preconditioning
exhibit higher post-release survival rates
than non-preconditioned ferrets (Biggins
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Oct 04, 2023
Jkt 262001
et al. 1998, pp. 651–652; Vargas et al.
1998, p. 77). Captive ferrets receive
vaccines for canine distemper and
plague, and passive integrated
transponder (PIT) tag implants for later
identification, prior to release. Ferrets
are released from August to November,
which is when young-of-the-year ferrets
disperse in the wild (USFWS 2016a, p.
16). Typically, the USFWS transports
the ferrets to the site and releases them
directly into suitable habitat without
protection from predators, known as a
‘‘hard release.’’
Reintroduction Site Management
The USFWS is involved in the
planning and decision-making
processes, implementation of
reintroductions, and management and
monitoring of all reintroduction sites.
Our partners contribute their
commitment, resources, and legal
authorities as wildlife managers to the
management of reintroduction sites. The
USFWS will partner with AZGFD on
Federal, State, and private land
reintroduction sites within the SWEPA,
or the appropriate Tribal wildlife
authority on Tribal lands, for
reintroduction site management. The
USFWS currently partners with AZGFD
on two established reintroduction sites
in Arizona. AZGFD has demonstrated
their commitment to the partnership
and to ferret recovery through 26 years
of experience with ferret reintroductions
in Arizona, development of Arizonaspecific management plans for ferrets
and prairie dogs (AZGFD 2016, entire;
Underwood 2007, entire), and
contribution of permanent and annual
field staff to accomplish necessary field
activities.
On non-Tribal lands in Arizona, the
USFWS Operations Manual and
Arizona’s Management Plan guide the
management of ferret reintroduction
sites. On Tribal lands, the USFWS
Operations Manual and any appropriate
Tribal ferret management plan and other
site-specific plans and procedures guide
management of reintroduction sites.
Partners, in conjunction with the
USFWS and landowner or manager,
develop a site-specific management
plan, which includes monitoring and
adaptive management. All involved
parties follow all applicable laws
regulating the protection of ferrets (see
‘‘Management Restrictions, Protective
Measures, and Other Special
Management’’ below).
How will the experimental population
(SWEPA) further the conservation of
the species?
As cited above, under 50 CFR
17.81(b), before authorizing the release
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
as an experimental population, the
USFWS must find by regulation that
such release will further the
conservation of the species. We explain
our rationale for making our finding
below. In making such a finding, we
must consider effects on donor
populations, the likelihood of
establishment and survival of the
experimental population, the effects that
establishment of the experimental
population will have on recovery of the
species, and the extent to which the
experimental population will be
affected by Federal, State, or private
activities.
Possible Adverse Effects on Wild and
Captive-Breeding Populations
Our regulations at 50 CFR 17.81
require that we consider any possible
adverse effects on extant populations of
a species as a result of removal of
individuals, eggs, or propagules for
introduction elsewhere. We know of no
naturally occurring wild populations of
ferrets throughout the historical range of
the species (see ‘‘Historical Range’’
above). The USFWS considers the ferret
extirpated in the wild except for
reintroduced populations (i.e., all ferrets
in the wild are the result of
reintroductions). We consider all ferrets
used to establish populations at
reintroduction sites that come from the
captive-bred population or,
occasionally, from self-sustaining
reintroduced populations as surplus,
meaning they are genetically redundant
within the source population and their
removal from the source population will
not affect the source population’s
persistence. If animals are translocated
from other reintroduction sites, only
wild-born kits from self-sustaining
reintroduced populations are
considered for translocation into new or
non-self-sustaining reintroduction sites
(Lockhart, 2000–2007, as cited in
USFWS 2013a, p. 27, P. Gober, USFWS,
pers. comm., August 5, 2022).
The USFWS uses ferrets from the
captive-bred population or a selfsustaining wild population to establish
populations at reintroduction sites. In
conformance with the USFWS
allocation process, after we approve a
reintroduction site for ferret allocations,
the USFWS recommends the release of
up to 20 to 30 captive-raised or wildtranslocated ferrets during the first year
of the reintroduction. Subsequent
annual supplemental releases are
expected until the population at a given
reintroduction site becomes selfsustaining.
We anticipate no adverse effects on
existing populations of ferrets, whether
captive or wild, due to the removal of
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
individuals from those populations for
the purpose of reintroducing and
establishing new populations in the
SWEPA. We base this conclusion on the
purpose for and the management of the
captive-bred population (see ‘‘Captive
Breeding’’ above), the management of
other sites to achieve and maintain selfsustaining status for recovery purposes,
and the USFWS’s allocation process,
which prioritizes reintroducing the
limited number of surplus ferrets to
sites with high chances of success. In
summary, ferrets released at
reintroduction sites will be genetically
redundant individuals from populations
that will remain self-sustaining despite
the removal of those individuals.
Likelihood of Population Establishment
and Survival
In our findings for designation of an
experimental population, we must
consider if the reintroduced population
will become established and survive in
the foreseeable future. The term
‘‘foreseeable future’’ appears in the ESA
in the statutory definition of
‘‘threatened species.’’ However, the ESA
does not define the term ‘‘foreseeable
future.’’ Similarly, our implementing
regulations governing the establishment
of experimental populations under
section 10(j) of the ESA use the term
‘‘foreseeable future’’ (50 CFR
17.81(b)(2)) but do not define the term.
Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR
424.11(d), regarding factors for listing,
delisting, or reclassifying species, set
forth a framework for evaluating the
foreseeable future on a case-by-case
basis. The term foreseeable future
extends only so far into the future as we
can reasonably determine that both the
future threats and the species’ responses
to those threats are likely. In other
words, the foreseeable future is the
period of time in which we can make
reliable predictions as it relates to life
history of the species and its response
to threats. While we use the term
‘‘foreseeable future’’ here in a different
context (to determine the likelihood of
experimental population establishment
and to establish boundaries for
identification of the experimental
population), we apply a similar
conceptual framework. Our analysis of
the foreseeable future uses the best
scientific and commercial data available
and considers the timeframes applicable
to the relevant effects of release and
management of the species and to the
species’ likely responses in view of its
life-history characteristics.
In considering the likelihood of
establishment and survival of
populations of ferrets reintroduced in
the SWEPA, we consider whether
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Oct 04, 2023
Jkt 262001
causes of the species’ extirpation have
been addressed. We also consider
availability of suitable habitat and our
previous experience with reintroduction
efforts to inform our assessment of the
likelihood of success of reintroductions
in the SWEPA.
Addressing Causes of Extirpation
Within the Experimental Population
Area
Understanding the causes of the
extirpation of ferret populations is
necessary to sufficiently address threats
to the species in the SWEPA so that
reintroduction efforts are likely to be
successful. Ferrets depend on prairie
dog populations for food, shelter, and
reproduction. Historical ferret declines
resulted from: (1) widespread prairie
dog poisoning; (2) adverse effects of
plague on prairie dogs and ferrets; and
(3) major conversion of habitat (see
‘‘Threats/Causes of Decline’’ above).
Widespread Poisoning of Prairie Dogs
Poisoning of prairie dogs no longer
occurs to the extent and intensity that
it did historically; the current use of
poison to control prairie dogs occurs in
limited and selective ways. Although
land-use and ownership patterns in
Arizona have not changed much since
past poisoning campaigns, poisoning
became less common in the 1970s
because prairie dog populations had
been reduced by over 90 percent and
use of rodenticides became more closely
regulated than it had been historically
(USFWS 2013a, pp. 49–51). State and
Federal agencies have limited
involvement in control of prairie dogs
on private lands unless they pose a
threat to human safety or health (e.g.,
plague transmission in an urban
setting). Where State and Federal
agencies have involvement, control
methods have largely shifted to
nonlethal techniques. For example,
translocation as a method of prairie dog
control is becoming more common,
while lethal control seems to be
declining (Seglund et al. 2006, p. 49). In
addition, landowners and managers
have expressed interest in managing
prairie dogs specifically for ferret
reintroductions, as evidenced by the
number of current and potential
reintroduction sites (see ‘‘Identified
Reintroduction Sites’’ below).
Landowners and managers have used
zinc phosphide as a registered
rodenticide for prairie dog control since
the 1940s (Erickson and Urban 2004, p.
12). In the early 2000s, manufacturers
started promoting use of the
anticoagulant rodenticides
chlorophacinone (Rozol®) and
diphacinone (Kaput®). These chemicals
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
69053
pose a much greater risk than zinc
phosphide of secondary poisoning to
nontarget wildlife that prey upon prairie
dogs, such as ferrets (Erickson and
Urban 2004, p. 85). In 2009, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
authorized use of Rozol® throughout
much of black-tailed prairie dog range
via a Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act section 3 registration.
However, the EPA labeled Rozol® and
Kaput-D® only for the control of blacktailed prairie dogs, not Gunnison’s, and
the labels do not allow use in Arizona
or the taking of ‘‘endangered species.’’
The EPA has also established additional
restrictions through the Endangered
Species Protection Bulletins that ban the
use of Rozol® in ferret recovery sites.
These bulletins are an extension of the
pesticide label, and it is a violation of
Federal and State law to use a pesticide
in a manner inconsistent with the label.
In Arizona, the use of poison to
control prairie dogs may occur on State,
Federal, and private lands with the
appropriate permit. Products registered
for prairie dog control by the EPA
require a pesticide applicators license,
which an applicator can obtain only
through a formal process with the
Arizona Department of Agriculture
(Underwood 2007, pp. 23–24). The
extent of poisoning in Arizona is
extremely limited in area compared to
historical poisoning. For example, from
2013 through 2018, the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service’s
(APHIS) Wildlife Services treated
prairie dogs with zinc phosphide at
three private properties totaling 56 ac
(23 ha) of colonies, for livestock and
property protection on pasture and
farmland near rural communities (C.
Carrillo, pers. comm., APHIS, October
23, 2019). None of these treatments
occurred in or near current or proposed
reintroduction areas. Given the limited
use of prairie dog poisons in Arizona,
and partnerships with landowners and
managers willing to manage prairie dogs
for ferrets, poisoning should not affect
the establishment or success of
reintroduced populations of ferrets.
Adverse Effects of Plague
As previously noted, plague can
adversely affect ferrets directly via
infection and subsequent fatality, and
indirectly by decimating prairie dog
populations, the ferret’s prey.
Management to reduce plague has
improved, including dusting prairie dog
burrows with insecticide to control fleas
and vaccinating ferrets. The
development of fipronil baits to control
fleas in prairie dogs is also underway.
In Colorado, black-tailed prairie dog
survival improved when researchers
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
69054
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
applied the insecticide deltamethrin as
a prophylactic treatment to control fleas
in prairie dog burrows (Seery et al.
2003, p. 443; Seery 2006, entire). Based
on management implementation at
various reintroduction sites through the
efforts of our partners, we expect the
threat from plague to be managed by
monitoring, dusting, vaccinating, and
maintaining more and widely spaced
reintroduction sites (USFWS 2013a, p.
78).
In Arizona, plague management
includes best management practices and
adaptive management to respond to
changing conditions and incorporating
new techniques as researchers develop
them (AZGFD 2016, p. 19, appendices E
and F). In addition, AZGFD, the
USFWS, and the U.S. Geological Survey
are conducting an intensive plague
study in the AVEPA to determine
whether plague is present at an enzootic
level that current plague surveillance is
not detecting (H. Hicks, AZGFD, pers.
comm., February 5, 2022). Plague will
be an ongoing challenge to ferret
recovery, but with current management
tools, promising new treatments, the
commitments of our partners, and the
benefit of being able to establish widely
spaced populations across the SWEPA,
we will manage this threat sufficiently
to support the conservation of the ferret
at a landscape level.
Conversion of Habitat
Currently, rangewide conversion of
prairie dog habitat is not significant
relative to historical levels, although it
may affect some prairie dog populations
locally (USFWS 2013a, pp. 24–25). We
do not expect agricultural land
conversion and urbanization to have a
measurable effect on the current
condition of ferrets at the species level,
because sufficient rangeland, including
federally managed land, persists
rangewide (USFWS 2019, pp. 27, 35). In
Arizona, cropland currently covers
almost 1.3 million ac (526,000 ha), or
about one to two percent of the
landscape (USDA 2019, p. 7),
predominantly in central and southern
Arizona, outside of the range of the
Gunnison’s prairie dog. Within the
range of Gunnison’s prairie dog in
Arizona, agricultural development
affects 31,449 ac (12,727 ha), and urban
development affects 78,673 ac (31,838
ha), both of which, combined, constitute
less than one percent of the range of the
Gunnison’s prairie dog (Seglund 2006,
p. 15). There are about 22 million ac
(8,900,000 ha) of agricultural activity in
Arizona in the form of pastures for
livestock grazing (USDA 2019, p. 19).
These non-cultivated agricultural lands
may represent habitat for the prairie dog
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Oct 04, 2023
Jkt 262001
and ferret in Arizona (Ernst et al. 2006,
p. 91). Routine livestock grazing and
ranching activities are largely
compatible with maintaining occupied
prairie dog habitat capable of supporting
ferrets (USFWS 2013b, p. 20) (see
discussion about grazing in ‘‘Actions
and Activities that May Affect the
Introduced Population’’ below).
Reintroduction Expertise
The USFWS and its partners have
considerable experience establishing
reintroduced ferret populations. Since
1991, we have initiated ferret
reintroductions at 31 sites, including 2
in Arizona (J. Hughes, USFWS, pers.
comm., December 13, 2021). These sites
have had varying degrees of success, but
they have all contributed to our
understanding of the species’ needs and
effective management toward
establishing reintroduced populations.
The USFWS and our partners
continually apply adaptive management
principles through monitoring and
research to ensure that the best available
scientific information is used to develop
new tools (e.g., fipronil baits), update
strategies and protocols, and identify
new reintroduction sites, to progress
towards recovery (USFWS 2016a, entire;
AZGFD 2016, p. 19).
The USFWS and our partners have
developed and refined reintroduction
techniques. These include
advancements and improvements in
management and oversight of the
captive-breeding program, veterinary
care and animal husbandry (USFWS
2016a, entire), the preconditioning
program (Biggins et al. 1998, entire;
USFWS 2016a, pp. 34–37), release
techniques, and disease and plague
management, including ferret
vaccination programs at individual
reintroduction sites. With respect to
disease management, vector control (i.e.,
dusting and/or fipronil grain baits) and
vaccination use in concert with vigilant
plague epizootic monitoring may be the
most effective way to reduce the
rangewide effects of plague (Abbott and
Rocke 2012, pp. 54–55; Tripp et al.
2017, entire). However, plague remains
an ongoing issue (Scott et al. 2010,
entire; Rohlf et al. 2014, entire)
requiring ongoing management to
maintain both the captive and
reintroduced populations (USFWS
2019, p. 65).
In Arizona, the USFWS and our
partners refine management strategies
and field techniques through adaptive
management practices to enhance
reintroduction efforts. For example,
when ferrets did not appear to be
breeding at Aubrey Valley after 5 years
of releases, release strategies were
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
modified to incorporate pen breeding
and springtime releases, and wild-born
kits were documented the following
year (AZGFD 2016, p. 5). The USFWS
also continually adapts and refines
recommended plague monitoring and
management. At Espee Ranch, for
example, we learned that plague was
present only after we released ferrets
despite the use of pre-release plague
surveillance and management protocols.
Subsequently, AZGFD incorporated the
latest disease monitoring protocols and
adaptive management into its
Management Plan (AZGFD 2016, p. 19,
appendices E and F). In addition, at
Espee Ranch, the USFWS and AZGFD
participated in trials of the experimental
SPV, the results of which have
contributed to both the national effort to
investigate SPV as a management tool as
well as our understanding of local
plague conditions. Given the USFWS’s
31 years of experience reintroducing
ferrets across their historical range, and
the USFWS’s and AZGFD’s 26 years of
experience in Arizona, developing and
refining reintroduction and management
techniques, we are likely to be
successful in establishing and managing
new populations of ferrets in the
SWEPA.
Habitat Suitability
The likelihood of establishing ferret
populations largely depends on
adequate habitat. Although there was a
significant decline of prairie dog
occupied habitat on non-Tribal lands in
Arizona historically, there has been a
10-fold increase in occupied habitat
since 1961 (Seglund 2006, p. 16).
Outside of Navajo and Hopi lands,
Arizona currently has more than
108,000 ac (43,707 ha) of occupied
prairie dog habitat (H. Hicks, AZGFD,
pers. comm., January 26, 2018), a
portion of which is located on lands of
the Hualapai Tribe. Lands of the Navajo
Nation and the Hopi Tribe collectively
may contain about 250,000 ac (101,174
ha) of occupied prairie dog habitat
(Johnson et al., 2010, p. iv). With
purposeful management, this amount
and distribution of prairie dog occupied
habitat would be capable of supporting
multiple ferret reintroduction sites.
In addition to the amount of habitat
available in the SWEPA, individual
reintroduction sites need to be of
sufficient size to support reintroduced
ferrets. Two sites in Arizona currently
exceed or have exceeded the USFWS’s
and AZGFD’s estimated Gunnison’s
prairie dog occupied acreage (7,415 ac
[3,000 ha] and 5,540 ac [2,242 ha],
respectively) to reintroduce ferrets:
Aubrey Valley/Double O Ranch and
Espee Ranch (AZGFD 2016, p. 6). In
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
2018, Aubrey Valley/Double O Ranch
contained about 65,500 ac (26,500 ha) of
occupied prairie dog habitat and
264,000 ac (106,850 ha) of potential
acreage (USFWS 2019, table 3). In 2007,
prior to ferret reintroduction, Espee
Ranch contained approximately 29,000
ac (11,736 ha) of occupied prairie dog
habitat. Ferret monitoring and prairie
dog management and monitoring
continue to occur at Aubrey Valley/
Double O Ranch, and prairie dog
management and monitoring continue
to occur at Espee Ranch. In addition to
these two established reintroduction
sites, four potential reintroduction sites
have been identified (AZGFD 2016,
entire). AZGFD has a management plan
to conserve and maintain viable prairie
dog populations and the ecosystems
they inhabit statewide (Underwood
2007, entire). The acreage area criteria,
along with implementation of
management plans for viable prairie dog
populations and ferrets and their
habitats, will ensure that any sites
selected for reintroduction have
sufficient quantity and quality of habitat
to support establishment of ferret
populations.
Additional occupied prairie dog
habitat is necessary before ferrets are
released at additional sites within the
SWEPA. Ferret reintroduction sites are
relatively large, and their management
requires coordination with multiple
partners. AZGFD and other partners are
currently implementing activities to
monitor and manage prairie dog habitat
in potential reintroduction sites in
support of future ferret reintroductions.
This 10(j) rule will facilitate new
partnerships with private landowners
and encourage voluntary management of
prairie dog habitat in anticipation of
future ferret reintroductions by
providing regulatory flexibility
regarding incidental take associated
with activities deemed compatible with
ferret recovery (50 CFR 17.84(g)). The
10(j) rule will also allow for regulatory
consistency across different land
management agencies or authorities. For
these reasons, we consider the SWEPA
an important step toward increasing the
number of ferret reintroduction sites
and our contribution toward ferret
recovery.
Increased Prey Stability
Prairie dog populations in Arizona
have increased from historical lows in
the 1960’s, and the State is managing
them for long-term viability. The
potential for continued expansion of
occupied prairie dog habitat across
Arizona through prairie dog
conservation and disease management,
coupled with past success of ferret
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Oct 04, 2023
Jkt 262001
reintroductions in Arizona and across
the species’ range, suggests that ferretoccupied areas can expand through
additional reintroductions and
dispersal. Reintroduction of ferrets in
the larger SWEPA will contribute to
achieving the USFWS ferret Recovery
Plan guidelines for Arizona and
contribute to ferret recovery across the
species’ range (USFWS 2013a, p. 77).
Summary
The USFWS and our partners have
considerable experience reintroducing
ferrets rangewide and in Arizona. We
have guidelines for selecting suitable
reintroduction sites (USFWS 2013a,
entire. pp. 73–74; USFWS 2016a, pp. 1–
10; AZGFD 2016, p. 7) and developed
protocols and management plans for
those sites (USFWS 2016a, entire;
AZGFD 2016, appendices). The SWEPA
contains a sufficient quantity and
distribution of habitat to support
reintroductions at additional sites with
continued and additional prairie dog
management. Additionally, the causes
of extirpation of ferrets in Arizona have
been or are being addressed; the
widespread poisoning of prairie dogs is
no longer occurring, the USFWS and
partners continue to develop plague
management techniques, and the
conversion of habitat into cropland is
not occurring at a significant scale.
Lastly, the demonstrated success of
existing reintroduced ferret populations
in Arizona indicates that additional
reintroduction efforts in the SWEPA
will be successful in establishing and
sustaining additional ferret populations,
required for species recovery.
Effects of the SWEPA on Recovery
Efforts for the Species
The USFWS’s recovery strategy for
the ferret range-wide requires
establishment of numerous, spatially
dispersed populations of ferrets within
the range of all three prairie dog species
to reduce the risk of stochastic events
affecting multiple populations (e.g.,
plague), increase management options,
and maintain genetic diversity (USFWS
2013a, table 7) (see ‘‘Recovery, Captive
Breeding and Reintroduction Efforts to
Date’’ above). Delisting criteria for the
species include 30 populations in 9 of
12 States within the species’ historical
range and distributed among the ranges
of 3 prairie dog species (USFWS 2013a,
p. 6). To implement this recovery
strategy and achieve recovery criteria,
additional successful reintroductions of
ferrets are necessary (USFWS 2013a, p.
7). We will accomplish this by
encouraging new partnerships with
landowners and managers and the
voluntary purposeful prairie dog
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
69055
management needed to support ferret
populations via regulatory flexibilities.
Participation by numerous partners is
critical to achieve the ferret’s delisting
criteria of multiple spatially dispersed
populations and support the species
redundancy, representation, and
resiliency necessary for recovery. To
achieve this strategy, the Recovery Plan
suggests recovery guidelines for each
State within the historical range of the
species for the number of ferrets and
prairie dog habitat acreages
(proportional to the historical amount of
prairie dog habitat) to contribute to
meeting recovery criteria (USFWS
2013a, p. 69). These recovery guidelines
by State are intended to improve risk
management and ensure equity of
recovery responsibilities across State
boundaries (USFWS 2013a, table 8). The
USFWS collaborated with AZGFD, the
Navajo Nation, the Hualapai Tribe, and
private landowners to initiate one of the
early ferret reintroduction sites and the
first in a Gunnison’s prairie dog
population.
The USFWS’s Recovery Plan
downlisting and delisting criteria
guidelines for Arizona are 74 freeranging breeding adult ferrets on 17,000
ac (6,880 ha) of Gunnison’s prairie dog
occupied habitat, and 148 breeding
adults on 34,000 ac (13,760 ha),
respectively. The guidelines for New
Mexico and Utah are 220 and 25
breeding adult ferrets for downlisting,
respectively, and 440 and 50 breeding
adults for delisting (USFWS 2013a, table
8). Delisting criteria for the entire range
include five ferret populations in
colonies of both Gunnison’s and whitetailed prairie dogs (USFWS 2013a, p. 6).
About 27 percent of the Gunnison’s
prairie dog range occurs in Arizona
(Seglund et al. 2006, p. 70), so
establishing additional ferret
populations in Gunnison’s prairie dog
habitat within the SWEPA will
contribute to meeting this criterion.
Currently, there are two established
ferret reintroduction sites in Arizona. As
of 2013, we considered the Aubrey
Valley/Double O Ranch site one of the
four most successful reintroduced
populations throughout the species’
range; it had a population that exceeded
the recommended downlisting criteria
for Arizona and we considered it selfsustaining (USFWS 2013a, pp. 5, 22,
77). However, the population declined
appreciably, for which we suspect that
plague may be the cause. Although
plague has likely extirpated ferrets at
the other established reintroduction site,
Espee Ranch, efforts to control plague
and restore habitat for ferrets continue.
The SWEPA will include all potential
ferret habitat in Arizona and on
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
69056
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
participating Tribal lands, including
Hualapai Tribal lands, a portion of Hopi
Tribal lands, and Navajo Nation lands in
Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah (see
‘‘Experimental Population’’ above).
Establishing additional populations
within the SWEPA will reduce the
vulnerability of extirpation of the
species. Additionally, the widely
distributed reintroduction sites
identified, and the potential for other
reintroduction sites (e.g., on the Navajo
Nation) will reduce the effects of
localized or stochastic events on overall
recovery efforts, by reducing the
likelihood that all individuals or all
populations would be affected by the
same event. Reintroducing viable ferret
populations in the New Mexico and
Utah portions of the Navajo Nation
would not only aid in recovery of the
species but also in meeting the Recovery
Plan’s recovery guidelines for those
States (USFWS 2013a, p. 77).
The significant threat of plague to
ferret populations emphasizes the need
for several spatially dispersed
reintroduction sites across the widest
possible distribution of the species’
historical range (USFWS 2013a, p. 70),
supporting the value of a statewide
approach to reintroductions.
Establishment of the SWEPA will
facilitate ferret reintroductions across a
large geographic area and will result in
establishment of several populations
that will persist over time, thus,
contributing to recovery of the species.
Actions and Activities That May Affect
the Introduced Population
Classes of Federal, State, Tribal, and
private actions and activities that may
currently affect ferret viability, directly
or indirectly, across the species’ range
are urbanization, energy development,
agricultural land conversion, range
management, and recreational shooting
and poisoning of prairie dogs (USFWS
2019, p. 13). Actions and activities that
affect prairie dogs may also indirectly
affect ferrets, given the ferret’s
dependency on prairie dogs as a food
source and their burrows for shelter.
In Arizona, land ownership within
the range of Gunnison’s prairie dog is
approximately as follows: Tribal—49.05
percent; private—21.62 percent;
Federal—16.80 percent; State—12.53
percent; city/county—0.01 percent
(Seglund 2006, table 3).
Although urbanization may adversely
affect local prairie dog colonies, effects
across the range of the species in
Arizona are not substantial due to the
small amount of urban land, and the
rural settings of the ferret reintroduction
sites. Similarly, oil and gas and other
types of mineral exploration and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Oct 04, 2023
Jkt 262001
extraction development cover less than
one percent of the prairie dog range in
Arizona (Underwood 2007, p. 10), and
this development is not associated with
established or potential ferret
reintroduction sites. Solar and wind
energy development has expanded in
recent years but also comprises a very
small part of the landscape. In Arizona,
most solar power facilities are located in
the southern and far western part of the
State, outside of the range of Gunnison’s
prairie dog (U.S. Energy Information
Administration 2022, n.p.). To date,
there have been a number of wind
projects in the range of Gunnison’s
prairie dog, but none currently
constructed within established or
potential reintroduction sites, and the
existing infrastructure of wind projects
occupies less than 0.005 percent of the
ferret’s potential range (USFWS 2019, p.
40). As discussed above, agricultural
development affects less than one third
of one percent of the range of
Gunnison’s prairie dog (Seglund 2006,
p. 16). We do not expect agricultural
land conversion to have a measurable
effect on the future condition of the
ferret in Arizona based on a 20-year
analysis (USFWS 2019, p. 56).
There are about 22 million ac
(8,900,000 ha) of rangeland, used
predominantly for grazing, in Arizona
across Tribal, private, Federal, and State
lands (USDA 2019, p. 19), and these
lands represent potential habitat for
both the prairie dog and ferret (Ernst et
al. 2006, p. 91). Livestock grazing
became a prominent activity on the
Arizona landscape in the 1880s and
peaked in intensity around the late
1890s and early 1900s (Milchunas 2006,
p. 7). Grazing in arid and semiarid areas
can alter species composition of plant
communities, disrupt ecosystem
functions, and alter ecosystem structure
(Fleischner 1994, p. 631). Available
literature reveals a wide range of
potential effects of livestock grazing on
ecosystems that vary with site-specific
characteristics, including habitat type,
grazing intensity, and history of grazing
(Jones 2000, entire; Milchunas and
Lauenroth 1993, entire; Milchunas 2006,
entire).
Few studies have examined the effects
of grazing on prairie dogs. Cheng and
Ritchie (2006, p. 550) observed lower
growth rates in Utah prairie dogs (C.
parvidens) in plots treated to simulate
grazing in a sagebrush steppe habitat.
Conversely, forage in simulated grazed
plots had higher nutrition and greater
digestibility, and the prairie dogs
showed preference for those patches
(Cheng and Ritchie 2006, pp. 549–550).
Ponce-Guevara et al. (2016, pp. 5, 7)
found that black-tailed prairie dog
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
populations increased in areas of a
desert grassland where cattle grazing
reduced woody encroachment. The
potential for competitive effects of large
grazing herbivores on prairie dog
populations likely depends on sitespecific factors, such as habitat
productivity and herbivore densities
(Cheng and Ritchie 2006, p. 554).
Despite the potential for competition,
prairie dogs remained prominent on
rangelands in Arizona during the period
of heaviest livestock grazing and did not
begin declining until the time of
systematic prairie dog eradication
programs (Oakes 2000, pp. 169–171).
This long history of prairie dog
persistence with livestock grazing in
Arizona and the persistence of ferrets at
the AVEPA lead us to conclude that
livestock grazing and ranching activities
can be compatible with maintaining
occupied prairie dog habitat capable of
supporting ferrets.
Depending on intensity, recreational
shooting of prairie dogs can negatively
affect local prairie dog populations
through direct fatality of individuals
(Vosburgh and Irby 1998, entire; Keffer
et al. 2001, entire; Knowles 2002, pp.
14–15). The resulting decrease in prey
base negatively affects ferrets, and it is
likely this activity could occur on ferret
reintroduction sites (Reeve and
Vosburgh 2006, entire). Recreational
shooting reduces the number of prairie
dogs in a colony, thereby decreasing
prairie dog density (Knowles 1988, p.
54), occupied acreage (Knowles and
Vosburgh 2001, p. 12), and reproduction
(Stockrahm and Seabloom 1979, entire).
Recreational shooting could also cause
direct fatality to prairie dog-associated
species such as ferrets (Knowles and
Vosburgh 2001, p. 14; Reeve and
Vosburgh 2006, pp. 120–121). Although
we do not have documentation of
incidental take of ferrets by prairie dog
shooters, direct ferret fatality due to
accidental shooting is possible. Lastly,
recreational shooting of prairie dogs also
contributes to the environmental issue
of lead accumulation in wildlife food
chains (Knowles and Vosburgh 2001, p.
15; Pauli and Buskirk 2007, entire).
Killing large numbers of animals with
lead bullets and not removing carcasses
from the field may present potentially
dangerous amounts of lead to
scavengers and predators of prairie
dogs, such as ferrets. We have not
documented ferret ingestion of lead to
date (USFWS 2013a, p. 28). To address
these recreational shooting conservation
issues, AZGFD implements prairie dog
annual shooting closures on public
lands from April 1 to June 30 to reduce
potential effects on prairie dog
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
reproduction (USFWS 2019, p. 29). In
addition, in the event of prairie dog
population declines in an established
reintroduction site for any reason, the
AZGFD Commission may close prairie
dog shooting until the population
recovers (AZGFD 2016, p. 15).
Poisoning of prairie dogs has the
potential to occur within both
Gunnison’s and black-tailed prairie dog
habitat and can affect ferrets through
loss of prey and inadvertent secondary
poisoning for some poisons. In recent
years, the extent of prairie dog
poisoning has been closely regulated,
limited in area, and confined to specific
needs compared to historical poisoning.
From 2013 through 2019 in Arizona,
APHIS treated prairie dogs with zinc
phosphide at three private properties,
totaling 56 ac (23 ha) of colonies, for
livestock and property protection on
pasture and farmland near rural
communities (C. Carrillo, pers. comm.,
APHIS, October 23, 2019). None of these
treatments were in or near current or
proposed ferret reintroduction areas.
Certain activities associated with
prairie dog recreational shooting and
poisoning have the potential to result in
incidental ferret fatality. For example,
use and establishment of roads within
prairie dog and ferret habitat may result
in ferret road kills and increase human
access for prairie dog shooting (Gordon
et al. 2003, p. 12). However, we have no
information to suggest that incidental
fatalities have a significant effect on
ferret population viability.
When the USFWS established the
AVEPA, we determined existing and
foreseeable land use practices within
the AVEPA to be compatible with
sustaining ferret viability (61 FR 11320,
March 20, 1996). These practices
include grazing and related activities
(including existing and foreseeable
levels of prairie dog control), big game
hunting, prairie dog shooting, and the
trapping of furbearers and predators.
Other land uses include transportation
and rights-of-way (e.g., for utilities). Our
success in reintroducing ferrets in the
AVEPA over 26 years supports that
finding. Similarly, in the USFWS’s
establishment of the statewide
nonessential experimental population of
ferrets in Wyoming, we found that land
use activities currently occurring across
that State, primarily livestock grazing
and associated ranch management
practices, recreation, residential
development, and mineral and energy
development, are compatible with ferret
recovery and that there is no
information to suggest that foreseeable
similar future activities would be
incompatible with ferret recovery (80 FR
66821, October 30, 2015). Based on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Oct 04, 2023
Jkt 262001
previous successes with other
experimental ferret populations in areas
influenced by similar land use activities
and actions, including the AVEPA
within Arizona, we conclude that the
effects of Federal, State, Tribal, and
private actions and activities will not
pose a substantial threat to ferret
establishment and persistence within
the SWEPA and that SWEPA
establishment will benefit the
conservation of ferrets.
Experimental Population Regulation
Requirements
Our regulations at 50 CFR 17.81(c)
include a list of what the USFWS
provides in regulations designating
experimental populations under section
10(j) of the ESA. We explain what our
regulations include and provide our
rationale for those regulations below.
Means To Identify the Experimental
Population
Our regulations require that we
provide appropriate means to identify
the experimental population, which
may include geographic locations,
number of individuals to be released,
anticipated movements, and other
information or criteria.
Identifying the Location and Boundaries
of the SWEPA
The 40,905,350-ac SWEPA occurs in
the State of Arizona and on sovereign
lands of the Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe,
and the Navajo Nation, including
Navajo Nation lands in New Mexico,
and Utah (see ‘‘Experimental
Population’’ above); we delineate the
boundaries below in the figure titled
‘‘Southwest Nonessential Experimental
Population Area (SWEPA) for the
ferret.’’ These boundaries are based on
various grasslands and parts of biotic
communities in which grasslands are
interspersed, with which prairie dogs
are associated, including Plains and
Great Basin Grassland, Great Basin
Conifer Woodland, Great Basin
Desertscrub, and Petrane Montane
Conifer Forest biotic communities
(AZGFD 2016, pp. 8–10) (Brown et al.
1979, entire), and represent a 184-fold
increase in area from the AVEPA
(USFWS 2021, p. 7, figure 2). State
political subdivisions include portions
of Apache, Cochise, Coconino, Gila,
Graham, Mohave, Navajo, Pima, Pinal,
Santa Cruz, and Yavapai Counties of
Arizona; Cibola, McKinley, Rio Arriba,
Sandoval, and San Juan Counties of
New Mexico; and San Juan County,
Utah.
The SWEPA consists of two separate
areas: (1) northeast and northcentral
Arizona, the southeast corner of Utah,
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
69057
and northwest New Mexico on the
Navajo Nation, and (2) southeastern
Arizona.
The SWEPA will encompass and
replace the AVEPA. In addition, two
areas enrolled in the programmatic SHA
under certificates of inclusion, the
Espee Allotment and Double O Ranch,
are within the SWEPA. Although this
experimental population designation
can overlay SHAs, we contacted
enrollees to assess interest in replacing
their certificates of inclusion with the
provisions of this 10(j) rule. We propose
phasing out the SHA certificates of
inclusion in the future for interested
landowners. As a result, the USFWS
would conduct future reintroductions of
ferrets within the SWEPA under the
experimental population designation
regulation.
Number of Anticipated Ferret Releases
The number of ferrets released at a
given reintroduction site depends on
multiple variables and can vary
extensively between sites. In the
AVEPA, for example, the USFWS and
AZGFD released 35 ferrets over 5 years
without documenting wild
reproduction, which is necessary for a
site to become self-sustaining. We
continued releasing ferrets until the
population appeared to be selfsustaining. After 4 years, the population
appeared to be faltering, and we
resumed ferret releases. Over a span of
11 years, from 1996 to 2006, we released
354 ferrets at the AVEPA. After 2011,
we released an additional 112 excess
kits from breeding facilities into the
AVEPA. We added 41 ferrets at the
Double O Ranch over 4 years (2016–
2019) for research purposes after ferrets
from AVEPA naturally dispersed there.
We released 99 ferrets at Espee Ranch
over a span of 3 years (2007 to 2009).
The USFWS recommends initially
releasing up to 20 to 30 ferrets at new
reintroduction sites in the SWEPA, with
the total number of ferrets released
across multiple years at new
reintroduction sites likely similar to the
established reintroduction sites in
Arizona.
Actual or Anticipated Movements
Understanding ferret movement
patterns and distances will ensure
accurate identification of ferrets
associated with the SWEPA.
Researchers have documented newly
released captive-born ferrets dispersing
up to 30 miles (49 km) from the release
site (Biggins et al. 1999, p. 125), and
wild-born ferrets more than 12 miles (20
km) (USFWS 2019, p. 7). AZGFD
documented ferrets up to 15 miles
outside the AVEPA starting in 2012, 16
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
69058
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
years after initial releases (J. Cordova,
AZGFD, pers. comm., November 22,
2022).
While dispersal of ferrets depends on
variables such as competition within a
given population and the availability of
adjacent habitat and prey, we would
expect a pattern of ferret dispersal from
new reintroduction sites in the SWEPA
to be similar to those observed in the
AVEPA. Outside of the SWEPA, the
closest current reintroduced population
of ferrets is Coyote Basin, Utah, which
is about 200 mi (320 km) away,
substantially greater than documented
ferret dispersal distances. Therefore, we
will consider any ferret found in the
wild within the boundaries of the
SWEPA to be part of the experimental
population.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Reintroduction Sites
The USFWS recommends the
establishment of at least five ferret
reintroduction sites in the SWEPA to
buffer against stochastic or catastrophic
events and reliably meet Recovery Plan
recovery guidelines (USFWS 2022a).
Federal and State public lands in
Arizona and Tribal and private lands
currently support large expanses of
grasslands with varying sizes of
Gunnison’s prairie dog colonies
(AZGFD 2016, figure 1). Reintroduction
sites may include those discussed below
or additional sites where there are
willing landowners and managers, and
suitable prairie dog habitat exists.
Established Reintroduction Sites Within
the SWEPA
(1) Aubrey Valley/Double O Ranch—
The AVEPA encompasses 221,894 ac
(89,800 ha) of private, Tribal, State, and
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
managed lands and is located about 5
miles northwest of Seligman in
Coconino, Yavapai, and Mohave
Counties. The adjacent Double O Ranch
encompasses 236,792 ac (95,828 ha) of
private, State, and USFS managed lands
south of the AVEPA. Together, these
sites contain 264,016 ac (106,846 ha) of
grasslands. AZGFD mapped an average
of 52,455 ac (21,228 ha) of Gunnison’s
prairie dog colonies in the AVEPA
between 2007 and 2016 (AZGFD 2016,
p. 8) (H. Hicks, AZGFD, pers. comm.,
January 26, 2018). In 2014 and 2016,
respectively, Gunnison’s prairie dogs
occupied 7,074 and 6,313 known ac
(2,863 and 2,555 ha) on Double O Ranch
(AZGFD 2016, p. 7; H. Hicks, AZGFD,
pers. comm., January 26, 2018). Plague
is likely present in the AVEPA.
(2) Espee Ranch—The Espee
Allotment encompasses 145,644 ac
(58,941 ha) of private and State lands
about 17 miles northeast of Seligman, in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Oct 04, 2023
Jkt 262001
Coconino County, Arizona. There are
139,255 ac (56,356 ha) of grasslands
(AZGFD 2016, pp. 8–9). In 2007, prior
to release of ferrets, approximately
29,000 ac (11,736 ha) of occupied
prairie dog habitat was mapped (AZGFD
2007, p. 1). Since then, the number of
prairie dog occupied acres has
fluctuated greatly, with 3,228 occupied
ac (1,306 ha) in 2014 and 21,771
occupied ac (8,811 ha) in 2018 (J.
Cordova, AZGFD, pers. comm., August
18, 2022). Plague is present on the Espee
Ranch and is the suspected reason for
the lack of recent ferret observations
despite multiple releases.
Potential Reintroduction Sites Within
the SWEPA
The four areas described below do not
currently meet the minimum necessary
Gunnison’s prairie dog occupied acreage
to support ferrets. However, active
management, such as translocations of
prairie dogs, and dusting for plague or
administration of a plague vaccine,
along with annual monitoring of prairie
dog populations, may provide for the
needed acreage of occupied prairie dog
habitat in these areas (AZGFD 2016, p.
9).
(1) Kaibab National Forest, Williams/
Tusayan Ranger Districts––These areas
cover over 613,000 ac (248,078 ha) of
USFS, Department of Defense, private,
and State managed lands surrounding
the city of Williams in Coconino and
Yavapai Counties. There were 96,954 ac
(39,237 ha) of grasslands with 4,984 ac
(2,017 ha) of known Gunnison’s prairie
dog occupied area in 2015 (AZGFD
2016, p. 9).
(2) CO Bar Ranch—This ranch
encompasses 263,758 ac (106,741 ha) of
private, State, BLM, and Tribal lands
and is located about 24 miles north of
Flagstaff in Coconino County. There
were 184,815 ac (74,794 ha) of
grasslands with 870 ac (352 ha) of
known Gunnison’s prairie dog occupied
area in 2015 (AZGFD 2016, p. 9).
(3) Petrified Forest National Park—
This area encompasses 223,027 ac
(90,258 ha) of NPS, State, Tribal, BLM,
and privately managed lands east of
Holbrook in Navajo and Apache
Counties. There were 214,135 ac (86,659
ha) of grasslands with 87 ac (35 ha) of
known Gunnison’s prairie dog occupied
area in 2015 (AZGFD 2016, p. 10).
(4) Lyman Lake—This area
encompasses 316,958 ac (128,271 ha) of
private, State, AZGFD, BLM, and USFS
lands south of St. Johns in Apache
County. There were 273,227 ac (110,573
ha) of grasslands with 2,045 ac (828 ha)
of known Gunnison’s prairie dog
occupied area in 2015 (AZGFD 2016, p.
10).
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Black-tailed prairie dog habitat exists
in southeastern Arizona (Cockrum 1960,
p. 76; figure 1). In 2008, the AZGFD
reintroduced this species into a small
portion of its historical range via
translocations from wild populations in
New Mexico (W. Van Pelt, AZGFD, pers.
comm, July 6, 2022). This new blacktailed prairie dog population occurs on
the BLM-administered Las Cienegas
National Conservation Area. Surveys in
2021 estimated that a minimum of 210
black-tailed prairie dogs occupied 28 ac
(11.3 ha) (J. Presler, AZGFD, pers.
comm., February 7, 2022). It would
likely take many years to reach enough
black-tailed prairie dog occupied
acreage with a stable population to
support a reintroduction of ferrets.
However, efforts to expand black-tailed
prairie dog colony acreage would offer
opportunities to re-create habitat for
ferrets (USFWS 2013a, p. 51).
We will consider reintroduction sites
on Tribal Lands if Tribes are interested
and where suitable prairie dog habitat
exists. Forty-nine percent of the land
within the range of Gunnison’s prairie
dog in Arizona is under Tribal
ownership (Seglund et al. 2006, table 3).
The Navajo Nation is the largest owner
of Gunnison’s prairie dog habitat
(Johnson et al. 2010, p. 6). Working with
the Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, and
Navajo Nation, we may be able to
identify other potential sites for ferret
reintroduction on their Tribal sovereign
lands. All three Tribes have expressed
interest in working with the USFWS in
ferret recovery (J. Nystedt, USFWS, pers.
comm., March 23, 2022; Navajo Nation
2017, entire; D. Clarke, Hualapai Tribe,
pers. comm., March 26, 2018; Hopi
Tribe 2021, entire). The Hualapai and
Hopi reservations and Hopi-owned
ranches coincide entirely with Arizona
(i.e., their lands are wholly within the
borders of the State), whereas the
Navajo Nation also coincides with parts
of the States of New Mexico and Utah,
within which the Navajo Nation has
sovereign authority to manage wildlife.
Surveys of prairie dog populations on
Tribal lands, in addition to other
information such as incidence of plague,
are needed as part of the process of
considering these lands for ferret
reintroduction. The Navajo Nation and
Hopi Tribe, in collaboration with
Natural Heritage New Mexico,
conducted a remote survey of
Gunnison’s prairie dogs on the lands of
both Tribes in 2010. The technique
used, involving standard photointerpretation to identify disturbance in
potential habitat on digital orthophoto
quarter quads, estimated the total area of
occupied Gunnison’s prairie dog habitat
on the Navajo Nation and Reservation of
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
the Hopi Tribe at 253,562 ac (102,615
ha) (Johnson et al. 2010, pp. iv, 18).
The Navajo Nation recently received a
USFWS Tribal Wildlife Grant to
investigate areas for future ferret
reintroductions, including prairie dog
habitat mapping, disease monitoring,
and development of a ferret
reintroduction plan for the Navajo
Nation. As mentioned previously, we
originally included some lands of the
Hualapai Tribe and deeded lands owned
by the Navajo Nation when we
designated the AVEPA, and the Tribes
have worked cooperatively with the
USFWS and AZGFD on ferret recovery.
The Hopi Tribe has expressed interest in
ferret recovery activities on a portion of
their lands, including ranches and part
of their Reservation. They requested
excluding District 6 of their Reservation,
so we have excluded that area from the
SWEPA.
Is the experimental population
essential or nonessential?
When we establish experimental
populations under section 10(j) of the
ESA, we must determine whether such
a population is essential to the
continued existence of the species in the
wild. This determination is based solely
on the best scientific and commercial
data available. Our regulations 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 (50 CFR 17.80(b)). All other
populations are considered
nonessential.
The ESA states that, prior to any
release ‘‘the Secretary must find by
regulation that such release will further
the conservation of the species’’ (49 FR
33893, August 27, 1984).
Reintroductions are, by their nature,
experiments, the fate of which is
uncertain. However, it is always our
goal for reintroductions to be successful
and contribute to recovery. The
importance of reintroductions to
recovery does not necessarily mean
these populations are ‘‘essential’’ under
section 10(j) of the ESA. In fact,
Congress’ expectation was that ‘‘in most
cases, experimental populations will not
be essential’’ (H.R. Conference Report
No. 835 supra at 34; 49 FR 33888,
August 27, 1984). The preamble to our
1984 publication of ESA 10(j)
implementing regulations reflects this
understanding, stating that an essential
population will be a special case, and
not the general rule (49 FR 33888,
August 27, 1984).
In our final rule establishing the
nonessential experimental population in
Aubrey Valley, the USFWS found the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Oct 04, 2023
Jkt 262001
AVEPA to be ‘‘nonessential’’ because
the captive-breeding population is both
the secure source for all reintroductions,
and the primary repository of genetic
diversity for the species (61 FR 11320,
March 20, 1996). We considered all
reintroduced ferrets to be in excess to
the captive population, and we could
replace any deceased reintroduced
animals through captive breeding (61 FR
11323, March 20, 1996).
The USFWS did not anticipate
changing the nonessential designation
for the AVEPA unless the experiment
failed or until the ferret recovered (61
FR 11323, March 20, 1996). However,
because this final rule will replace the
AVEPA through incorporation into the
SWEPA, an evaluation as to whether the
new SWEPA experimental population is
essential to the continued existence of
the species in the wild is appropriate.
As discussed above, we expect the
SWEPA to further the conservation of
the species by contributing to the
establishment of multiple, widespread
populations that will persist over time
and contribute to achieving recovery
goals for the species. However, we
consider the SWEPA nonessential
because there are now a number of
reintroduced ferret populations in the
wild, across the range of the species.
There are 18 active reintroduction sites
across the ferret’s historical range (J.
Hughes, USFWS, pers. comm.,
December 13, 2021), consisting of a
minimum of 340 ferrets in 2018, with a
minimum of 254 at the 4 most
successful reintroduction sites (Rocky
Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife
Refuge, Colorado; Conata Basin/
Badlands, South Dakota; and Shirley
Basin and Meeteetse, Wyoming)
(USFWS 2019, table 3). In the blackfooted ferret SSA (USFWS 2019, pp. 43–
83), we used the conservation biology
principles of resiliency, redundancy,
and representation (Shaffer and Stein
2000, entire) to assess how the
populations at the active sites contribute
to the current and future species
condition to address the ferret’s viability
in the wild across its range.
Resiliency indicates a population’s
ability to withstand environmental and
demographic stochasticity. We assessed
the resiliency of each ferret population
across the species’ range based on the 5year mean number of breeding adults,
habitat suitability, annual plague
management, annual ferret vaccinations,
ferret population persistence, and level
of prairie dog conservation. Of the 14
sites active at the time of our
assessment, we considered 2 in highresiliency condition and 8 in moderateresiliency condition (USFWS 2019,
table 11). We estimated that in 20 years,
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
69059
if management and threats remain at
current levels, the two high-resiliency
populations will remain in that
condition, seven of the eight moderateresiliency populations will remain in
that condition, and one of the moderateresiliency populations will become lowresiliency.
Redundancy is the ability of a species
to withstand catastrophic events, via the
number and distribution of populations.
Representation, or ecological or genetic
diversity across a species’ range, enables
a species to better respond to changes in
the environment. Current and future
high- and moderate-resiliency
populations occur in the wild across six
States, including Wyoming, South
Dakota, Kansas, Colorado, Utah, and
Arizona. This broad distribution of
ferret populations across the Western
United States protects against
catastrophic events affecting all wild
ferret populations simultaneously, and
it allows for a variety of physical and
biological conditions in which the
species may express adaptive capacity
going forward. Additionally, captivebreeding efforts continue to support the
establishment of more populations
throughout the species’ range. Loss of
the SWEPA would not affect these
remaining populations of ferrets in the
wild.
The current ferret population in
Arizona, while contributing
incrementally to conservation in concert
with other sites, is a relatively small
portion of the total number and
distribution of ferret populations
needed for species recovery. The
Recovery Plan’s delisting criteria for
ferrets calls for 30 or more populations,
with at least 1 population in each of at
least 9 of 12 States within the historical
range of the species, and at least 5
populations within colonies of
Gunnison’s and white-tailed prairie
dogs. About 27 percent of Gunnison’s
prairie dog range occurs in Arizona.
This equates to about 9 to 14 percent of
all prairie dog occupied habitat (i.e., the
range of all 3 prairie dog species)
(USFWS 2013a, p. 24). In Arizona, the
relative recommended contribution of
habitat to ferret delisting is about seven
percent (USFWS 2013a, table 8, p. 77).
The SWEPA will further the recovery
of the ferret by allowing us to establish
multiple wild populations within the
species’ historical range. We conclude
that the loss of all reintroduced ferrets
within the SWEPA is not likely to
appreciably reduce the likelihood of
survival of the species in the wild due
to maintenance of the captive
population for additional
reintroductions into the wild, the
number of reintroduction sites and
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
69060
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
established populations rangewide, and
the expected incremental contribution
of Arizona to the recovery of the ferret.
Furthermore, the SWEPA covers a
relatively small portion of potential
ferret habitat rangewide: about seven
percent; thus, the potential size of the
experimental population within the
SWEPA will be small relative to the
potential number of ferrets rangewide.
Therefore, as required by 50 CFR
17.81(c)(2), we determine the SWEPA
experimental population is not essential
to the continued existence of the species
in the wild, and we designate the
SWEPA experimental population as
nonessential.
Management Restrictions, Protective
Measures, and Other Special
Management
We are applying the experimental
population designation and regulations
to the entire SWEPA; thus, a single set
of statutes and regulations and a single
management framework will apply to all
non-Federal and Federal lands
containing potential ferret habitat
within the designated SWEPA
boundary. This approach will extend
regulatory assurances to all areas where
ferrets could potentially establish,
including the current properties covered
by the SHA. There are no significant
differences between the terms and
conditions of the SHA and 10(j)
regulations in terms of how landowners
operate their ranches with respect to
ferret recovery.
The USFWS will undertake SWEPA
reintroductions in cooperation with
current and future partners. Existing
management plans or those that wildlife
managers develop in cooperation with
us and other partners and stakeholders
will guide management of ferret
populations in the SWEPA (e.g., USFWS
2016a, AZGFD 2016).
As discussed in the ‘‘Actions and
Activities that May Affect the
Introduced Population,’’ Federal, State,
Tribal, and private actions will not pose
a substantial threat to ferret
establishment and persistence in the
SWEPA because land management
activities, such as agricultural land
conversion, recreational shooting of
prairie dogs, poisoning of prairie dogs,
urbanization, and energy development,
currently occurring or anticipated to
occur at prospective reintroduction sites
in Arizona are very limited in scope. In
addition, as discussed in ‘‘Addressing
Causes of Extirpation within the
Experimental Population Area’’ above,
due to the low demand for and
regulatory restrictions on prairie dog
poisoning, we do not anticipate any
change in prairie dog control efforts that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Oct 04, 2023
Jkt 262001
would reduce prairie dog occupied
habitat to the extent that they would
compromise the viability of any
potential ferret population. The best
available information indicates that
future range and ranching activities will
remain compatible with ferret recovery
because they do not limit essential ferret
behavior such as feeding, breeding, or
sheltering. We base this assessment on
26 years of ferret reintroductions and
management at the AVEPA and Espee
and Double O Ranches in Arizona, and
at other reintroduction sites throughout
the range of the species (80 FR 66826,
October 30, 2015).
The AZGFD, BLM, USFS, NPS,
Tribes, and private landowners manage
sites with high potential for ferret
establishment, and these areas receive
protection through the following legal
mechanisms:
Legal Mechanisms
(1) Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA; 43
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)—The BLM’s
mission is set forth under the FLPMA,
which mandates that the BLM manage
public land resources for a variety of
uses, such as energy development,
livestock grazing, recreation, and timber
harvesting, while protecting the natural,
cultural, and historical resources on
those lands. The BLM manages listed
and sensitive species under guidance
provided in the BLM Manual Section
6840—Special Status Species
Management. The Manual directs the
BLM to conserve ESA-listed species and
the ecosystems upon which they
depend, ensure that all actions
authorized or carried out by the BLM
comply with the ESA, and cooperate
with the recovery planning and recovery
of listed species. The BLM has
experience in managing the ferret at four
reintroduction sites in four States that
occur at least in part on BLM lands.
Therefore, we anticipate appropriate
management by the BLM on future ferret
reintroduction sites that include BLM
lands.
(2) National Forest Management Act
of 1976, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1600 et
seq.)—This law instructs the USFS to
strive to provide for a diversity of plant
and animal communities when
managing USFS lands. The USFS
identifies species listed as endangered
or threatened under the ESA, including
the ferret, a Category 1 species at risk
based on rangewide and national
imperilment. The USFS has experience
managing the ferret on one
reintroduction site that occurs at least in
part on USFS lands. Therefore, we
anticipate appropriate management by
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the USFS on future ferret reintroduction
sites that include USFS lands.
(3) Organic Act of 1916, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1–4)—This law requires the
NPS to conserve National Park
resources, consistent with the
established values and purposes for
each park. In addition, the Organic Act
instructs the NPS ‘‘to conserve the
scenery and the natural and historical
objects and the wildlife therein and to
provide for the enjoyment of the same
in such manner and by such means as
will leave them unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations.’’ NPS
management policies require them to
conserve ESA-listed species and to
prevent detrimental effects on these
species. The NPS has experience
managing the ferret at two National
Parks in South Dakota, where the NPS
protects ferrets and their habitats from
large-scale loss or degradation, per their
mandate. Management of these
reintroduction sites would need to
continue regardless of the species’
listing status. Therefore, we anticipate
appropriate management by the NPS on
any future ferret reintroduction sites
that include NPS lands.
(4) Navajo Nation Law—Navajo
Nation Code (NNC), title 17, chapter 3,
subchapter 21, provides protections for
ferrets. Title 17 NNC section 507 makes
it unlawful for any person to take
wildlife on either of the following lists,
as quoted from the code:
(a) ‘‘The list of wildlife indigenous to
the Navajo Nation that they determine
to be endangered by regulation of the
Resources Committee of the Navajo
Nation Council.’’ The Navajo Nation
added the ferret to this list pursuant to
Resources Committee Resolution RCF–
014–91.
(b) The U.S. lists of endangered native
and foreign fish and wildlife, as set forth
in section 4 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 as endangered or threatened
species, to the extent that the Resources
Committee adopts these lists. Navajo
Nation Code (17 NNC section 504) also
makes it unlawful for any person to take
or possess a fur-bearing animal, which
includes ferrets by definition (17 NNC
section 500), except as permitted by the
Director, Navajo Nation Department of
Fish and Wildlife.
(5) Hopi Tribal Law—Tribal
Ordinance 48 (Wildlife) documents the
Tribe’s exclusive jurisdiction to regulate
and adjudicate all matters pertaining to
wildlife found on the Hopi Reservation.
All wildlife found on the Reservation,
whether resident or migratory, native or
introduced, is the property of the Hopi
Tribe, and Tribal Law provides the
times and manner of allowable take.
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
(6) Arizona State Law—General
provisions of Arizona Revised Statutes,
title 17, protects all of Arizona’s native
wildlife, including federally listed
threatened and endangered species.
(7) Endangered Species Act—The ESA
will continue to provide protection to
ferrets in the SWEPA through section 10
by requiring certain management
entities to obtain an enhancement of
survival permit from the USFWS under
section 10(a)(1)(A) for any intentional
taking of a ferret that is prohibited by
section 9 of the ESA and not exempted
through this rule. The authorities of
section 6 of the ESA and 50 CFR 17.21,
17.31, and 17.84(g) cover AZGFD’s
management activities. Section 7(a)(1) of
the ESA also requires all Federal
agencies to use their authorities to
further the purposes of the ESA.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Other Protections and Management
Restrictions
Other protections and management
restrictions and measures in the SWEPA
include:
(1) Incidental take: ESA 10(j)
experimental population rules contain
specific prohibitions and exceptions
regarding take of individual animals.
These rules are compatible with most
routine human activities in the expected
reestablishment area. Section 3(19) of
the ESA defines ‘‘take’’ as ‘‘to harass,
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,
trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to
engage in any such conduct.’’ Under 50
CFR 17.3, ‘‘harass’’ means an intentional
or negligent act or omission that creates
the likelihood of injury to wildlife by
annoying it to such an extent as to
significantly disrupt normal behavioral
patterns that include, but are not limited
to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. And
‘‘harm’’ means an act that actually kills
or injures wildlife, including significant
habitat modification that actually kills
or injures wildlife by significantly
impairing essential behavioral patterns,
including breeding, feeding, or
sheltering. The regulations further
define ‘‘incidental take’’ as take that is
incidental to, and not the purpose of,
the carrying out of an otherwise lawful
activity. This nonessential experimental
population designation rule will allow
most incidental take of ferrets in the
experimental population area, provided
the take is unintentional and not due to
negligent conduct. However, if there
was evidence of intentional take, we
would refer the matter to the
appropriate law enforcement entities for
investigation. This is consistent with
regulations for areas currently enrolled
in the SHA and in the AVEPA where we
do not allow intentional take.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Oct 04, 2023
Jkt 262001
(2) Special handling: In accordance
with 50 CFR 17.21(c)(3), any employee
or agent of the USFWS or of a State
wildlife agency may, in the course of
their official duties, handle ferrets to aid
sick or injured ferrets, salvage dead
ferrets, and conduct other activities
consistent with 50 CFR 17.84(g), their
section 6 work plan, and 50 CFR 17.31.
Employees or agents of other agencies
would need to acquire the necessary
permits from the USFWS for these
activities.
(3) Arizona promulgation of
regulations and other management for
the conservation of the ferret as well as
other species that, in turn, would
benefit ferret recovery: For example, the
AZGFD includes the ferret on the
Species of Greatest Conservation Need
Tier 1A (AZGFD 2012, p. 216). The list
provides policy guidance on
management priorities only, not legal or
regulatory protection. The State also
implements annual prairie dog shooting
closures on public lands from April 1 to
June 30.
(4) Coordination with landowners and
managers: We discussed this rule with
potentially affected State and Federal
agencies, Tribes, local governments,
private landowners, and other
stakeholders in the SWEPA. These
agencies and landowners and managers
have indicated either support for, or no
opposition to, this revision to the
AVEPA. In advance of our developing
the original rule for AVEPA, the AZGFD
determined that designation of a
nonessential experimental population
was necessary to achieve landowner
support to make a ferret reintroduction
project viable (AZGFD 2016, p. 2; 61 FR
11325, March 20, 1996). To receive the
same public support for their
Management Plan, the AZGFD
recommended expanding the AVEPA
(AZGFD 2016, p. 2). Following
consideration of their recommendation,
we coordinated with AZGFD and the
Navajo, Hopi, and Hualapai Tribes to
develop the SWEPA.
(5) Public awareness and cooperation:
We informed the public of the
importance of the SWEPA for the
recovery of the ferret through the
proposed rule and requested public
comment. The replacement of the
AVEPA to establish the SWEPA under
section 10(j) of the ESA as a
nonessential experimental population
increases reintroduction opportunities
and provides greater flexibility in the
management of the reintroduced ferret.
The nonessential experimental
population designation will facilitate
cooperation of the State, Tribes, private
landowners, and other interests in the
affected area.
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
69061
(6) Potential effects to other species
listed under the ESA: There are four
federally listed species with
distributions that overlap the SWEPA
and with habitat requirements that
could overlap the grassland habitats that
support prairie dogs (table 1). However,
we have not documented any of these
species in current or potential ferret
reintroduction sites and/or these species
are unlikely to occur or compete with
ferrets for resources. We do not expect
ferret reintroduction efforts to result in
adverse effects to these species.
TABLE 1—FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES
IN THE SWEPA
Species
Mexican wolf (Canis lupus
baileyi).
California condor
(Gymnogyps
californianus).
Northern aplomado falcon
(Falco femoralis
septentrionalis).
Pima pineapple cactus
(Coryphantha scheeri
var. robustispina).
Current status in
Arizona under
the ESA
Nonessential experimental.
Nonessential experimental, Endangered.
Nonessential experimental.
Endangered.
Measures To Isolate or Contain the
Experimental Population From
Nonexperimental Populations
There are no naturally occurring wild
populations of ferrets. Outside of
reintroduced populations, the ferret is
extirpated throughout its historical
range, including in Arizona, New
Mexico, and Utah (USFWS 2017, entire)
(see ‘‘Historical Range’’ above).
Therefore, we do not need any measures
to isolate or contain reintroduced ferrets
in the SWEPA from other populations of
black-footed ferret.
Review and Evaluation of the Success
or Failure of the SWEPA
Monitoring is a required element of
all ferret reintroduction projects.
Reintroduction projects will conduct the
three following types of monitoring:
(1) Reintroduction Effectiveness
Monitoring: Reintroduction partners
will monitor ferret population
demographics and potential sources of
fatality, including plague, annually for 5
years following the last release using
spotlight surveys, snow tracking, other
visual survey techniques, or possibly
radiotelemetry of some individuals
following AZGFD’s Management Plan
and the USFWS’s Operations Manual
(USFWS 2016a, pp. 25–59) or similar
procedures identified in a management
plan developed for a specific
reintroduction site. Thereafter, partners
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
69062
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
will complete demographic surveys
periodically to track population status.
Surveys will incorporate methods to
monitor breeding success and long-term
survival rates, as appropriate. The
USFWS anticipates that AZGFD, Tribes,
and/or other participating partners will
conduct monitoring, and they will
include monitoring results in their
annual reports.
(2) Donor Population Monitoring: We
will acquire ferrets from the captivebreeding population or from another
viable reintroduction site. The USFWS
and our partners manage ferrets in the
captive-breeding population in
accordance with the AZA SSP® (Graves
et al. 2018, entire). The AZA SSP®
Husbandry Manual provides up-to-date
protocols for the care, propagation,
preconditioning, and transportation of
captive ferrets, and all participating
captive-breeding facilities use it.
The USFWS may translocate ferrets
from other reintroduction sites,
provided their removal will not
negatively affect the extant population,
and appropriate permits are issued in
accordance with current regulations (50
CFR 17.22) prior to their removal.
Population monitoring, following any
removals for translocation, will occur
under guidance of the USFWS-approved
management plan for the donor site.
(3) Monitoring Effects to Other Listed
Species and Critical Habitat: We do not
expect adverse effects to other federally
listed species or critical habitat (see
‘‘Other Protections and Management
Restrictions’’ number 6, above).
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Findings
Based on the above information and
using the best scientific and commercial
data available (in accordance with 50
CFR 17.81), we find that releasing
ferrets into the SWEPA will further the
conservation of the species and that
these reintroduced populations are not
essential to the continued existence of
the species in the wild.
Summary of Changes From the
Proposed Rule
Below, we highlight some of the
changes made in the preamble to this
final rule as a result of comments and
additional analysis:
• Added information that suggests
that reductions in prairie dog numbers
and fitness may contribute to plague
epizootics (see ‘‘Threats/Causes of
Decline’’ above).
• Added the number of new
reintroduction sites we intend to
establish in the SWEPA (see
‘‘Experimental Population’’ above).
• Edited and added information in
our discussion about the effects of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Oct 04, 2023
Jkt 262001
grazing on prairie dogs to emphasize the
complexity of the interactions and the
site-specific variation of effects (see
‘‘How Will the Experimental Population
(SWEPA) Further the Conservation of
the Species?’’ above).
• Added information about the
resiliency, redundancy, and
representation of the ferret from the SSA
to further support our experimental
population designation of nonessential
(see ‘‘How Will the Experimental
Population (SWEPA) Further the
Conservation of the Species?’’ above).
• Clarified language associated with
the minimum occupied prairie-dog
acreage for Gunnison’s prairie dogs
related to ferret reintroductions (see
‘‘Experimental Populations’’ above).
This final rule also incorporates
minor, non-substantive clarifying edits
(e.g., citation clarification, resolution of
numerical or other inconsistencies, etc.)
and the incorporation of additional
information based on the public and
peer review comments we received.
However, the information we received
during the comment period for the
proposed rule did not change our
findings or the species-specific
regulations that apply to this
experimental population of ferrets.
Summary of Comments and
Recommendations
In the proposed rule published on
June 25, 2021 (86 FR 33613), we
requested that all interested parties
submit written comments on the
proposal by August 24, 2021. In
addition, in accordance with our joint
policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), and updated guidance issued on
August 22, 2016 (USFWS 2016b, entire),
we solicited peer review of our
proposed rule from six knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise in
ferret ecology and management. We
received responses from four peer
reviewers. We also contacted
appropriate Federal and State agencies,
Tribes, scientific experts and
organizations, and other interested
parties and invited them to comment on
the proposal.
We reviewed all comments received
from the public, States, Tribes, and peer
reviewers for substantive issues and
new information regarding the revision
of an experimental population of ferrets
in Arizona. Substantive comments are
addressed in the following summary
and have been incorporated into the
final rule as appropriate.
Summary of Comments
Comment: One peer reviewer
commented that we should include
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
literature suggesting that other factors
that reduce prairie dog numbers and
fitness (e.g., grazing, shooting,
poisoning, and drought) may contribute
to triggering a plague epizootic.
Response: We added text and cited
additional literature accordingly (see
‘‘Threats/Causes of Decline’’ above).
Comment: Two peer reviewers
suggested that we update the text to
incorporate recent research on SPV.
Response: We added text and cited an
additional study accordingly (see
‘‘Recovery, Captive Breeding, and
Reintroduction Efforts to Date’’ above).
Comment: One peer reviewer and
several commenters asked us to
elaborate as to why we consider the
reintroduction in the AVEPA successful,
considering the recent decline in ferret
numbers. Three commenters specifically
expressed concerns that current land
use practices and drought may have
influenced the recent declines in the
AVEPA.
Response: The population in the
AVEPA increased to a minimum of 123
ferrets in 2012, and the population
continues to persist following the
subsequent decline. Because land
management activities have been
relatively consistent in the AVEPA since
the first reintroduction in 1996, we
conclude that those activities are
unlikely to have caused the declines we
observed in the AVEPA after 2012.
Based on positive tests for plague in the
area, plague is the most probable cause
for the declines. Plague remains the
most significant challenge to ferret
population resiliency rangewide, and
we will continue to require multiple
management tools to lessen its effects on
ferret populations. Accordingly, we
expect the number of ferrets in each
population to fluctuate over time,
decreasing during plague outbreaks and
increasing when plague is effectively
controlled at a site. This scenario
emphasizes the importance of having
multiple, widely spaced populations to
safeguard the species from the
widespread chronic effects of plague as
well as other periodic or random
disturbances that may result in
decreased population size or the loss of
a population in one or more given areas.
Comment: Several commenters
requested that we expand the
experimental population area to include
all of New Mexico, because potential
habitat occurs there. Another
commenter inquired about our inclusion
of a portion of New Mexico.
Response: The proposed 10(j) rule
included only portions of New Mexico
that coincide with Navajo Nation lands.
We have clarified this point in the final
rule text. We developed the proposed
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
boundary of the SWEPA in close
coordination with our partners in
Arizona—AZGFD, the Navajo Nation,
the Hualapai Tribe, and the Hopi
Tribe—to include the areas for which
they would manage the field operations
of a reintroduced ferret population. We
acknowledge that there are other areas
in New Mexico, and throughout the
ferret’s historical range, that may
provide new reintroduction
opportunities. Legal mechanisms are
available to support ferret
reintroductions at these sites, including,
for example, the 2013 rangewide
programmatic SHA and proposal of
additional experimental populations
under section 10(j). We will identify and
apply the appropriate mechanism to
reintroduce ferrets on a site-specific
basis after close coordination with
partners in those areas.
Comment: Two commenters stated
that the expansion of the experimental
population over such a large area is
unnecessary, because that larger area is
not needed to meet the guidelines for
Arizona specified in the ferret Recovery
Plan. One commenter stated that the
successful reintroduction at Aubrey
Valley resulted in a ferret population in
2012 that exceeded the number of
ferrets in the recovery guidelines for
Arizona. The other commenter stated
that the amount of prairie dog habitat in
the AVEPA currently exceeds the
amount of habitat in the recovery
guidelines for Arizona.
Response: We provided State-specific
guidelines in the rangewide Recovery
Plan to assist planning needs and
encourage broader recovery support
across the ferret’s historical range. The
Recovery Plan states that the
downlisting or delisting criteria may be
fulfilled if they are met by some
configuration other than that in the
State-specific guidelines. Moreover,
while we have acknowledged the
success in Aubrey Valley, the recent
decline in the ferret population at that
site emphasizes the importance of
having multiple, widely distributed
populations to safeguard the species
from the widespread chronic effects of
plague as well as other periodic or
random disturbances that may result in
the loss of a population in one or more
given areas. Establishing additional
ferret populations in Arizona will help
to ensure Arizona’s contribution to the
species’ recovery over the long term.
Comment: One commenter was
concerned that, by not explicitly
identifying any specific suitable areas in
the proposed rule, the proposed SWEPA
is likely including more acreage than
necessary for reintroduction.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Oct 04, 2023
Jkt 262001
Response: The SWEPA includes
habitats associated with prairie dogs;
that is, various grasslands and biotic
communities in which grasslands are
interspersed. We acknowledge that the
entire SWEPA does not consist entirely
of habitat suitable for ferrets, and we
will reintroduce ferrets only into areas
that meet the criteria for
reintroductions. In addition to the two
active reintroduction areas in the
SWEPA, there are four potential
reintroduction areas, which will require
active management before they can
support a ferret population. In addition
to these sites, we may identify other
reintroduction sites in the SWEPA in
the future. Furthermore, the SWEPA
includes areas into which ferrets could
potentially disperse from a
reintroduction site; inclusion of these
areas provides regulatory certainty to
the landowners and managers in those
potential dispersal areas.
Comment: One commenter was
concerned that the large area of the
proposed SWEPA will mean that ferrets
may be introduced anywhere in that
area but will not receive actual
protections of the ESA.
Response: We have determined that
establishing the proposed SWEPA is
necessary to achieve widespread
landowner support for viable ferret
reintroduction projects in Arizona. The
biggest hurdle to securing support of
ferret reintroductions is overcoming
partner fear of liability associated with
section 9 prohibitions on take under the
ESA. Relaxing section 9 incidental take
prohibitions through the flexibilities
afforded via section 10(j) of the ESA will
facilitate ferret reintroductions
throughout the species’ range in
Arizona. Based on ferret reintroductions
at Aubrey Valley/Double O Ranch,
existing land use practices can be
compatible with ferret recovery. Section
9 prohibitions of the ESA will still
apply to intentional or negligent
conduct that results in take.
Comment: Four commenters
discussed the effects of ferret
reintroductions on cattle grazing. Two
commenters expressed concern that
managing landscapes for ferrets,
specifically prairie dog habitat, in other
areas has resulted in poorly managed,
less resilient ecosystems and are
concerned about this happening in the
SWEPA, especially in conjunction with
drought as an additional stressor. One
commenter extended this concern to
grazing wildlife in addition to livestock.
Response: Prairie dogs, an important
component of grassland ecosystems, are
native to the area included within the
proposed SWEPA. Managing for prairie
dog colonies within the SWEPA will
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
69063
potentially restore beneficial ecosystem
functions in managed areas. Prairie dogs
positively affect ecosystem processes,
resulting in increased soil mixing and
nitrogen levels, for example, and affect
vegetation composition, resulting in
increased habitat heterogeneity on the
landscape (Kotliar 1999, p. 178).
Research has associated increases in
plant nutritional levels and digestibility
with prairie dog colonies (Detling and
Whicker 1987, pp. 24–25). Livestock
grazing occurs in and adjacent to the
two established reintroduction sites in
Arizona and has been compatible with
ferret recovery. Future reintroduction
sites will be selected based on their
potential to support ferret
reintroductions. Landowner and
manager participation in activities
directed at improving or maintaining
habitat capable of supporting a ferret
population is strictly voluntary. Prior to
a ferret reintroduction, we will work
with our partners to conduct outreach to
landowners and affected stakeholders.
AZGFD has a history of developing good
working relationships with the livestock
industry, notably landowners of the
Aubrey Valley/Double O and Espee
Ranch reintroduction sites, to initiate
ferret reintroductions and conduct
ongoing monitoring and maintenance at
those sites.
Comment: One commenter expressed
concern that, although agricultural
crops do not represent a significant
portion of the proposed SWEPA,
management for prairie dog colonies
could have negative effects on lands
used for growing crops.
Response: We, in collaboration with
our partners, identify potential
reintroduction sites where there is
landowner interest, and where current
or desired land use practices are
compatible with ferrets. Participation is
voluntary. If reintroduced ferrets
disperse from a reintroduction site, the
10(j) designation will allow for
incidental take of ferrets (e.g., take that
could happen from livestock grazing,
farming, prairie dog control) in those
additional areas in the SWEPA. We, in
collaboration with our partners, would
coordinate with landowners and
managers affected by dispersing ferrets
about available options, including
voluntary participation in ferret
recovery or potential removal of the
ferrets from their land.
Comment: One commenter thought it
seemed unwarranted to include the area
in southeastern Arizona in the SWEPA
at this time, because the population of
prairie dogs in that area is not native,
and it will take many years to establish
a stable prairie dog population large
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
69064
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
enough to support the reintroduction of
ferrets in this area.
Response: According to Hoffmeister
(1986, p. 194), black-tailed prairie dogs
are native to southeastern Arizona and
occurred there until approximately
1938. We added this reference to the
text within the rule (see ‘‘Biological
Information’’ above). AZGFD
reintroduced black-tailed prairie dogs in
southeastern Arizona and manages
those reintroductions. Though these
prairie dog populations are currently too
small to support a ferret population, we
included the black-tailed prairie dog
historical range in southeastern Arizona
in the proposed SWEPA to increase
opportunities for potential future ferret
reintroductions.
Comment: One commenter pointed
out that we state the total number of
reintroduction sites as both 29 and 30 in
different places in the proposed rule.
Response: We currently consider the
Conata Basin/Badlands as 1 site; thus,
we referenced 29 reintroduction sites in
the proposed rule. In another place in
the proposed rule, we inadvertently
counted the Conata Basin/Badlands site
as two sites. We initiated two additional
reintroduction sites in 2021 that we had
not included in the proposed rule. We
thus modified the text in this final rule
to state the number of currently active
sites as 31.
Comment: One commenter stated that
our determination that enzootic plague
caused the ferret declines in the AVEPA
is not wholly accurate and asked us to
remove the reference to plague as the
cause of the decline until we have
information that is more conclusive.
Response: The ferret population in the
AVEPA was increasing through 2012
when 123 breeding adults were
documented. However, following 2012,
the population has declined, despite
consistent site management practices.
Because of this and the recent detection
of plague in coyotes and badgers in the
Aubrey Valley, plague is the most likely
cause of ferret decline in the AVEPA.
Comment: AZGFD requested that we
include that the primary purpose of
some of the ferrets released in Aubrey
Valley was to place excess kits from
propagation facilities, and the primary
purpose for the ferrets we released at
Double O Ranch was for research
purposes. Response: We adjusted the
text accordingly in this final rule (see
‘‘Experimental Population Regulation
Requirements’’ above).
Comment: One commenter asked
about benefits to landowners that
participate in ferret reintroductions and
specifically asked about financial
compensation. Another commenter
expressed that financial compensation
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Oct 04, 2023
Jkt 262001
to participating landowners would
improve the ferret reintroduction
program.
Response: While the 10(j) rule does
not describe a specific plan to
compensate participating landowners,
governmental and nongovernmental
organizations have provided incentives
to Tribes and private landowners
associated with some ferret
reintroductions in the past. Site-specific
management plans will include details
of any applicable compensation
programs.
Comment: Three commenters
expressed concerns that the large area of
the SWEPA would expand the
regulatory area and put more regulatory
burden and potential penalties under
the ESA on landowners. One
commenter specifically expressed
concern that a landowner without an
SHA would experience increased
regulatory burden if a ferret dispersed
onto their property from an adjacent
reintroduction site.
Response: The AVEPA reduced
regulatory requirements by allowing
most incidental take of ferrets. Applying
the 10(j) rule to the SWEPA benefits the
landowners within the entire SWEPA by
providing them the same regulatory
certainty and flexibilities of the existing
programmatic SHA but without having
individually to enroll their land in the
SHA. If reintroduced ferrets disperse
from a reintroduction site, the 10(j)
designation will allow for incidental
take of ferrets (e.g., take that could
happen from livestock grazing, farming,
prairie dog control) in those additional
areas in the SWEPA. We, in
collaboration with our partners, would
also coordinate with landowners
affected by dispersal about available
options, including voluntary
participation in ferret recovery or
potential removal of the ferrets from
their land.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that we retain the option
for private landowners to enter into
SHAs if they chose to assist in ferret
recovery efforts.
Response: SHAs are compatible with
10(j) populations. Private landowners
are not required to terminate an existing
SHA, and new certificates of inclusion
for the current programmatic SHA are
not prohibited. SHAs remain an option
for participating landowners; however,
there are no significant differences
between the terms and conditions of the
SHA and 10(j) regulations related to
how landowners operate their lands
with respect to ferret recovery.
Comment: Two commenters stated
that we should reintroduce ferrets to a
site only after consent of all affected
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
landowners, including landowners
adjacent to and in the ferret dispersal
range of a reintroduction site.
Response: Reintroduction sites are
selected based on their potential to
support ferret reintroductions and
where there are willing landowners and
managers. Prior to a ferret
reintroduction, we will work with our
partners to conduct outreach to
landowners and affected stakeholders.
The SWEPA includes areas into which
ferrets could potentially disperse from a
reintroduction site. We, in collaboration
with our partners, will coordinate with
landowners and managers affected by
dispersing ferrets about available
options, including voluntary
participation in ferret recovery or
potential removal of the ferrets from
their land.
Comment: Two commenters stated
that management for prairie dogs or
ferret reintroductions on Federal land
should occur only with the consent of
grazing permittees using those lands.
One commenter suggested that we set
limits to livestock grazing on public
lands.
Response: We will coordinate with
other Federal agencies to support ferret
reintroductions in ways that are
compatible with their missions. Federal
land management agencies have their
own laws, policies, and regulations
outlining how they manage lands under
their authorities.
Comment: One commenter stated that
the proposed rule clearly identifies and
considers prairie dog control methods in
Arizona, but fails to do so for New
Mexico and Utah, and is concerned that
establishing the 10(j) rule will
ultimately lead to new and challenging
conflicts between Federal and State
authorities.
Response: The area of the proposed
SWEPA that extends into New Mexico
and Utah is entirely within the Navajo
Nation. The Navajo Nation manages
wildlife resources within their
boundaries independent of the States.
We did not propose to include any land
in New Mexico or Utah outside of the
Navajo Nation.
Comment: Several commenters
expressed concern about negative effects
of livestock grazing to prairie dog
populations. One commenter
specifically requested that the final EA
include additional information about
the effects of livestock grazing on prairie
dog colonies and ferret reintroductions.
Response: We have considered the
effects that livestock grazing, and other
activities may have on establishing an
experimental population of ferrets.
Livestock grazing became a significant
feature on the Arizona landscape in the
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
1880s and peaked in intensity around
the late 1890s and early 1900s
(Milchunas 2006, p. 7). Grazing in arid
and semiarid areas can alter species
composition and communities, disrupt
ecosystem functions, and alter
ecosystem structure (Fleischner 1994, p.
631). Despite these effects, prairie dogs
remained prominent on rangelands in
Arizona during the period of heaviest
grazing and did not begin declining
until the time of systematic prairie dog
eradication programs (Oakes 2000, pp.
169–171). Available literature reveals a
wide range of potential effects of
livestock grazing on ecosystems and
considers some negative and some
beneficial (Milchunas 2006, entire;
Jones 2000, entire). Effects vary with
site-specific characteristics and
management, including habitat type,
grazing intensity, and history of grazing
(Milchunas 2006, entire; Jones 2000,
entire; Milchunas and Lauenroth 1993,
entire). The long history of prairie dog
persistence with livestock grazing in
Arizona and persistence of ferrets at the
AVEPA lead us to conclude that
livestock grazing and ranching activities
can be compatible with maintaining
occupied prairie dog habitat capable of
supporting ferrets. We added text in this
final rule to support this conclusion (see
‘‘How Will the Experimental Population
(SWEPA) Further the Conservation of
the Species?’’ above). We do not
evaluate effects of livestock grazing
outside of the context of ferret
reintroductions, because that
consideration is beyond the scope of the
evaluation necessary to establish an
experimental population. In the draft
EA, we do not evaluate the effects of
livestock grazing on the affected
environment, because the NEPA process
requires us to consider the
consequences of our proposed action.
Livestock grazing currently occurs in
the proposed SWEPA and is not part of
our proposed action.
Comment: One commenter stated that
we did not define ‘‘well-managed
grazing’’ in the proposed rule or
elsewhere and noted that some of the
references we cited described ‘‘an
overgrazed condition.’’ The commenters
asked that we clarify what we consider
‘‘well-managed grazing.’’
Response: The terminology ‘‘wellmanaged grazing’’ and ‘‘overgrazing’’
that we used and cited in the proposed
rule was qualitative and relative. We
have edited the text in this final rule not
to rely on terms describing relative
grazing intensity. The effects of
livestock grazing on prairie dog
populations and their habitat are
complicated and depend on the habitat
quality and quantity and other
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Oct 04, 2023
Jkt 262001
conditions at each specific site. Based
on the persistence of ferrets at Aubrey
Valley/Double O Ranch, rangelands
managed for livestock grazing can
support prairie dog populations. Prior to
introducing ferrets in the SWEPA, we
will assess prairie dog populations to
determine if the site will support a ferret
population.
Comment: One commenter stated that
we should not require the removal of
ferrets that leave the experimental
population area, because such dispersal
would further species recovery.
Response: The SWEPA includes all
potential ferret habitat within Arizona
and the Navajo Nation, excluding the
Hopi Villages in District 6. All currently
identified potential reintroduction sites
within the SWEPA are far from the
borders of the SWEPA. Thus, we expect
ferret dispersal outside of the SWEPA to
be unlikely. In the unlikely event that a
ferret occurs outside of the SWEPA,
regardless of origin, we will work
closely with affected landowners and
managers to ensure that we develop
applicable conservation measures
cooperatively and to the benefit of
landowners, managers, and ferrets. The
rule allows for, but does not require,
removal of ferrets outside of the
SWEPA.
Comment: One commenter stated that
reintroduction efforts should be
primarily focused on how best to
manage plague in prairie dog
populations, not only regarding the
effects on ferret reintroduction, but also
to other species in the area and local
communities. Another commenter
stated that the rule should include
proactive measures to bring potential
reintroduction sites into the condition
necessary to host ferret populations of
sufficient size and resilience to
contribute towards recovery. This
commenter further stated that the
rangewide decline in the ferret
population since about 2007 ‘‘appears to
be that reintroduction sites are generally
too small to support ferret populations
through plague outbreaks.’’
Response: Plague management is
currently, and will continue to be, a
management focus at existing and
potential future ferret reintroduction
sites, which will also benefit other
species and local communities. The
factors responsible for the eruption of
epizootics and the maintenance of
enzootic plague are currently not fully
understood; research has identified
multiple influential factors (USFWS
2019, p. 17). Because plague may persist
in an enzootic state at several existing
and potential reintroduction sites, and
the social nature of prairie dogs
facilitates plague transmission, larger
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
69065
colony size is not a safeguard against the
spread of plague. A more effective
strategy now is having multiple, widely
spaced populations to buffer plague
transmission.
Comment: One commenter seemed to
interpret the purpose of ferret
reintroduction as a form of prairie dog
control.
Response: Our responsibility under
the ESA is to conserve threatened and
endangered species and the ecosystems
upon which they depend. Our purpose
in establishing the SWEPA is to promote
the recovery of the ferret by establishing
viable ferret populations. Viable ferret
populations depend on persistent
prairie dog populations. We are willing
to work with landowners and managers
amenable to maintaining prairie dog
populations on their property to support
a reintroduced ferret population.
Outside of reintroduction areas, we, in
collaboration with our partners, will
work with landowners to avoid or
minimize any adverse effects to ferrets
that could occur from prairie dog
control.
Comment: One commenter stated that
the proposed rule understated the
effects of current prairie dog poisoning.
The commenter specifically pointed out
that we list prairie dog poisoning as a
concern in the Recovery Plan and
recommended more protective
regulations to improve opportunities for
ferret reintroductions.
Response: The Recovery Plan
describes the historical effect of poisons
on the decline of prairie dogs and ferrets
and assesses the effects of prairie dog
poisoning to ferrets rangewide. The
current use of poison to control prairie
dogs is much reduced from historical
use, and the current level of threat
varies across the ferret’s range. In the
proposed rule, we considered the threat
of prairie dog poisoning to ferrets in
Arizona and concluded that prairie dog
poisoning within the State is relatively
minimal compared to historical use. For
example, black-tailed prairie dogs were
extirpated from southeastern Arizona by
the late 1930’s due to widespread
indiscriminate poisoning for all small
burrowing mammals (Hoffmeister 1986,
p. 196). Comparatively, from 2013
through 2019, the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service’s (APHIS)
Wildlife Services treated prairie dogs
with zinc phosphide at three private
properties totaling 56 ac (23 ha) of
prairie dog colonies (C. Carrillo, pers.
comm., APHIS, October 23, 2019). In
addition, the poisons that pose the
greatest risk to ferrets, anticoagulants,
are banned in Arizona. Other poisons
have the potential to affect ferrets by
affecting prairie dog populations. In past
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
69066
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ferret reintroductions in Arizona, we
worked with partners to identify
landowners and managers willing to
manage prairie dogs on their properties
for ferrets. We will take a similar
approach for future ferret
reintroductions.
Comment: Three commenters
expressed concerns about the effects of
shooting on prairie dog populations at
ferret reintroduction sites. Two
commenters thought that we had not
adequately considered the effects of
prairie dog shooting. One commenter
mentioned specific research about the
effects of shooting on prairie dog
populations and requested that the EA
incorporate that research. All three
commenters asked for increased
restrictions on prairie dog shooting to
support ferret reintroductions. One
commenter additionally expressed
concern about potential lead poisoning
from shooting prairie dogs.
Response: We considered the
potential for effects of prairie dog
shooting on ferret reintroductions in the
SWEPA in this 10(j) rule. We referenced
relevant studies about effects of
shooting on prairie dog populations (see
‘‘Actions and Activities that May Affect
the Introduced Population’’). These
effects vary across sites and with
intensity of shooting. Based on current
prairie dog monitoring data, we do not
think that shooting is having substantial
population-level effects on prairie dogs
in established reintroduction sites in the
SWEPA or in the potential
reintroduction sites that are being
monitored. Prairie dog monitoring will
inform the suitability of a potential
ferret reintroduction site and indicate
whether additional management is
needed to maintain prairie dog
populations in support of ferrets.
AZGFD regulates prairie dog hunting in
most of Arizona, and as described in
their Management Plan, they may close
areas to prairie dog hunting at ferret
reintroduction sites if monitoring shows
a greater than 15 percent decline in
prairie dog occupied acreage over a 3year period. Tribes regulate prairie dog
hunting on their respective lands. To
the extent requested, we will assist any
Tribe interested in reintroducing ferrets
to address prairie dog management at
potential reintroduction sites.
We did not evaluate the effects of
prairie dog shooting on ferrets in the
EA, because that type of a consideration
is outside of the scope of an EA (40 CFR
1501.5). In the EA we are required to
evaluate how the proposed action will
affect the condition of the proposed
SWEPA. In our evaluation of the social
and economic conditions, we
considered the effects of the proposed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Oct 04, 2023
Jkt 262001
action to natural resource-based
recreation, including prairie dog
shooting.
While lead contamination is a
potential threat resulting from prairie
dog shooting, we have not documented
any lead poisoning of ferrets. This
species may be less susceptible to
chronic lead poisoning than are longer
lived predators (Pain et al. 2009, p. 107).
Comment: One commenter stated that
our discussion of environmental
consequences in the EA should include
Tribal prairie dog shooting regulations
in addition to the State regulations we
included.
Response: As sovereign nations, each
Tribe has the authority to regulate
hunting on their lands. When
reintroduction sites contain Tribal land,
we do and will work with Tribes to
ensure that measures to manage prairie
dogs are compatible with ferret
reintroductions.
Comment: One commenter asked
about the extent to which ferret prey
bases are being sustained by
supplemental feeding, a strategy listed
in AZGFD’s Management Plan.
Response: AZGFD lists prairie dog
supplemental feeding as a potential
management strategy for specific
circumstances; it is not a long-term
strategy (AZGFD 2016, p. 15). We will
reintroduce ferrets only at sites that
have demonstrated persistent prairie
dog populations at levels necessary to
support ferrets.
Comment: One commenter asked that
we address the potential threat of feral
dogs to ferrets.
Response: Prior to a ferret
reintroduction, we will assess potential
site-specific threats. We expect feral
dogs to pose a similar threat at ferret
reintroduction sites as do coyotes.
Coyote predation was a concern at early
ferret reintroduction sites. Increased
preconditioning of captive-born ferrets
through outdoor pen rearing in recent
years facilitates learning of important
natural predator-avoidance behaviors
and has led to increased survival rates
following ferret releases into the wild
(Biggins et al. 1998, pp. 647–648). In
addition, like coyotes, feral dogs are a
potential carrier of disease. We
vaccinate all ferrets for canine
distemper before reintroductions,
continue disease management at all
reintroduction sites, and expect that our
current practices would minimize the
potential threat that feral dogs, like
coyotes, may pose at a reintroduction
site.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that we need to assess the effects of land
management activities (e.g., livestock
grazing, off-highway vehicle use, and
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
other recreational activities) at blacktailed prairie dog sites.
Response: Currently, the SWEPA does
not contain enough occupied blacktailed prairie dog habitat to support a
ferret reintroduction. Management may
increase black-tailed prairie dogs in the
future. When a black-tailed prairie dog
population becomes large enough to
support a ferret reintroduction, we will
assess the threats to a ferret population
and address those threats in a sitespecific management plan.
Comment: One commenter expressed
concern about effects of human-wildlife
interactions on ferrets and pointed out
the lack of data informing appropriate
distances between ferret populations
and human residential areas.
Response: We are not aware of effects
of a reintroduction site’s proximity to a
human residential area on ferrets.
Reintroduction sites are typically
relatively remote and distant from large
residential developments. The potential
reintroduction sites identified in the
proposed SWEPA are not within or
adjacent to areas with high human
densities.
Comment: One commenter stated that
the 10(j) rule should commit to
proactive management measures to
bring potential reintroduction sites into
the condition necessary to support ferret
populations of sufficient size and
resilience to contribute towards
recovery.
Response: The establishment of the
SWEPA to support future
reintroductions promotes ferret
recovery. Existing management plans or
plans we develop in cooperation with
our partners and stakeholders will guide
management of ferret populations at
individual reintroduction sites in the
SWEPA. We remain committed to
working with partners to encourage and
implement proactive prairie dog
management at current and potential
reintroduction sites within the SWEPA.
Comment: One commenter, in
response to a statement about the
negative consequences of fragmented
prairie dog colonies in the preamble of
the proposed rule under ‘‘Ecology/
Habitat Use/Movement’’, stated: ‘‘An
argument could be made that blackfooted ferret populations that are
associated with Gunnison’s prairie dogs,
which are extremely fragmented and
less dense than black-tailed prairie dogs,
could be more resilient to stochastic
events than what is inferred.’’
Response: The less dense spatial
distribution of Gunnison’s prairie dogs
could increase resiliency by buffering
the population against the spread of
plague and other stochastic events.
However, prairie dog colonies that exist
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
in smaller, isolated configurations are
likely to have reduced resiliency
because the smaller populations are
more vulnerable to extirpation, and the
isolation limits immigration and genetic
exchange. We changed the wording in
this final rule to clarify our description
of the spatial distribution of prairie dog
habitat (see ‘‘Threats/Causes of Decline’’
above).
Comment: One commenter suggested
that we add ‘‘availability of prey’’ as a
factor influencing ferret dispersal in our
discussion of ‘‘Actual or Anticipated
Movements.’’
Response: We edited the text
accordingly in this final rule. We
previously incorporated prey into our
consideration of habitat in the proposed
rule, however, we agree that explicitly
identifying it in our discussion of actual
or anticipated movements improves
clarity.
Comment: One commenter asked
what the estimated sustained
population level is for the ferret.
Response: The Recovery Plan
identifies the number of populations
necessary rangewide to downlist the
ferret from endangered to threatened
and to remove the ferret from listing
under the ESA: at least 10 and at least
30 populations, respectively. The
Recovery Plan criteria indicate that each
of those populations consist of at least
30 breeding adults, and it details our
methodology for establishing these
criteria. We expect the number of ferrets
in each population to fluctuate over
time, decreasing during plague
outbreaks and increasing when plague is
effectively controlled at a site. This
assumption emphasizes the importance
of having multiple, widely spaced
populations to safeguard the species
from the widespread chronic effects of
plague as well as other periodic or
random disturbances that may result in
the loss of a population in one or more
given areas.
Comment: Two commenters noted the
discrepancy between the acreage of
Gunnison’s prairie dog habitat
identified by the USFWS and AZGFD
needed to support a ferret population:
7,415 and 5,540 ac (3,000 and 2,242 ha),
respectively. One commenter expressed
concern that this discrepancy has
implications for reducing the success of
reintroductions.
Response: The two different numbers
identified by us and AZGFD represent
two different estimates, not
requirements, of the amount of
Gunnison’s prairie dog habitat needed
to support a ferret population. The
USFWS acknowledges in this final rule
that the actual amount of prairie dog
habitat needed will vary across the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Oct 04, 2023
Jkt 262001
ferret’s range. We allocate ferrets for
reintroductions based on the best
information available about the
proposed site. While this information
includes the total acreage of prairie dog
habitat, we also consider other sitespecific factors to assess a site’s overall
ability to support a ferret population.
We have edited the text in this final rule
to clarify that these numbers are
estimates, and not requirements, to
guide ferret reintroduction site selection
(see ‘‘Experimental Population’’ above).
Comment: One commenter stated that
the USFWS cannot make an essentiality
determination for a proposed 10(j)
population if there is no specific
proposed reintroduction. The
commenter further stated that, even if
making a determination were
appropriate, the proposed rule failed to
justify a nonessential designation for the
SWEPA, because we did not adequately
address the species’ viability in the wild
or consider the status of other ferret
populations in the wild.
Response: When we authorize the
reintroduction of an endangered species
outside of its current range as an
experimental population, we are
required to make 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. We are not
required by either the ESA or applicable
regulations to postpone making this
determination until we have made a
decision regarding a ‘‘specific proposed
reintroduction.’’ We have made the
essentiality determination in this rule in
accordance with the ESA and applicable
regulations. We have addressed species’
viability in the wild across its range to
make an essentiality determination for
the proposed SWEPA. We used the
conservation biology principles of
resiliency, redundancy, and
representation to assess current and
future species viability (Shaffer and
Stein 2000, entire) in our SSA (USFWS
2019, pp. 43–83); we summarize that
assessment in the ‘‘Is the Experimental
Population Essential or Nonessential?’’
portion of the preamble to the proposed
rule.
Given the current and anticipated
future numbers of ferret populations
and their distribution in the wild, there
is no indication that populations
established in the SWEPA could be
described as those ‘‘whose loss would
be likely to appreciably reduce the
likelihood of survival of the species in
the wild.’’ Loss of the SWEPA would
not affect the remaining populations of
ferrets in the wild. For these reasons, a
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
69067
nonessential determination for the
SWEPA is valid. Additionally, captivebreeding efforts continue to support the
establishment of more populations
throughout the species’ range.
Comment: One commenter stated that
the draft EA fails to disclose that all the
reintroduced ferret populations are
listed as 10(j) nonessential and that the
USFWS cannot rely on other
‘‘nonessential’’ populations to designate
the SWEPA population as nonessential.
Response: Not all the ferret
populations in the wild are nonessential
experimental populations; we have used
a variety of other regulatory
mechanisms, including section
10(a)(1)(A) permits and SHAs, to
reintroduce ferrets. Of the 18 currently
active ferret reintroduction sites, 5 are
nonessential experimental populations.
The remainder occur under section
10(a)(1)(A) permits and SHAs. In 2019,
active reintroduction sites were
evaluated in the SSA; two were
considered to be in high-resiliency
condition and eight to be in moderateresiliency condition (USFWS 2020, pp.
63–64). All the aforementioned
regulatory mechanisms remain available
to facilitate future ferret reintroductions
across the species’ range. Subpart H,
part 17, of title 50 of the Code of Federal
Regulations does not limit consideration
of any population of a species when
making an essentiality determination
and requires an evaluation of the
species as a whole, including all
populations captive and wild.
Comment: One commenter expressed
concern that we made our essentiality
determination out of convenience to
landowners and managers. The
commenter specifically cited text in the
proposed rule: We prefer applying the
experimental population designation
and regulations to the entire proposed
SWEPA, because a single set of statutes
and regulations and a single
management framework would then
apply to all lands, non-Federal and
Federal, containing potential ferret
habitat within the designated SWEPA
boundary.
Response: The cited text is from the
portion of the preamble pertaining to
management restrictions, protective
measures, and other special
management and not from the portion
pertaining to whether the proposed
experimental population is essential or
nonessential. We did not consider the
cited text within the context of our
essentiality determination. Rather, the
cited text refers to the use of a single
regulatory mechanism, the 10(j) rule,
rather than multiple regulatory or
permitting mechanisms, within the
SWEPA.
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
69068
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Comment: One commenter expressed
concern that ‘‘a broad nonessential
designation divests Federal land
managers of important tools to protect
the species, including the obligation to
formally consult to prevent jeopardy
under ESA section 7(a)(2), and the
ability to designate critical habitat.’’ The
commenter expressed concern that there
would never be an obligation to evaluate
the potential for cumulative
management actions to result in
jeopardy.
Response: Under 50 CFR 17.83(a), for
the purposes of section 7 of the ESA, we
treat a nonessential experimental
population as if it were a threatened
species when located in a National
Wildlife Refuge or unit of the National
Park Service (NPS), and Federal
agencies follow conservation and
consultation requirements per sections
7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the ESA,
respectively. We treat nonessential
experimental populations outside of a
National Wildlife Refuge or NPS unit as
species proposed for listing, and Federal
agencies follow the provisions of
sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(4) of the ESA.
Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies
to confer with us on actions that are
likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a species proposed to be
listed. Because the nonessential
experimental population is, by
definition, not essential to the
continued existence of the species in the
wild, the effects of proposed actions on
the population will generally not rise to
the level of ‘‘jeopardy.’’ Nonetheless,
some Federal agencies voluntarily
confer with us on actions that may affect
a species proposed for listing. Ferrets
were listed under the ESA prior to the
1978 critical habitat amendments;
therefore, designation of critical habitat
for this species even outside of
nonessential experimental population
areas is at the discretion of the Secretary
(50 CFR 424.12(e); USFWS 2013a, p 13).
Comment: One commenter stated that
the EA should consider additional
action alternatives, including an
alternative that exempts federally
managed lands from the SWEPA and an
alternative that does not extend
nonessential status to federally managed
lands in the SWEPA. One commenter
noted that, while the EA addresses the
need of a 10(j) rule to garner support
from private landowners on private
lands, it does not specifically analyze
the viability of ferret reintroductions on
federally managed lands where there are
regulatory mandates to further the
conservation of imperiled species.
Response: In the EA, we evaluated the
alternatives that we think are reasonable
and feasible. Future reintroduced ferret
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Oct 04, 2023
Jkt 262001
populations will likely cross boundaries
of land ownership. The potential sites
identified in the rule contain private,
Federal, State, and Tribal lands. Having
a single regulatory mechanism for the
entire experimental population will
simplify management of the population.
We did not consider an alternative that
does not extend nonessential status to
federally managed land, because land
ownership is not a consideration of an
essentiality determination.
Comment: One commenter stated that,
rather than addressing management in
the SWEPA, we deferred to the plan that
AZGFD developed specifically for the
AVEPA, not the SWEPA.
Response: AZGFD developed their
Management Plan for the Black-footed
Ferret in Arizona based on the best
available science, including information
in USFWS documents, such as the
Recovery Plan and the Operations
Manual, to guide ferret management
statewide. We reviewed and commented
on the AZGFD’s Management Plan in its
development, and it complements the
USFWS Recovery Plan and the
Operations Manual. For potential
reintroduction sites on Tribal lands, we
will offer our cooperation and assistance
in the development of applicable
management plans.
Comment: One commenter noted that
the draft EA and proposed rule do not
set timeframes or other commitments for
reintroductions and provide only vague
plans for ferret reintroduction in the
SWEPA. The commenter further stated
that the 10(j) rule must commit to
management efforts to ensure successful
reintroductions.
Response: Neither section 10(j) of the
ESA nor the 10(j) regulations found at
50 CFR 17.81 require the USFWS to set
timeframes or other commitments for
reintroductions. In the proposed rule,
we included the information necessary
to identify the experimental population,
as required by regulation. The potential
reintroduction sites require additional
management before site conditions
could support a ferret population. We
will work with our partners to develop
site-specific management plans that
include specific details regarding
reintroductions, when site conditions
can support ferret populations.
Identifying these details in the future
will allow us to take advantage of future
opportunities as they arise. Our
regulations require us to consider the
likelihood that the experimental
population will become established and
survive in the foreseeable future but do
not require commitment to specific
management actions. In the proposed
rule, we considered the potential for
appropriate management for the ferret
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
and its habitat in Arizona. Given the
AZGFD’s past commitment to ferret
reintroduction and its development of a
Management Plan for ferret
reintroduction throughout its range in
Arizona, and interest from the Hopi
Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, and the Navajo
Nation in reintroductions of and
management for ferrets on their Tribal
lands, we have a high level of
confidence in implementation of
management to support ferret
populations in the SWEPA.
Comment: One commenter stated that
the proposed rule lacks concrete,
enforceable mechanisms to prevent
unsustainable levels of take.
Response: Neither the ESA nor the
10(j) regulations found at 50 CFR 17.81
require concrete, enforceable
mechanisms to prevent unsustainable
levels of take. In accordance with 50
CFR 17.82, we have identified special
rules for ferret nonessential
experimental populations in 50 CFR
17.84(g). These allow most forms of
incidental take of ferrets in the
experimental population area, if the take
is unintentional and not due to
negligent conduct. Intentional and
negligent take within the experimental
population area is still prohibited and
unlawful pursuant to section 9 of the
ESA. The persistence of ferrets in the
AVEPA/Double O Ranch has
demonstrated that these same take
provisions for the AVEPA/Double O
Ranch have not meaningfully affected
that population. We will work with our
partners and stakeholders to apply
existing management plans or develop
site-specific management plans for
future reintroduction sites. We
addressed the sustainability of the ferret
population in the ‘‘Likelihood of
Population Establishment and Survival’’
portion of the preamble to the proposed
rule.
Comment: One commenter was
concerned that the USFWS is abdicating
Federal authority of the reintroduction
program to AZGFD. The commenter
further stated that the rule should make
clear that the USFWS holds primary
responsibility for ferret recovery, has the
authority to conduct and manage
reintroductions even when parties such
as permittees and State agencies oppose
such efforts, and that the USFWS and
other Federal agencies are under a
constant duty pursuant to ESA section
7(a)(1) to utilize their authority in
furtherance of ferret conservation.
Response: The USFWS has in no way
abdicated its Federal authority regarding
the ferret reintroduction program to
AZGFD. Our final 10(j) rule revising the
current nonessential experimental
population of the black-footed ferrets is
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
a responsible use of our authority under
the ESA. Section 6 of the Act
specifically states that, in carrying out
the programs authorized by the ESA, the
Secretary shall cooperate to the
maximum extent practicable with the
States and that the Secretary may enter
into agreements with any State for the
administration and management of any
area established for the conservation of
endangered species or threatened
species. The USFWS is active in the
management of all current and future
potential ferret reintroduction sites.
Additionally, we are responsible for
allocating captive-bred ferrets and
ensuring that reintroduction sites are
suitable for supporting ferret
populations. Our regulations in 50 CFR
17.81(d) require us to consult with
AZGFD in developing and
implementing this 10(j) rule, which we
have done. This rule, to the maximum
extent practicable, represents an
agreement between the USFWS, affected
Tribes, State and Federal agencies, and
persons holding any interest in land that
the establishment of an experimental
population may affect. The mission of
the USFWS directs us to work with
others to conserve, protect, and enhance
wildlife and their habitats. The USFWS
Recovery Plan for the Black-footed
Ferret additionally states that the
development of partnerships with
private landowners and Tribes is
essential to recovery of the species.
The AZGFD has demonstrated its
commitment to ferret conservation
through their long-term active
involvement in ferret conservation,
including the development of the
Management Plan for the Black-footed
Ferret in Arizona. AZGFD has also
demonstrated a commitment to our
scientific understanding of ferret
ecology and husbandry techniques and
to developing relationships with private
landowners essential for ferret
conservation. The feasibility of future
reintroductions will depend on such
relationships with private landowners.
Given these factors, we partner with
AZGFD on ferret reintroductions on
non-Tribal lands in Arizona.
In addition to private lands, all four
future potential reintroduction sites
identified in the proposed rule include
Federal lands. We will coordinate with
our Federal partners to use their
authorities to further ferret recovery. We
will also offer our cooperation and
assistance to Tribes in the development
of applicable management plans on
Tribal lands.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Oct 04, 2023
Jkt 262001
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
(Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and
14094)
Executive Order 14094 reaffirms the
principles of E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563
and states that regulatory analysis
should facilitate agency efforts to
develop regulations that serve the
public interest, advance statutory
objectives, and are consistent with E.O.
12866, E.O. 13563, and the Presidential
Memorandum of January 20, 2021
(Modernizing Regulatory Review).
Regulatory analysis, as practicable and
appropriate, shall recognize distributive
impacts and equity, to the extent
permitted by law. 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 final rule in a manner
consistent with these requirements.
E.O. 12866, as reaffirmed by E.O.
13563 and E.O. 14094, provides that the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) will
review all significant rules. OIRA has
determined that this rule is not
significant.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
whenever a Federal agency is required
to publish a notice of rulemaking for
any proposed or final rule or revision to
a rule, it must prepare, and make
available for public comment, a
regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the action on
small entities (small businesses, small
organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, these acts
require no regulatory flexibility analysis
if the head of an agency certifies that the
action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The SBREFA
amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act
to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for
certifying that an action will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. We
are certifying that this final rule will not
have a significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities.
The following discussion explains our
rationale.
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
69069
The affected area includes release
sites in Arizona, Tribal lands that
coincide with Arizona, lands of the
Navajo Nation that coincide with
Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah, and
adjacent areas into which ferrets may
disperse, which over time could include
significant portions of the SWEPA.
Because of the regulatory flexibility for
Federal agency actions provided by the
nonessential experimental designation
and the exemption for incidental take in
the special rule, this rule is not expected
to have significant effects on any
activities on Federal, State, Tribal, or
private lands in the revised area.
Concerning section 7(a)(2), we treat the
population as proposed for listing
outside of NPS and USFWS-managed
National Wildlife Refuge lands, and we
do not require Federal action agencies
other than NPS and USFWS National
Wildlife Refuges to consult with us on
their activities. Section 7(a)(4) requires
other Federal agencies to confer (rather
than consult) with the USFWS on
actions that are likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a species
proposed for listing. However, because
a nonessential experimental population
is, by definition, not essential to the
survival of the species, we will likely
never require a conference for the ferret
populations in the SWEPA.
Furthermore, the results of a conference
are advisory in nature and do not
restrict Federal agencies from carrying
out, funding, or authorizing activities. In
addition, section 7(a)(1) requires Federal
agencies to use their authorities to carry
out programs to further the conservation
of listed species, which will apply on
any lands in the revised area. As a
result, and in accordance with these
regulations, some modifications to
proposed Federal actions in the SWEPA
may occur to benefit the ferret, but we
do not expect implementation of these
regulations to halt or substantially
modify proposed projects.
This revision includes the same
authorizations provided in the AVEPA
for incidental take of the ferret but over
a larger landscape, the SWEPA. The
regulations implementing the ESA
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 that
are in accordance with Federal, Tribal,
State, and local laws and regulations.
This rule does not authorize intentional
take of ferrets for purposes other than
authorized data collection or recovery
purposes. Intentional take for research
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
69070
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
or recovery purposes would require a
section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permit
under the ESA.
The principal activities on private
property in or near the revised
nonessential experimental population
area are livestock grazing and associated
ranch management practices (e.g.,
fencing, weed treatments, water
developments, and maintenance). Ferret
presence will not affect these land uses
because there will be no new or
additional economic or regulatory
restrictions imposed upon States, nonFederal entities, or members of the
public due to the presence of the ferret,
and Federal agencies will have to
comply with sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(4)
of the ESA only in these areas.
Therefore, we do not expect this
rulemaking to have any significant
adverse impacts to activities on private
lands in the SWEPA.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with this act:
(1) This rule will not ‘‘significantly or
uniquely’’ affect small governments
because it will not place additional
requirements on any city, county, or
other local municipalities. The USFWS
determined that this rule will not
impose a cost of $100 million or more
in any given year on local or State
governments or private entities.
Therefore, this rule does not require a
small government agency plan.
(2) This rule is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under this act; it will
not produce a Federal mandate of $100
million or more in any year. The revised
nonessential experimental population
area for the ferret will not impose any
additional management or protection
requirements on the States or other
entities.
Takings (E.O. 12630)
In accordance with E.O. 12630, this
rule does not have significant takings
implications. It allows for the take, as
defined in the ESA, of reintroduced
ferrets when such take is incidental to
an otherwise legal activity, such as
livestock grazing, agriculture, recreation
(e.g., off-highway vehicle use), and other
activities that are in accordance with
law and regulation. Therefore, the
revision of the AVEPA to encompass a
larger area, the SWEPA, will not conflict
with existing or proposed human
activities or hinder public land use.
This order does not require a takings
implication assessment because this
rule: (1) will not effectively compel a
property owner to suffer a physical
invasion of property, and (2) will not
deny economically beneficial or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Oct 04, 2023
Jkt 262001
productive use of the land. The rule
substantially advances a legitimate
government interest (conservation and
recovery of a listed species) and does
not present a barrier to reasonable and
expected beneficial use of private
property.
Federalism (E.O. 13132)
In accordance with E.O. 13132, we
have considered whether this rule has
significant federalism effects and
determined we do not need to conduct
a federalism assessment. It does 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 rule
with the affected resource agencies.
Achieving the recovery goals for this
species would contribute to the eventual
delisting of the ferret and its return to
State management. We do not expect
any intrusion on State administration or
policy, change in roles or
responsibilities of Federal or State
governments, or substantial direct effect
on fiscal capacity. The rule operates to
maintain the existing relationship
between the State and the Federal
Government, and we will implement it
in coordination with the State of
Arizona. Therefore, this rule does not
have significant federalism effects or
implications to warrant preparation of a
federalism assessment under the
provisions of E.O. 13132.
Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
In accordance with E.O. 12988, the
Office of the Solicitor has determined
that this rule will not unduly burden the
judicial system and will meet the
requirements of sections (3)(a) and
(3)(b)(2) of the Order.
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new
collection of information that requires
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 reporting the taking of
experimental populations (50 CFR
17.84) and assigned control number
1018–0095 (expires 09/30/2023, and in
accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10, an
agency may continue to conduct or
sponsor this collection of information
while the submission is pending at
OMB). The USFWS may not collect or
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
sponsor and may not require response to
a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
In compliance with all provisions of
the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (NEPA), we have analyzed the
impact of this final rule. In cooperation
with the AZGFD, the Hopi Tribe,
Hualapai Tribe, and the Navajo Nation,
we have prepared an environmental
assessment and a FONSI for this action
and have made them available for
public inspection (see ADDRESSES).
Government-to-Government
Relationships With Tribes
In accordance with the Executive
Memorandum of April 29, 1994,
‘‘Government-to-Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments’’ (59 FR 22951, May 4,
1994), E.O. 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), and the Department
of the Interior Manual Chapter 512 DM
2, we have considered possible effects of
this rule revision on federally
recognized Indian Tribes. We
determined that the SWEPA overlaps or
is adjacent to Tribal lands. Potential
reintroduction sites identified in this
revision, the CO Bar Ranch and Petrified
Forest National Park, are near or
adjacent to Tribal lands, as is the
existing AVEPA where a reintroduced
ferret population exists. We offered
government-to-government consultation
to nine Tribes: the Havasupai, Hopi,
Hualapai, San Carlos Apache, San JuanSouthern Paiute, White Mountain
Apache, and Yavapai-Prescott Tribes,
Navajo Nation, and the Pueblo of Zuni.
We met with the Hualapai, Hopi, and
White Mountain Apache Tribes and the
Navajo Nation about the proposed
revision. Participation in ferret recovery
is voluntary. If suitable habitat for ferret
recovery is available on their lands,
Tribes may choose either not to
participate, or to participate through
authorities under section 10(j), section
10(a)(1)(A), or the SHA (USFWS 2013b,
entire). If we introduce ferrets onto nonTribal lands adjacent to Tribal lands and
any ferrets disperse onto Tribal lands,
the aforementioned authorities will
provide more regulatory flexibility
under the ESA through allowances for
incidental take.
Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (E.O. 13211)
E.O. 13211 requires agencies to
prepare statements of energy effects
when undertaking certain actions. We
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
69071
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
do not expect this rule to have a
significant effect on energy supplies,
distribution, and use. Because this
action is not a significant energy action,
this order does not require a statement
of energy effects.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited
in this final rule is available online at
https://www.regulations.gov at Docket
Number FWS–R2–ES–2020–0123, or
upon request from the Arizona
Ecological Services Field Office (see
ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and
record keeping requirements,
Transportation, Wildlife.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17,
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth
below:
2. In § 17.11 in paragraph (h), amend
the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife under ‘‘MAMMALS’’ by
revising the entries for ‘‘Ferret, blackfooted’’ and adding seven new entries
for the ‘‘Ferret, black-footed’’ to read as
follows:
■
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
*
PART 17—ENDANGERED AND
THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
*
*
(h) * * *
*
*
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
The primary authors of this rule are
staff members of the USFWS Arizona
Common name
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531–
1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise
noted.
Ecological Services Field Office (see
ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
■
Scientific name
Where listed
*
Ferret, black-footed ............
*
*
Mustela nigripes ................
Ferret, black-footed ............
Mustela nigripes ................
Ferret, black-footed ............
Mustela nigripes ................
Ferret, black-footed ............
Mustela nigripes ................
Ferret, black-footed ............
Mustela nigripes ................
*
*
Wherever found, except where listed as
an experimental population.
U.S.A. (parts of WY (Shirley Basin/Medicine Bow Management Area); see
§ 17.84(g)(9)(i)).
U.S.A. (parts of SD (Conata Basin/Badlands Reintroduction Area); see
§ 17.84(g)(9)(ii)).
U.S.A. (parts of MT (Northcentral Montana Reintroduction Area); see
§ 17.84(g)(9)(iii)).
U.S.A. (parts of AZ, NM, UT (Southwest
Experimental Population Area), see
§ 17.84(g)(9)(iv)).
Ferret, black-footed ............
Mustela nigripes ................
Ferret, black-footed ............
Mustela nigripes ................
Ferret, black-footed ............
Mustela nigripes ................
Ferret, black-footed ............
Mustela nigripes ................
Listing citations and
applicable rules
Status
MAMMALS
*
*
*
3. Amend § 17.84 by revising
paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(6)(iv), and
(g)(9)(iv), and removing the fourth map
(depicting the Aubrey Valley
Experimental Population Area) and
adding in its place Map 4 to paragraph
(g) to read as follows:
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
■
§ 17.84
*
Special rules—vertebrates.
*
*
(g) * * *
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
*
16:35 Oct 04, 2023
U.S.A. (parts of CO, UT (Northwestern
Colorado/Northeastern Utah Experimental Population Area), see
§ 17.84(g)(9)(v)).
U.S.A. (parts of SD (Cheyenne River
Sioux Tribe Reintroduction Area), see
§ 17.84(g)(9)(vi)).
U.S.A. (parts of SD (Rosebud Sioux
Reservation Experimental Population
Area), see § 17.84(g)(9)(vii)).
U.S.A. (most of WY (Wyoming Experimental Population Area), see
§ 17.84(g)(9)(viii)).
Jkt 262001
*
Frm 00069
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32
35
56
50
XN
*
FR 4001, 3/11/1967;
FR 16047, 10/13/1970.
FR 41473, 8/21/1991;
CFR 17.84(g).10j
XN
59 FR 42682, 8/18/1994;
50 CFR 17.84(g).10j
XN
59 FR 42696, 8/18/1994;
50 CFR 17.84(g).10j
XN
61 FR 11320, 3/20/1996;
88 FR [INSERT Federal
Register page where
the document begins],
10/5/2023; 50 CFR
17.84(g).10j
63 FR 52824, 10/1/1998;
50 CFR 17.84(g).10j
XN
XN
65 FR 60879, 10/13/2000;
50 CFR 17.84(g).10j
XN
68 FR 26498, 5/16/2003;
50 CFR 17.84(g).10j
XN
80 FR 66821, 10/30/2015;
50 CFR 17.84(g).10j
*
(1) The black-footed ferret
populations identified in paragraphs
(g)(9)(i) through
(viii) of this section are nonessential
experimental populations. We will
manage each of these populations, and
each reintroduction site in the
Southwest and Wyoming nonessential
experimental populations, in
PO 00000
*
E
*
*
accordance with their respective
management plans.
*
*
*
*
*
(6) * * *
(iv) Report such taking in the
Southwest Experimental Population
Area (SWEPA) to the Field Supervisor,
Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
69072
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Wildlife Service, Phoenix, Arizona
(telephone: 602–242–0210).
*
*
*
*
*
(9) * * *
(iv) We consider the Southwest
Experimental Population Area (SWEPA)
to be the area shown on a map following
paragraph (g)(12) of this section. The
SWEPA includes the core recovery areas
for this species in Arizona. The
boundary of the northern section of the
SWEPA is those parts of Apache,
Coconino, Gila, Mohave, Navajo, and
Yavapai Counties, Arizona, that include
the northern area as delineated on the
map, excluding Hopi District 6. The
northern section also includes portions
of Cibola, McKinley, Rio Arriba,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Oct 04, 2023
Jkt 262001
Sandoval, and San Juan Counties, New
Mexico, and San Juan County, Utah,
that coincide with Navajo Nation lands.
The boundary of the southern section of
the SWEPA is those parts of Cochise,
Pima, Pinal, Graham, and Santa Cruz
Counties, Arizona, that include the
southern area as delineated on the map.
After the first breeding season following
the first year of black-footed ferret
release, we will consider any blackfooted ferret found in the SWEPA as
part of the nonessential experimental
population. We would not consider a
black-footed ferret occurring outside of
the Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah
portions of the SWEPA a member of the
nonessential experimental population,
and we may capture it for genetic
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
testing. We may dispose of the captured
animal in the following ways:
(A) If an animal is genetically
determined to have originated from the
experimental population, we may return
it to the reintroduction area or to a
captive-breeding facility.
(B) If an animal is determined to be
genetically unrelated to the
experimental population, we will place
it in captivity under an existing
contingency plan.
*
*
*
*
*
Map 4 to paragraph (g)—Southwest
Nonessential Experimental
Population Area (SWEPA) for the
black-footed ferret
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
69073
Southwest Nonessential Experimental Population Area (SWEPA) for the black-footed ferret
Nevada
-T
New Mexico
USFWS gives no -,anty, ex:pr......i orimplied, as lo Ile aa:uracy, rell&biily, or mmpleleness orlhese dBi&.
ln-n,lheUSFWS ollal not be llekl llrim111DJl"f orinconedt1seoflhedala_an_m_ed
herein. Gnphical--providedbylheuseoflhis-donotrepresentlegalbouooairyd~.
Rea lo lihe te.lual d ~ as publislled in lhe Federal Register.
~
0
30
UlM 121'1
~ SW Nonessential Experimental Popmation Area (SWEPA}
Dalln:
NKl83
-
l'nljedion:
60
90
-
120
*
*
*
Km
90 120
*
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2023–21978 Filed 10–4–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–C
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Oct 04, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
ER05OC23.062
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
*
30 60
&pee Ranch SHA
Hopi DiSbid 6 (excluded)
Mi
0
Double O Ranch SHA
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 192 (Thursday, October 5, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69045-69073]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21978]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2020-0123; FXES11130200000-223-FF02ENEH00]
RIN 1018-BD61
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revision of a
Nonessential Experimental Population of Black-Footed Ferrets (Mustela
nigripes) in the Southwest
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), are revising
the regulations for the nonessential experimental population of the
black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes; ferret) in Arizona. We
established the Aubrey Valley Experimental Population Area (AVEPA) in
1996 in accordance with section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (ESA). This rule allows the introduction of ferrets
across a larger landscape as part of a nonessential experimental
population and includes the AVEPA within a larger ``Southwest
Experimental Population Area'' (SWEPA), which includes parts of Arizona
and identified contiguous Tribal lands in New Mexico and Utah. This
revision provides a framework for establishing and managing
reintroduced populations of ferrets that will allow greater management
flexibility and increased landowner and manager cooperation. The best
available data indicate that additional reintroductions of the ferret
into more widely distributed habitat in the SWEPA is feasible and will
promote the conservation of the species.
DATES: This rule is effective November 6, 2023.
ADDRESSES: This final rule, an environmental assessment (EA), and a
finding of no significant impact (FONSI) are available at the following
website: https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2020-0123.
Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation
used in the preparation of this rule, will also be available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at: U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, 2500
South Pine Knoll Drive, Flagstaff, AZ 86001; telephone 928-556-2001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Whitlaw, Field Supervisor,
Phone: 602-242-0210. Direct all questions or requests for additional
information to: BLACK-FOOTED FERRET QUESTIONS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Arizona Ecological Services Office, 9828 North 31st Avenue,
Suite C3, Phoenix, AZ 85051. Individuals in the United States who are
deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial
711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay
services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay
services offered within their country to make international calls to
the point-of-contact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes; ferrets), medium-sized
members of the weasel family (Mustelidae), are carnivorous, extremely
specialized predators that are highly dependent on prairie dogs
(Cynomys spp.) for food and shelter (Hillman 1968, p. 438; Sheets et
al. 1972, entire; Campbell et al. 1987, entire; Forrest et al. 1988, p.
261; Biggins 2006, p. 3). Because ferrets are dependent on prairie dogs
in this way, occupied prairie dog habitat is considered synonymous with
ferret habitat (USFWS 2019, pp. 5-6). The USFWS listed the ferret as an
endangered species in 1967 under the Endangered Species Preservation
Act of 1966, which was the predecessor to the current Endangered
Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (32 FR 4001, March 11, 1967).
With the passage of the ESA, we incorporated the ferret into the Lists
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife under the ESA, found at 50 CFR
17.11 (39 FR 1175, January 4, 1974).
The 1982 amendments to the ESA included the addition of section
10(j), which allows for the designation of reintroduced populations of
listed species as ``experimental populations.'' Our implementing
regulations for section 10(j) of the ESA are in 50 CFR
[[Page 69046]]
17.81. These regulations state that the USFWS may designate as an
experimental population a population of endangered or threatened
species that we will release into habitat that is capable of supporting
the experimental population outside the species' current range.
Hereafter in this document, we refer to a species-specific rule issued
under section 10(j) of the ESA as a ``10(j) rule.''
This Rulemaking Action
On June 25, 2021, we published a proposed rule to expand the
existing Aubrey Valley Experimental Population Area (AVEPA) to
encompass a larger area, the ``Southwest Experimental Population Area''
(SWEPA), which includes parts of Arizona and identified contiguous
Tribal lands in New Mexico and Utah (86 FR 33613). The proposed rule
provided a framework for establishing and managing reintroduced
populations of ferrets in this area that will allow for greater
management flexibility and increased landowner cooperation. The best
available data indicate that additional reintroductions of the ferrets
into more widely distributed habitat in the proposed SWEPA is feasible
and will promote the conservation of the species.
We sought comments on the proposed rule and on a draft
environmental assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the
proposed rule until August 24, 2021. We received 20 comment submissions
by that date. In accordance with our joint policy on peer review
published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270, July 1,
1994), and our August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the
role of peer review, we also sought the expert opinion of six
appropriate independent specialists regarding the scientific data and
interpretations contained in the proposed rule. The purpose of such
peer review is to ensure that we base our decisions on scientifically
sound data, assumptions, and analyses. This final rule incorporates,
and addresses comments received during the public comment and peer
review processes.
Under 50 CFR 17.81(b), before authorizing the release as an
experimental population of any population of an endangered or
threatened species, the USFWS must find by regulation that such release
will further the conservation of the species. In making such a finding,
the USFWS shall use 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 (see ``Possible Adverse Effects on Wild and
Captive-Breeding Populations'' below);
(2) The likelihood that any such experimental population will
become established and survive in the foreseeable future (see
``Likelihood of Population Establishment and Survival'' below);
(3) The relative effects that establishment of an experimental
population will have on the recovery of the species (see ``Effects of
the SWEPA on Recovery Efforts for the Species'' below);
(4) The extent to which the introduced population may be affected
by existing or anticipated Federal, Tribal, or State actions or private
activities within or adjacent to the experimental population area (see
``Actions and Activities that May Affect the Introduced Population''
below); and
(5) When an experimental population is being established outside of
its historical range, any possible adverse effects to the ecosystem
that may result from the experimental population being established.
Furthermore, under 50 CFR 17.81(c), any regulation designating
experimental populations under section 10(j) of the ESA shall 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) (see ``Identifying the Location and Boundaries of the
SWEPA'' below);
(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 (see ``Is the Experimental
Population Essential or Nonessential?'' below);
(3) Management restrictions, protective measures, or other special
management concerns of that population, which may include but are not
limited to, measures to isolate, remove, and/or contain the
experimental population designated in the regulation from
nonexperimental populations (see ``Management Restrictions, Protective
Measures, and Other Special Management'' below); 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 (see ``Review and Evaluation
of the Success or Failure of the SWEPA'' below).
Under 50 CFR 17.81(e), the USFWS consults with appropriate State
fish and wildlife agencies, affected Tribal governments, local
governmental entities, affected Federal agencies, and affected private
landowners in developing and implementing experimental population
rules. To the maximum extent practicable, 10(j) rules represent an
agreement between the USFWS, affected Tribal governments, State and
Federal agencies, local governments, and persons holding any interest
in land or water that may be affected by the establishment of an
experimental population.
Under 50 CFR 17.81(f), the Secretary may designate critical habitat
as defined in section 3(5)(A) of the ESA for an essential experimental
population. The Secretary will not designate critical habitat for
nonessential populations. The term essential experimental population
means an experimental population the loss of which would be likely to
appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival of the species in the
wild. We classify all other experimental populations as nonessential
(50 CFR 17.80).
Under 50 CFR 17.82, we treat any population determined by the
Secretary to be an experimental population as if we had listed it as a
threatened species for the purposes of establishing protective
regulations with respect to that population. The protective regulations
adopted for an experimental population will contain applicable
prohibitions, as appropriate, and exceptions for that population,
allowing us discretion in devising management programs to provide for
the conservation of the species.
Under 50 CFR 17.83(a), for the purposes of section 7 of the ESA, we
treat nonessential experimental populations as threatened when located
in a National Wildlife Refuge or unit of the National Park Service
(NPS), and Federal agencies follow conservation and consultation
requirements per paragraphs 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the ESA,
respectively. We treat nonessential experimental populations outside of
a National Wildlife Refuge or NPS unit as species proposed for listing,
and Federal agencies follow the provisions of paragraphs 7(a)(1) and
7(a)(4) of the ESA. In these cases, nonessential experimental
population designation provides additional flexibility, because it does
not require Federal agencies to consult under section 7(a)(2). Instead,
section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer (not consult) with
the USFWS
[[Page 69047]]
on actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a
species proposed to be listed. A conference results in conservation
recommendations, which are discretionary. Because the nonessential
experimental population is, by definition, not essential to the
continued existence of the species in the wild, the effects of proposed
actions on the population will generally not rise to the level of
``jeopardy.'' As a result, Federal agencies will likely never request a
formal conference for actions that may affect ferrets established in
the SWEPA. Nonetheless, some Federal agencies voluntarily confer with
the USFWS on actions that may affect a species proposed for listing.
Legal Status
We listed the ferret as an endangered species in 1967 under the
Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 (32 FR 4001, March 11,
1967). We later codified this list in part 17 of title 50 in the U.S.
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (35 FR 16047, October 13, 1970). With
the passage of the ESA in 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we
incorporated those species previously listed in the CFR into the Lists
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants under the ESA, found
at 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12 (39 FR 1175, January 4, 1974).
In 1996, we designated the population of ferrets established via
reintroduction in Aubrey Valley as a nonessential experimental
population (61 FR 11320, March 20, 1996). The AVEPA includes parts of
Coconino, Mohave, and Yavapai Counties in northwestern Arizona. At the
time of its designation, the AVEPA consisted of 22 percent State lands,
45 percent lands of the Hualapai Tribal Nation, and 33 percent deeded
lands owned by the Navajo Nation.
We treated ferrets as an endangered species outside the AVEPA, and
the provisions and exceptions of the experimental population
designation did not apply. In 2013, the USFWS developed a rangewide
programmatic Safe Harbor Agreement (SHA) to encourage non-Federal
landowners to voluntarily undertake conservation activities on their
properties to benefit the ferret (USFWS 2013b, entire) (see
``Historical Range'' below). Through certificates of inclusion, we
enrolled willing landowners in our SHA through enhancement of survival
permits issued under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA. Through the SHA,
incidental take of ferrets outside of the AVEPA by participating
landowners and nonparticipating neighboring landowners was permissible.
Under state law, general provisions of Arizona Revised Statutes,
title 17, protect all of Arizona's native wildlife, including federally
listed threatened and endangered species. Under Navajo Nation law, it
is unlawful for any person to take ferrets. All wildlife on the Hopi
Reservation is the property of the Hopi Tribe, and Hopi Tribal law
provides for take (see ``Management Restrictions, Protective Measures,
and Other Special Management'' below, for more information on State and
Tribal legal status).
Biological Information
Species Description
The ferret is a medium-sized member of the weasel family
(Mustelidae) weighing approximately 1.4 to 2.5 pounds (645 to 1125
grams) and measuring approximately 19 to 24 inches (480 to 600
millimeters) in total length. Its body color includes yellowish-buff,
occasionally whitish, upper parts, and black feet, tail tip, and
``mask'' across the eyes (Hillman and Clark 1980, p. 1; Anderson et al.
1986, pp. 15-16).
Ecology/Habitat Use/Movement
Ferrets are carnivorous, extremely specialized predators highly
dependent on prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.) (Hillman 1968, p. 438; Biggins
2006, p. 3). Ferrets prey predominantly on prairie dogs (Sheets et al.
1972, entire; Campbell et al. 1987, entire), occupy prairie dog
burrows, and do not dig their own burrows (Forrest et al. 1988, p.
261). Ferrets select areas within prairie dog colonies that contain
high burrow densities and thus high densities of prairie dogs (Biggins
et al. 2006, p. 136; Eads et al. 2011, p. 763; Jachowski et al. 2011a,
pp. 221-223; Livieri and Anderson 2012, pp. 201-202). Given their
obligate tie to prairie dogs, ferret populations associated with
larger, highly connected prairie dog colonies are more likely to be
resilient and less likely to be extirpated by stochastic events
compared to those associated with smaller, isolated colonies (Miller et
al. 1994, p. 678; Jachowski et al. 2011b, entire). Resiliency is the
ability of populations to tolerate natural, annual variation in their
environment and to recover from periodic or random disturbances (USFWS
2019, p. 2). Such stochastic events include epizootics, such as
sylvatic plague (plague), and extreme weather or climate, including
drought.
The last naturally occurring wild ferret population, in Wyoming,
averaged approximately 25 breeding adults throughout intensive
demographic studies from 1982 to 1985 (USFWS 2019, p. 10). Based on
this and population modeling, the USFWS considers 30 breeding adults a
minimum for a population of ferrets to be self-sustaining (USFWS 2013a,
p. 70). Ferrets require large, contiguous prairie dog colonies to meet
their individual needs, with colonies no more than approximately 4.35
miles (7 kilometers [km]) apart (Biggins et al. 1993, p. 78). A
conservative estimate of habitat requirements to support one female
ferret is 222 acres (ac) (90 hectares [ha]) of black-tailed prairie dog
(C. ludovicianus) colonies, or 370 ac (150 ha) of Gunnison's prairie
dog (C. gunnisoni) colonies (USFWS 2013a, p. 73). Assuming a two-to-one
female-to-male sex ratio and overlapping male and female home ranges
(Biggins et al. 1993, p. 76), we estimate that a population of 30
breeding adult ferrets may require 4,450 ac (1,800 ha) of black-tailed
prairie dog colonies, or approximately 7,415 ac (3,001 ha) of
Gunnison's prairie dog colonies (USFWS 2013a, p. 74).
Natal dispersal, defined as a permanent movement away from the
birth area, occurs in the fall months among the young-of-the-year,
although adults occasionally make permanent moves (Forrest et al. 1988,
p. 268). Newly released captive-born ferrets have dispersed up to
approximately 30 miles (48 km) (Biggins et al. 1999, p. 125), and wild-
born ferrets more than approximately 12 miles (19 km) (USFWS 2019, p.
7). Males tend to move greater distances than females.
Historical Range
The black-footed ferret is the only ferret species native to the
Americas (Anderson et al. 1986, p. 24). Before European settlement,
ferret occurrence coincided with the ranges of three prairie dog
species (black-tailed, white-tailed [C. leucurus], and Gunnison's),
which collectively covered about 100 million ac (40.5 million ha) of
Great Plains, mountain basins, and semi-arid grasslands extending from
Canada to Mexico (Anderson et al. 1986, pp. 25-50; Biggins et al. 1997,
p. 420). This amount of habitat could have supported 500,000 to one
million ferrets (Anderson et al. 1986, p. 58). We have records of
ferret specimens from Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming
in the United States and from Saskatchewan and Alberta in Canada
(Anderson et al. 1986, pp. 25-50). Ferrets likely additionally occurred
in Mexico, based on the proximity of a specimen to Mexico, fossil
records, and prairie dog distribution (USFWS 2019,
[[Page 69048]]
p. 42). A rancher discovered the last wild population of ferrets (from
which all existing ferrets descend) near Meeteetse, Wyoming, in 1981,
after they were presumed extinct (Lockhart et al. 2006, p. 8). By 1987,
the USFWS and partners removed all known surviving wild ferrets (18
individuals) from this area to initiate a captive-breeding program
following disease outbreaks (Lockhart et al. 2006, p. 8). Since then,
no naturally occurring wild populations have been located, despite
extensive and intensive rangewide searches; it is unlikely any
undiscovered natural wild populations remain. For these reasons, the
USFWS considers the ferret to be extant in reintroduced populations and
extirpated throughout the rest of its historical range (USFWS 2017, p.
2).
In the Southwest, in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah,
ferrets occurred within the historical range of Gunnison's prairie dogs
(Hillman and Clark 1980, entire); and in New Mexico, Mexico, and likely
southeastern Arizona they occurred within the historical range of
black-tailed prairie dogs (Hillman and Clark 1980, entire; Hoffmeister
1986, p. 194). In Arizona, historical ferret collections (1929-1931)
come from three locations in Coconino County (Belitsky et al. 1994, p.
29). In 1967, U.S. Department of Agriculture Federal Animal Damage
Control personnel (now known as Wildlife Services) reported seeing
ferret sign while poisoning prairie dogs (pers. comm. 1993, as cited in
Belitsky et al. 1994, p. 2). Anderson et al. (1986, p. 25) speculated
that prairie dog populations of sufficient size to support ferrets may
have existed in northeastern Arizona on the Navajo Nation; however, the
ferret currently is not present in that area (Navajo Nation 2020,
n.p.). Prairie dogs currently occur in substantial numbers on Hopi
(Johnson et al. 2010, entire) and Hualapai Tribal lands, the latter of
which the AVEPA partially overlaps.
Dramatic historical declines in prairie dogs, coupled with
prevalence of plague throughout the ferret's historical range, and the
failure to locate new wild ferrets, suggests the species is extirpated
in Arizona except where it has been reintroduced (USFWS 2017, p. 2).
The date of historical ferret extirpation in the Southwest is unknown;
in Arizona, we have no verified reports for ferrets from 1931 through
1995, after which we initiated reintroduction efforts in the AVEPA. We
consider the historical range of the ferret in Arizona to coincide with
the historical ranges of the Gunnison's and black-tailed prairie dogs.
Threats/Causes of Decline
Ferret populations decreased historically for three main reasons.
First, major conversion of native range to cropland, primarily in the
eastern portion of the species' range, began in the late 1800s. Second,
widespread poisoning of prairie dogs to reduce perceived competition
with domestic livestock for forage began in the early 1900s. Third, in
the 1930s, plague began to appreciably adversely affect both prairie
dogs and ferrets (Eskey and Hass 1940, p. 62). By the 1960s, prairie
dog occupied habitat reached a low of about 1.4 million ac (570,000 ha)
in the United States (Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 1961,
n.p.). For these reasons, ferret numbers declined to the point of
perceived extinction. These threats resulted in a substantial loss of
prairie dogs, which led to an even greater decline in ferret
populations due to the species' dependence on prairie dog colonies
(Lockhart et al. 2006, p. 7). Such population bottlenecks can result in
loss of genetic diversity and fitness and can manifest following even a
temporary loss of habitat (USFWS 2013a, p. 23).
In Arizona, the combined effects of prairie dog poisoning and
plague decreased the area occupied by Gunnison's prairie dogs from
about 6.6 million ac (2.7 million ha) historically to about 445,000 ac
(180,000 ha) in 1961 (Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 1961,
n.p.; Oakes 2000, pp. 169-171). Estimates of historical black-tailed
prairie dog habitat in Arizona range from 650,000 ac (263,000 ha) to
1,396,000 ac (565,000 ha) (Van Pelt 1999, p. 1; Black-footed Ferret
Recovery Foundation 1999, n.p.). Extirpation of black-tailed prairie
dogs in Arizona probably occurred around 1960 (Van Pelt 1999, pp. 3-4).
As with the rangewide effects, these prairie dog losses also resulted
in the loss of ferrets, and by the 1960's, ferrets were considered
extirpated in Arizona (Lockhart et al. 2006, pp. 7-8).
Cropland Conversion
Major conversion of native range to cropland eliminated millions of
acres of ferret habitat in the eastern portion of the ferret's range,
particularly black-tailed prairie dog colonies (USFWS 2013a, p. 23).
Land conversion caused far less physical loss of Gunnison's prairie dog
habitat, because outside of riparian corridors and proximate irrigated
lands, much of the habitat occupied by this species is not suitable for
crops (Lockhart et al., 2006, p. 7). Knowles (2002, p. 12) noted
displacement of prairie dogs from the more productive valley
bottomlands in Colorado and New Mexico, but not in Arizona. Instead of
converting native rangeland to irrigated crop and pasture lands, land-
use of the range in Arizona was and continues to consist primarily of
cattle grazing, with relatively minimal crop development. Cropland
conversion in Arizona, while affecting ferrets locally, was not a major
cause of decline in the State.
Prairie Dog Poisoning
Poisoning was a major cause of the historical declines of prairie
dogs and subsequently ferrets (Forrest et al. 1985, p. 3; Cully 1993,
p. 38; Forrest and Luchsinger 2005, pp. 115-120). Similar to other
threats limiting ferret recovery, poisoning affects ferrets through
inadvertent secondary effects, poisoning caused by consumption of
poisoned prairie dogs, or indirectly, through the loss of the prairie
dog prey base.
In Arizona, from 1916 to 1933, rodent control operations treated
4,365,749 ac (1,766,756 ha) of prairie dog colonies (Oakes 2000, p.
179). A 1961 Predator and Rodent Control Agency report showed a 92
percent decline in occupied prairie dog habitat in Arizona since 1921,
with Gunnison's prairie dogs occupying 445,370 ac (180,235 ha). Only
9,956 ac (4,029 ha) of prairie dog colonies in the 1961 surveys were
located on non-Tribal lands. The 1961 Predator and Rodent Control
Agency report also documented the extirpation of black-tailed prairie
dogs from Arizona. This historical prairie dog poisoning was a major
cause of decline of ferrets in Arizona.
Plague
Sylvatic plague is the most significant challenge to ferret
recovery (USFWS 2019, p. 21), with the USFWS classifying it as an
imminent threat of high magnitude (USFWS 2020, p. 5). Plague is an
exotic disease, caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis, transmitted by
fleas, which steamships inadvertently introduced to North America in
1900. Because it was foreign and unknown to their immune systems, both
prairie dogs and ferrets were and continue to be extremely susceptible
to mortality from plague (Barnes 1993, entire; Cully 1993, entire; Gage
and Kosoy 2006, entire). Plague can be present in a prairie dog colony
in an epizootic (swift, large-scale die-offs) or enzootic (persistent,
low level of mortality) state. Most of the information we have about
the effects of plague is from epizootic events. Although its effects
are not as dramatic as an epizootic outbreak, enzootic plague may
result in negative growth rates for
[[Page 69049]]
prairie dog and ferret populations and hinder ferret recovery (USFWS
2013a, pp. 33, 100). Other factors that reduce prairie dog numbers and
fitness (e.g., shooting, poisoning, and drought) increase the flea-to-
individual host ratio, and thus may contribute to plague epizootic
events (Biggins and Eads 2019, p. 7).
The first confirmation of plague in Gunnison's prairie dogs in
Arizona occurred in 1932, but we have limited historical data on the
extent of its effects (Wagner and Drickamer 2003, p. 5). In 2003,
Wagner et al. (2006, p. 337) reported that in the previous 7 to 15
years, there had been a large reduction in the number of active
Gunnison's prairie dog colonies in Arizona, primarily due to outbreaks
of plague, which they said was the dominant negative effect on Arizona
prairie dog populations. Prairie dogs in northern Arizona will likely
continue to experience effects from enzootic plague and epizootic
plague outbreaks (Biggins and Eads 2019, pp. 6-8; Wagner et al. 2006,
p. 337).
Other Impediments to Recovery
To recover ferrets, purposeful management of prairie dog
populations is needed to provide habitat of sufficient quality and in a
stable spatial configuration suitable to support and maintain new
populations of reintroduced ferrets. Unfortunately, current management
efforts for the species are failing to meet these conservation
objectives, rangewide (USFWS 2013a, pp. 46, 58, table 6; USFWS 2020 p.
5). The keys to correcting current management inadequacies are active
plague management and ongoing widespread partner involvement (USFWS
2013a, pp. 46-48) to facilitate establishment of new ferret
reintroduction sites and appropriately manage the quality and
configuration of ferret habitat and potential ferret habitat within the
species' range.
In addition, consideration of other factors that may act alone or
in concert with threats is necessary when planning and implementing
recovery efforts. For example, canine distemper, a disease endemic to
the United States, posed a challenge to early ferret reintroduction
efforts (Wimsatt et al. 2006, pp. 249-250). Today, however, the use of
commercial vaccines deployed in captive and wild ferret populations has
minimized the threat of catastrophic population losses due to canine
distemper (USFWS 2013a, pp. 29-30). As discussed in the Black-Footed
Ferret Recovery Plan and Species Status Assessment Report (USFWS 2013a,
pp. 53-55; USFWS 2019, pp. 25, 68), we anticipate that climate change
will alter and reduce prairie dog habitat and influence plague
outbreaks. We also discuss prairie dog shooting and Federal and non-
Federal actions and activities in ``Actions and Activities that May
Affect the Introduced Population'' below.
Recovery, Captive Breeding, and Reintroduction Efforts to Date
Recovery Strategy and Criteria
The goal of the Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan (Recovery Plan)
is to recover the ferret to the point at which it can be reclassified
to threatened status (downlisted) and ultimately removed (delisted)
from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (USFWS 2013a, pp.
5, 59). The strategy of the Recovery Plan is to involve many partners
across the historical range of the species in order to establish
multiple, widely spaced populations, within the range of all three
prairie dog species. Such distribution will safeguard the ferret, as a
whole, from the widespread chronic effects of plague as well as other
periodic or random disturbances that may result in the loss of a
population in one or more given areas. Partner involvement is critical
for the development of new reintroduction sites and their long-term
management because not only the USFWS, but also our partners, have the
authority to manage prairie dogs and prairie dog habitat on respective
State, Tribal, Federal, or privately owned lands. Although ferret
habitat is substantially decreased relative to historical times, if
potential habitat is appropriately managed to support ferret
reintroductions, a sufficient amount of habitat remains to support
ferret recovery (USFWS 2013a, p. 5). The Recovery Plan provides
objective, measurable criteria to achieve downlisting and delisting of
the ferret.
Recovery Plan downlisting and delisting criteria include managing a
captive-breeding population of at least 280 adults as a source
population to establish and supplement free-ranging populations and
repopulate sites in the event of local extirpations. Downlisting
criteria include establishing at least 1,500 free-ranging breeding
adults in 10 or more populations, in at least 6 of 12 States in the
species' historical range, with no fewer than 30 breeding adult ferrets
in any population, and at least 3 populations in colonies of Gunnison's
and white-tailed prairie dogs. Delisting criteria include at least
3,000 free-ranging breeding adults in 30 or more populations, in at
least 9 of 12 States in the species' historical range. There should be
no fewer than 30 breeding adults in any population, and at least 10
populations with 100 or more breeding adults, and at least 5
populations in Gunnison's and white-tailed prairie dog colonies. We
must meet these population objectives for at least 3 years prior to
downlisting or delisting. Habitat-related recovery criteria include
maintaining 247,000 ac (100,000 ha) of prairie dog colonies at
reintroduction sites for downlisting, and 494,000 ac (200,000 ha) for
delisting (USFWS 2013a, pp. 61-62).
Additionally, for each State in the historical range of the
species, the Recovery Plan includes State-level recovery guidelines
proportional to the amount of prairie dog habitat historically present
to equitably help support and achieve the overall recovery strategy and
criteria (USFWS 2013a, p. 69). Guidelines for Arizona's contribution to
downlisting are 74 free-ranging breeding adult ferrets on 17,000 ac
(6,880 ha) of Gunnison's prairie dog occupied habitat; delisting
guidelines are 148 breeding adults on 34,000 ac (13,760 ha) (USFWS
2013a, table 8). The guidelines for New Mexico and Utah are 220 and 25
breeding adult ferrets for downlisting, respectively, and 440 and 50
breeding adults for delisting; most of these individuals would occur in
black-tailed or white-tailed prairie dog habitat.
Captive Breeding
The USFWS and partners established the ferret captive-breeding
program from 18 ferrets captured from the last known wild population at
Meeteetse, Wyoming, from 1985 to 1987 (Lockhart et al. 2006, pp. 11-
12). Of those 18 ferrets, 15 individuals, representing the genetic
equivalent of 7 distinct founders (original genetic contributor, or
ancestor), produced a captive population that is the foundation of
present recovery efforts (Garelle et al. 2006, p. 4). All extant
reintroduced ferrets descended from those seven founders. The purpose
of the captive-breeding program is to maintain a secure and stable
ferret population with maximum genetic diversity, to provide a
sustainable source of ferrets for reintroduction to achieve recovery of
the species (USFWS 2013a, pp. 6, 81). The captive-breeding population
of ferrets is the primary repository of genetic diversity for the
species. There are currently six captive-breeding facilities maintained
by the USFWS and its partners: the USFWS National Black-footed Ferret
Conservation Center near Wellington, Colorado; the Cheyenne Mountain
Zoological Park, Colorado Springs, Colorado; the Louisville
[[Page 69050]]
Zoological Garden, Louisville, Kentucky; the Smithsonian's National Zoo
and Conservation Biology Institute, Virginia; the Phoenix Zoo, Phoenix,
Arizona; and the Toronto Zoo, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The combined
population of all 6 facilities is currently about 300 ferrets (USFWS
2020, p. 2).
The USFWS and our partners manage the demography and genetics of
the captive population consistent with guidance from the Association of
Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) Black-footed Ferret Species Survival Plan
(SSP[supreg]). This includes maintaining a stable breeding population
of at least 280 animals with a high level of genetic diversity and
providing a sustainable source of ferrets for reintroduction. The
captive-breeding facilities produce about 250 juvenile ferrets annually
and have produced about 9,300 ferrets in total (Graves et al. 2018, p.
3; Santymire and Graves 2020, p. 12). The distribution of ferrets
across six widespread facilities protects the captive population from
catastrophic events. Currently, we retain about 80 juveniles annually
in AZA SSP[supreg] facilities for continued captive-breeding purposes.
We consider the remaining juveniles genetically redundant and excess to
the AZA SSP[supreg], and available for reintroductions (USFWS 2013a, p.
81).
Each year the USFWS solicits proposals for allocations of ferrets
to establish new reintroduction sites or augment existing sites, or for
educational or scientific purposes (e.g., plague vaccine research). The
limited number of ferrets available for release each year requires that
we efficiently allocate ferrets to the highest priority sites first
(see ``Ferret Allocations'' below for allocation and prioritization
protocols). A ranking procedure developed by Jachowski and Lockhart
(2009, pp. 59-60) with recent modifications to the factors evaluated
and application of weighted values (Black-footed Ferret Recovery
Implementation Team 2014, Table 1) is used by the USFWS to guide
allocation of ferrets to reintroduction sites. Ranking criteria include
project background and justification, involved agencies/parties,
habitat conditions, ferret population information, predator management,
disease monitoring and management, contingency plans, potential for
preconditioning of released ferrets, veterinary and husbandry support,
and research contributions. Members of the Black-footed Ferret Recovery
Implementation Team review the proposals and the USFWS's rankings of
the proposals (USFWS 2013a, pp. 87-88).
Each year, the USFWS allocates 150 to 220 ferrets for
reintroduction into the wild from the captive-breeding population; from
1994 to August 2022, we allocated 5,533 ferrets for release rangewide
(J. Hughes, USFWS, pers. comm., August 4, 2022). The number of ferrets
we allocate to a site depends on site size and prey density (USFWS
2016a, pp. 1, 21). It also depends on purpose and needs; for example,
whether the purpose is to initiate establishment of a population or
augment a site, which may entail multiple releases in a year. Although
a release can involve a single ferret, for initial releases, the USFWS
typically recommends releasing up to 20 to 30 individuals (P. Gober,
USFWS, pers. comm., March 4, 2018).
Rangewide Reintroduction Efforts to Date
To date, the USFWS and partners have reintroduced ferrets at 31
sites in the western United States, Canada, and Mexico. In the United
States, we have conducted 11 ferret reintroductions through
experimental population designations under section 10(j) of the ESA, 17
under section 10(a)(1)(A), and 1 under section 7 of the ESA (J. Hughes,
USFWS, pers. comm., December 13, 2021). Additionally, there has been
one reintroduction each in Chihuahua, Mexico, and Saskatchewan, Canada.
In our Species Status Assessment Report for the Black-footed Ferret
(Mustela nigripes) (USFWS 2019, table 11; SSA), we evaluated the
current condition of 29 reintroduction sites (2 sites were initiated
after we began the SSA). We estimated a wild population of about 340
individuals in those sites, of which 254 occurred on 4 sites (USFWS
2019, table 3). The USFWS determined 2 of the reintroduction sites were
in high condition (high resiliency) and 8 were in moderate condition
(moderate resiliency) (USFWS 2019, table 11). We estimated 240,173 ac
(97,197 ha) of occupied prairie dog habitat on all sites combined
(USFWS 2019, p. 45). Currently, 18 sites are considered active; the
other 13 sites are considered extirpated, primarily due to plague (J.
Hughes, USFWS, pers. comm., December 13, 2021; USFWS 2019, p. 43).
Arizona-Specific Reintroduction Efforts to Date
The USFWS and our partners have carried out multiple ferret
reintroductions and augmentations in northern Arizona. In 1996, we
reintroduced ferrets to the AVEPA in cooperation with the Arizona Game
and Fish Department (AZGFD), the Hualapai Tribe, and the Navajo Nation
(61 FR 11320, March 20, 1996). The AVEPA was the fifth ferret
reintroduction site in the United States and the first reintroduction
site in a Gunnison's prairie dog population (USFWS 2013a, figure 1). In
2012, ferrets were observed outside of the AVEPA, including on the
adjacent Double O Ranch, presumably dispersing from the AVEPA. We now
consider the AVEPA and the Double O Ranch one reintroduction site. In
2012, the number of breeding adults at the Aubrey Valley/Double O Ranch
site was 123. Both the number of ferrets at the site and the amount of
occupied prairie dog habitat (about 65,500 ac [26,500 ha] in 2018)
exceeded the numbers in the Recovery Plan recommended downlisting
guidelines for Arizona (USFWS 2013a, table 2, table 8). Since then,
substantially fewer ferrets have been documented over several years
(AZGFD 2016, p. 3; USFWS 2019, p. 45). The USFWS suspects that enzootic
plague may have caused this decline; however, we do not know if the
observed trend is cyclical, meaning plague reoccurs from time to time,
or linear, meaning that plague is constant through time. Despite lower
numbers, we consider the Aubrey Valley/Double O Ranch population to be
persistent (J. Hughes, USFWS, pers. comm., December 13, 2021).
In 2007, the USFWS established the Espee Ranch (a.k.a. Allotment)
reintroduction site in Arizona under a section 10(a)(1)(A) research and
recovery permit in cooperation with Babbitt Ranches, LLC, the U.S.
Geological Survey, and AZGFD. The status of the Espee Ranch population
is currently unknown but likely extirpated due to plague (AZGFD, unpub.
data). The extirpation of the Espee Ranch population and the decline of
the Aubrey Valley/Double O Ranch population emphasize the need for
additional ferret reintroduction sites in Arizona to guard against
stochastic or catastrophic events at any given site.
The Babbitt Ranches, LLC, for the Espee Allotment (the existing
Espee Ranch reintroduction site), and Seibert Land Company LLC, for the
Double O Ranch, enrolled in the programmatic ferret SHA with the USFWS
in 2014 and 2016, respectively. The figure at the end of this rule
identifies these SHA lands in the SWEPA. The Aubrey Valley/Double O
Ranch reintroduction site contains the only known ferrets currently
occurring in the SWEPA.
Plague Mitigation Efforts
Researchers continue making advances to address plague, even as it
remains the most substantial challenge
[[Page 69051]]
to ferret recovery. Rocke et al. (2006, entire) developed a vaccine
(F1-V) to prevent plague in ferrets; all ferrets provided for
reintroduction receive the vaccine (Abbott and Rocke 2012, p. 54).
Another vaccine developed is the sylvatic plague vaccine (SPV), which
is delivered via treated baits to wild prairie dogs. SPV has been
effective in a laboratory setting (Rocke et al. 2010, entire; Abbott
and Rocke 2012, pp. 54-55), and a broad-scale experiment to test
efficacy in the field found it prevented prairie dog colony collapse
where plague epizootics were documented (Rocke et al. 2017, p. 443). A
recent study, however, found SPV applied in the field might not provide
sufficient protection for prairie dog populations to support a ferret
population (Matchett et al. 2021, entire). In addition to vaccines, the
powder form of the insecticide deltamethrin is applied at prairie dog
burrows to control fleas and manage both enzootic and epizootic plague
(Seery et al. 2003, entire; Seery 2006, entire; Matchett et al. 2010,
pp. 31-33; USFWS 2013a, p. 101). However, the application of
insecticidal dust is costly and labor-intensive, and there are concerns
about the development of deltamethrin resistance in fleas. Therefore,
the USFWS continues to work with our partners to improve the
application and efficacy of the insecticide deltamethrin and to
research other pesticides, such as fipronil, a systemic pulicide
(insecticide effective on fleas) that is incorporated into grain baits
for prairie dog consumption (Poch[eacute] et al. 2017, entire; Eads et
al. 2019, entire; Eads et al. 2021, entire).
Summary
Ferret recovery is a dynamic process, requiring long-term active
management (e.g., plague control) and involving reintroduced
populations rangewide in various stages of suitability and
sustainability--with some populations undergoing extirpation
concurrently as others are established or reestablished after
extirpation. The AVEPA population illustrates the dynamic nature of
ferret recovery and conservation, which at one point exhibited ferrets
dispersing outside of the experimental population area but subsequently
experienced a substantial population decline, presumably due to plague,
in 2013. Therefore, ferret recovery is dependent on the establishment
of additional, spatially distributed populations of reintroduced
ferrets in Arizona to contribute to species recovery, which
establishment of the SWEPA will help to achieve.
Experimental Population
We revise and replace the existing nonessential experimental
population designation for black-footed ferrets in Arizona (the AVEPA)
with the SWEPA, under section 10(j) of the ESA. We base the boundaries
of the 40,905,350-ac (16,554,170-ha) SWEPA on the historical range of
Gunnison's and black-tailed prairie dogs, which coincides with the
presumed historical range of ferrets in Arizona. The only ferrets
currently occurring within the SWEPA are within the AVEPA and adjacent
areas and constitute a single population. Therefore, the SWEPA, which
will encompass the AVEPA, will be wholly geographically separate from
other populations (see ``Actual or Anticipated Movements'' below).
Currently, scattered throughout the SWEPA there are approximately
358,000 ac (144,880 ha) of prairie dog colonies (H. Hicks, AZGFD, pers.
comm., January 26, 2018; Johnson et al., 2010, p. iv) inhabiting about
0.875 percent of the area. The SWEPA encompasses all potential ferret
habitat within the boundaries of the State of Arizona, including the
Hopi Reservation (excluding Hopi Villages within District 6), the
Hualapai Reservation, and the Navajo Nation in its entirety, which
includes the Navajo Nation's contiguous areas in New Mexico and Utah
(see the figure entitled ``Southwest Nonessential Experimental
Population Area (SWEPA) for the black-footed ferret'' below). Land
ownership within the SWEPA includes Federal, private, State, and Tribal
lands.
Potential Release Sites
We consider all potential habitat within the SWEPA as possible
experimental population reintroduction locations, as we currently lack
information about the distribution of habitat to appropriately identify
all prospective reintroduction sites. Some portions of the SWEPA may
become suitable for ferrets in the future with appropriate management,
and ferrets may disperse from successful reintroduction sites as
observed previously with the AVEPA. By including all potential habitat
within the SWEPA where ferrets may be reintroduced or may disperse,
this experimental population designation will extend regulatory
flexibility across all areas in which ferrets might occur.
Because potential ferret habitat is, by definition, not yet
suitable for ferrets, and the USFWS is not solely responsible for the
management of wildlife outside of the National Wildlife Refuge System,
we rely on partnerships with landowners or those responsible for
wildlife management on their respective lands or based on their legal
authorities to contribute to conservation necessary for ferret
reintroduction and recovery. As the primary management agency for
wildlife in Arizona, excluding Tribal lands, AZGFD's efforts and
commitment to prairie dog conservation and management are key in
identifying potential ferret reintroduction sites in Arizona. AZGFD
developed an Interagency Management Plan for Gunnison's Prairie Dogs in
Arizona, with the purpose of identifying and implementing management
strategies to conserve Gunnison's prairie dogs (Underwood 2007, p. 24),
and a Management Plan for the Black-footed Ferret in Arizona (AZGFD
2016, entire; Management Plan) to further their commitment to meeting
the USFWS Recovery Plan guidelines for Arizona (USFWS 2013a, table 2,
table 8). The USFWS reviewed and commented on the AZGFD Management
Plan, ensuring that it complements the USFWS Black-footed Ferret
Recovery Plan by incorporating current research and techniques that the
USFWS uses to guide ferret recovery rangewide.
Within the SWEPA, the USFWS anticipates the need for at least five
ferret reintroduction sites to buffer against plague or other
stochastic or catastrophic events and to reliably meet Recovery Plan
guidelines for Arizona in support of the rangewide recovery criteria
(USFWS 2022a, n.p.). Currently six areas are considered to be
established or potential reintroduction sites. The active Aubrey
Valley/Double O Ranch and inactive Espee Ranch, which is being actively
managed for prairie dogs, are established reintroduction sites in which
future releases may occur. Four potential reintroduction sites have
also been identified (see AZGFD 2016 pp. 8-10) and occur on: (1) Kaibab
National Forest, Williams/Tusayan Ranger Districts; (2) CO Bar Ranch;
(3) Petrified Forest National Park; and (4) Lyman Lake (see
``Identifying the Location and Boundaries of the SWEPA'' below for more
information on these sites). These potential reintroduction sites
currently lack sufficient prairie dog occupied acreage and require
management to improve prairie dog populations before they can support
ferrets. The USFWS is working with partners to encourage and implement
purposeful prairie dog management and to identify additional potential
reintroduction sites within the SWEPA.
Ferret Allocations
The USFWS approves sites for ferret reintroductions and allocates
ferrets to
[[Page 69052]]
those sites through an annual process (see ``Captive Breeding'' above),
giving greater consideration to sites that have plague management and
monitoring plans (USFWS 2022b, p. 2). To qualify for the annual
application and ranking process, States, Tribes, and/or other land
managers develop annual site-specific reintroduction plans and submit
them to the USFWS by mid-March for consideration. Site-specific
reintroduction plans may require implementation of plague management
(e.g., applying Delta Dust[supreg] [deltamethrin]) at the proposed
reintroduction site, as determined by the USFWS and partners.
The USFWS allocates ferrets to proposed reintroduction sites that
contain sufficient prairie dog occupied habitat. The USFWS estimates
sufficient prairie dog occupied habitat for Gunnison's prairie dogs as
typically equating to 7,415 ac (3,000 ha), and for black-tailed prairie
dogs, typically 4,450 ac (1,800 ha); (USFWS 2013a, pp. 73-74; USFWS
2019, p. 10). Our estimates, based in part on data from the Conata
Basin/Badlands site in South Dakota, are likely on the high end of
ferrets' actual habitat needs (USFWS 2013a, pp. 73-74). The actual
amount of prairie dog occupied habitat needed varies across the
ferret's range, depending on site conditions such as the density of
prairie dogs. In Arizona, available research and prairie dog density
data from Aubrey Valley suggests that a minimum of 5,540 ac (2,242 ha)
of Gunnison's prairie dog occupied habitat is needed to consider a site
potentially suitable for a ferret reintroduction (AZGFD 2016, pp. 6-7,
15). We may adjust our area estimates in the future, if further
monitoring suggests that ferrets require a smaller area of habitat than
our conservative estimates suggest (USFWS 2013a, p. 74). For more
information about allocations, see ``Possible Adverse Effects on Wild
and Captive-Breeding Populations'' below.
Release Procedures
The USFWS and partners release ferrets according to the guidance on
release techniques in the Black-footed Ferret Field Operations Manual
(USFWS 2016a, entire; Operations Manual), allowing for adjustments to
the techniques according to USFWS-approved management plans. All
captive-reared ferrets receive adequate preconditioning in outdoor pens
at the National Black-footed Ferret Conservation Center, or other
USFWS-approved facility, prior to release. Ferrets exposed to
preconditioning exhibit higher post-release survival rates than non-
preconditioned ferrets (Biggins et al. 1998, pp. 651-652; Vargas et al.
1998, p. 77). Captive ferrets receive vaccines for canine distemper and
plague, and passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag implants for later
identification, prior to release. Ferrets are released from August to
November, which is when young-of-the-year ferrets disperse in the wild
(USFWS 2016a, p. 16). Typically, the USFWS transports the ferrets to
the site and releases them directly into suitable habitat without
protection from predators, known as a ``hard release.''
Reintroduction Site Management
The USFWS is involved in the planning and decision-making
processes, implementation of reintroductions, and management and
monitoring of all reintroduction sites. Our partners contribute their
commitment, resources, and legal authorities as wildlife managers to
the management of reintroduction sites. The USFWS will partner with
AZGFD on Federal, State, and private land reintroduction sites within
the SWEPA, or the appropriate Tribal wildlife authority on Tribal
lands, for reintroduction site management. The USFWS currently partners
with AZGFD on two established reintroduction sites in Arizona. AZGFD
has demonstrated their commitment to the partnership and to ferret
recovery through 26 years of experience with ferret reintroductions in
Arizona, development of Arizona-specific management plans for ferrets
and prairie dogs (AZGFD 2016, entire; Underwood 2007, entire), and
contribution of permanent and annual field staff to accomplish
necessary field activities.
On non-Tribal lands in Arizona, the USFWS Operations Manual and
Arizona's Management Plan guide the management of ferret reintroduction
sites. On Tribal lands, the USFWS Operations Manual and any appropriate
Tribal ferret management plan and other site-specific plans and
procedures guide management of reintroduction sites. Partners, in
conjunction with the USFWS and landowner or manager, develop a site-
specific management plan, which includes monitoring and adaptive
management. All involved parties follow all applicable laws regulating
the protection of ferrets (see ``Management Restrictions, Protective
Measures, and Other Special Management'' below).
How will the experimental population (SWEPA) further the conservation
of the species?
As cited above, under 50 CFR 17.81(b), before authorizing the
release as an experimental population, the USFWS must find by
regulation that such release will further the conservation of the
species. We explain our rationale for making our finding below. In
making such a finding, we must consider effects on donor populations,
the likelihood of establishment and survival of the experimental
population, the effects that establishment of the experimental
population will have on recovery of the species, and the extent to
which the experimental population will be affected by Federal, State,
or private activities.
Possible Adverse Effects on Wild and Captive-Breeding Populations
Our regulations at 50 CFR 17.81 require that we consider any
possible adverse effects on extant populations of a species as a result
of removal of individuals, eggs, or propagules for introduction
elsewhere. We know of no naturally occurring wild populations of
ferrets throughout the historical range of the species (see
``Historical Range'' above). The USFWS considers the ferret extirpated
in the wild except for reintroduced populations (i.e., all ferrets in
the wild are the result of reintroductions). We consider all ferrets
used to establish populations at reintroduction sites that come from
the captive-bred population or, occasionally, from self-sustaining
reintroduced populations as surplus, meaning they are genetically
redundant within the source population and their removal from the
source population will not affect the source population's persistence.
If animals are translocated from other reintroduction sites, only wild-
born kits from self-sustaining reintroduced populations are considered
for translocation into new or non-self-sustaining reintroduction sites
(Lockhart, 2000-2007, as cited in USFWS 2013a, p. 27, P. Gober, USFWS,
pers. comm., August 5, 2022).
The USFWS uses ferrets from the captive-bred population or a self-
sustaining wild population to establish populations at reintroduction
sites. In conformance with the USFWS allocation process, after we
approve a reintroduction site for ferret allocations, the USFWS
recommends the release of up to 20 to 30 captive-raised or wild-
translocated ferrets during the first year of the reintroduction.
Subsequent annual supplemental releases are expected until the
population at a given reintroduction site becomes self-sustaining.
We anticipate no adverse effects on existing populations of
ferrets, whether captive or wild, due to the removal of
[[Page 69053]]
individuals from those populations for the purpose of reintroducing and
establishing new populations in the SWEPA. We base this conclusion on
the purpose for and the management of the captive-bred population (see
``Captive Breeding'' above), the management of other sites to achieve
and maintain self-sustaining status for recovery purposes, and the
USFWS's allocation process, which prioritizes reintroducing the limited
number of surplus ferrets to sites with high chances of success. In
summary, ferrets released at reintroduction sites will be genetically
redundant individuals from populations that will remain self-sustaining
despite the removal of those individuals.
Likelihood of Population Establishment and Survival
In our findings for designation of an experimental population, we
must consider if the reintroduced population will become established
and survive in the foreseeable future. The term ``foreseeable future''
appears in the ESA in the statutory definition of ``threatened
species.'' However, the ESA does not define the term ``foreseeable
future.'' Similarly, our implementing regulations governing the
establishment of experimental populations under section 10(j) of the
ESA use the term ``foreseeable future'' (50 CFR 17.81(b)(2)) but do not
define the term. Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d),
regarding factors for listing, delisting, or reclassifying species, set
forth a framework for evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-
case basis. The term foreseeable future extends only so far into the
future as we can reasonably determine that both the future threats and
the species' responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the
foreseeable future is the period of time in which we can make reliable
predictions as it relates to life history of the species and its
response to threats. While we use the term ``foreseeable future'' here
in a different context (to determine the likelihood of experimental
population establishment and to establish boundaries for identification
of the experimental population), we apply a similar conceptual
framework. Our analysis of the foreseeable future uses the best
scientific and commercial data available and considers the timeframes
applicable to the relevant effects of release and management of the
species and to the species' likely responses in view of its life-
history characteristics.
In considering the likelihood of establishment and survival of
populations of ferrets reintroduced in the SWEPA, we consider whether
causes of the species' extirpation have been addressed. We also
consider availability of suitable habitat and our previous experience
with reintroduction efforts to inform our assessment of the likelihood
of success of reintroductions in the SWEPA.
Addressing Causes of Extirpation Within the Experimental Population
Area
Understanding the causes of the extirpation of ferret populations
is necessary to sufficiently address threats to the species in the
SWEPA so that reintroduction efforts are likely to be successful.
Ferrets depend on prairie dog populations for food, shelter, and
reproduction. Historical ferret declines resulted from: (1) widespread
prairie dog poisoning; (2) adverse effects of plague on prairie dogs
and ferrets; and (3) major conversion of habitat (see ``Threats/Causes
of Decline'' above).
Widespread Poisoning of Prairie Dogs
Poisoning of prairie dogs no longer occurs to the extent and
intensity that it did historically; the current use of poison to
control prairie dogs occurs in limited and selective ways. Although
land-use and ownership patterns in Arizona have not changed much since
past poisoning campaigns, poisoning became less common in the 1970s
because prairie dog populations had been reduced by over 90 percent and
use of rodenticides became more closely regulated than it had been
historically (USFWS 2013a, pp. 49-51). State and Federal agencies have
limited involvement in control of prairie dogs on private lands unless
they pose a threat to human safety or health (e.g., plague transmission
in an urban setting). Where State and Federal agencies have
involvement, control methods have largely shifted to nonlethal
techniques. For example, translocation as a method of prairie dog
control is becoming more common, while lethal control seems to be
declining (Seglund et al. 2006, p. 49). In addition, landowners and
managers have expressed interest in managing prairie dogs specifically
for ferret reintroductions, as evidenced by the number of current and
potential reintroduction sites (see ``Identified Reintroduction Sites''
below).
Landowners and managers have used zinc phosphide as a registered
rodenticide for prairie dog control since the 1940s (Erickson and Urban
2004, p. 12). In the early 2000s, manufacturers started promoting use
of the anticoagulant rodenticides chlorophacinone (Rozol[supreg]) and
diphacinone (Kaput[supreg]). These chemicals pose a much greater risk
than zinc phosphide of secondary poisoning to nontarget wildlife that
prey upon prairie dogs, such as ferrets (Erickson and Urban 2004, p.
85). In 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authorized
use of Rozol[supreg] throughout much of black-tailed prairie dog range
via a Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act section 3
registration. However, the EPA labeled Rozol[supreg] and Kaput-
D[supreg] only for the control of black-tailed prairie dogs, not
Gunnison's, and the labels do not allow use in Arizona or the taking of
``endangered species.'' The EPA has also established additional
restrictions through the Endangered Species Protection Bulletins that
ban the use of Rozol[supreg] in ferret recovery sites. These bulletins
are an extension of the pesticide label, and it is a violation of
Federal and State law to use a pesticide in a manner inconsistent with
the label.
In Arizona, the use of poison to control prairie dogs may occur on
State, Federal, and private lands with the appropriate permit. Products
registered for prairie dog control by the EPA require a pesticide
applicators license, which an applicator can obtain only through a
formal process with the Arizona Department of Agriculture (Underwood
2007, pp. 23-24). The extent of poisoning in Arizona is extremely
limited in area compared to historical poisoning. For example, from
2013 through 2018, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's
(APHIS) Wildlife Services treated prairie dogs with zinc phosphide at
three private properties totaling 56 ac (23 ha) of colonies, for
livestock and property protection on pasture and farmland near rural
communities (C. Carrillo, pers. comm., APHIS, October 23, 2019). None
of these treatments occurred in or near current or proposed
reintroduction areas. Given the limited use of prairie dog poisons in
Arizona, and partnerships with landowners and managers willing to
manage prairie dogs for ferrets, poisoning should not affect the
establishment or success of reintroduced populations of ferrets.
Adverse Effects of Plague
As previously noted, plague can adversely affect ferrets directly
via infection and subsequent fatality, and indirectly by decimating
prairie dog populations, the ferret's prey. Management to reduce plague
has improved, including dusting prairie dog burrows with insecticide to
control fleas and vaccinating ferrets. The development of fipronil
baits to control fleas in prairie dogs is also underway. In Colorado,
black-tailed prairie dog survival improved when researchers
[[Page 69054]]
applied the insecticide deltamethrin as a prophylactic treatment to
control fleas in prairie dog burrows (Seery et al. 2003, p. 443; Seery
2006, entire). Based on management implementation at various
reintroduction sites through the efforts of our partners, we expect the
threat from plague to be managed by monitoring, dusting, vaccinating,
and maintaining more and widely spaced reintroduction sites (USFWS
2013a, p. 78).
In Arizona, plague management includes best management practices
and adaptive management to respond to changing conditions and
incorporating new techniques as researchers develop them (AZGFD 2016,
p. 19, appendices E and F). In addition, AZGFD, the USFWS, and the U.S.
Geological Survey are conducting an intensive plague study in the AVEPA
to determine whether plague is present at an enzootic level that
current plague surveillance is not detecting (H. Hicks, AZGFD, pers.
comm., February 5, 2022). Plague will be an ongoing challenge to ferret
recovery, but with current management tools, promising new treatments,
the commitments of our partners, and the benefit of being able to
establish widely spaced populations across the SWEPA, we will manage
this threat sufficiently to support the conservation of the ferret at a
landscape level.
Conversion of Habitat
Currently, rangewide conversion of prairie dog habitat is not
significant relative to historical levels, although it may affect some
prairie dog populations locally (USFWS 2013a, pp. 24-25). We do not
expect agricultural land conversion and urbanization to have a
measurable effect on the current condition of ferrets at the species
level, because sufficient rangeland, including federally managed land,
persists rangewide (USFWS 2019, pp. 27, 35). In Arizona, cropland
currently covers almost 1.3 million ac (526,000 ha), or about one to
two percent of the landscape (USDA 2019, p. 7), predominantly in
central and southern Arizona, outside of the range of the Gunnison's
prairie dog. Within the range of Gunnison's prairie dog in Arizona,
agricultural development affects 31,449 ac (12,727 ha), and urban
development affects 78,673 ac (31,838 ha), both of which, combined,
constitute less than one percent of the range of the Gunnison's prairie
dog (Seglund 2006, p. 15). There are about 22 million ac (8,900,000 ha)
of agricultural activity in Arizona in the form of pastures for
livestock grazing (USDA 2019, p. 19). These non-cultivated agricultural
lands may represent habitat for the prairie dog and ferret in Arizona
(Ernst et al. 2006, p. 91). Routine livestock grazing and ranching
activities are largely compatible with maintaining occupied prairie dog
habitat capable of supporting ferrets (USFWS 2013b, p. 20) (see
discussion about grazing in ``Actions and Activities that May Affect
the Introduced Population'' below).
Reintroduction Expertise
The USFWS and its partners have considerable experience
establishing reintroduced ferret populations. Since 1991, we have
initiated ferret reintroductions at 31 sites, including 2 in Arizona
(J. Hughes, USFWS, pers. comm., December 13, 2021). These sites have
had varying degrees of success, but they have all contributed to our
understanding of the species' needs and effective management toward
establishing reintroduced populations. The USFWS and our partners
continually apply adaptive management principles through monitoring and
research to ensure that the best available scientific information is
used to develop new tools (e.g., fipronil baits), update strategies and
protocols, and identify new reintroduction sites, to progress towards
recovery (USFWS 2016a, entire; AZGFD 2016, p. 19).
The USFWS and our partners have developed and refined
reintroduction techniques. These include advancements and improvements
in management and oversight of the captive-breeding program, veterinary
care and animal husbandry (USFWS 2016a, entire), the preconditioning
program (Biggins et al. 1998, entire; USFWS 2016a, pp. 34-37), release
techniques, and disease and plague management, including ferret
vaccination programs at individual reintroduction sites. With respect
to disease management, vector control (i.e., dusting and/or fipronil
grain baits) and vaccination use in concert with vigilant plague
epizootic monitoring may be the most effective way to reduce the
rangewide effects of plague (Abbott and Rocke 2012, pp. 54-55; Tripp et
al. 2017, entire). However, plague remains an ongoing issue (Scott et
al. 2010, entire; Rohlf et al. 2014, entire) requiring ongoing
management to maintain both the captive and reintroduced populations
(USFWS 2019, p. 65).
In Arizona, the USFWS and our partners refine management strategies
and field techniques through adaptive management practices to enhance
reintroduction efforts. For example, when ferrets did not appear to be
breeding at Aubrey Valley after 5 years of releases, release strategies
were modified to incorporate pen breeding and springtime releases, and
wild-born kits were documented the following year (AZGFD 2016, p. 5).
The USFWS also continually adapts and refines recommended plague
monitoring and management. At Espee Ranch, for example, we learned that
plague was present only after we released ferrets despite the use of
pre-release plague surveillance and management protocols. Subsequently,
AZGFD incorporated the latest disease monitoring protocols and adaptive
management into its Management Plan (AZGFD 2016, p. 19, appendices E
and F). In addition, at Espee Ranch, the USFWS and AZGFD participated
in trials of the experimental SPV, the results of which have
contributed to both the national effort to investigate SPV as a
management tool as well as our understanding of local plague
conditions. Given the USFWS's 31 years of experience reintroducing
ferrets across their historical range, and the USFWS's and AZGFD's 26
years of experience in Arizona, developing and refining reintroduction
and management techniques, we are likely to be successful in
establishing and managing new populations of ferrets in the SWEPA.
Habitat Suitability
The likelihood of establishing ferret populations largely depends
on adequate habitat. Although there was a significant decline of
prairie dog occupied habitat on non-Tribal lands in Arizona
historically, there has been a 10-fold increase in occupied habitat
since 1961 (Seglund 2006, p. 16). Outside of Navajo and Hopi lands,
Arizona currently has more than 108,000 ac (43,707 ha) of occupied
prairie dog habitat (H. Hicks, AZGFD, pers. comm., January 26, 2018), a
portion of which is located on lands of the Hualapai Tribe. Lands of
the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe collectively may contain about
250,000 ac (101,174 ha) of occupied prairie dog habitat (Johnson et
al., 2010, p. iv). With purposeful management, this amount and
distribution of prairie dog occupied habitat would be capable of
supporting multiple ferret reintroduction sites.
In addition to the amount of habitat available in the SWEPA,
individual reintroduction sites need to be of sufficient size to
support reintroduced ferrets. Two sites in Arizona currently exceed or
have exceeded the USFWS's and AZGFD's estimated Gunnison's prairie dog
occupied acreage (7,415 ac [3,000 ha] and 5,540 ac [2,242 ha],
respectively) to reintroduce ferrets: Aubrey Valley/Double O Ranch and
Espee Ranch (AZGFD 2016, p. 6). In
[[Page 69055]]
2018, Aubrey Valley/Double O Ranch contained about 65,500 ac (26,500
ha) of occupied prairie dog habitat and 264,000 ac (106,850 ha) of
potential acreage (USFWS 2019, table 3). In 2007, prior to ferret
reintroduction, Espee Ranch contained approximately 29,000 ac (11,736
ha) of occupied prairie dog habitat. Ferret monitoring and prairie dog
management and monitoring continue to occur at Aubrey Valley/Double O
Ranch, and prairie dog management and monitoring continue to occur at
Espee Ranch. In addition to these two established reintroduction sites,
four potential reintroduction sites have been identified (AZGFD 2016,
entire). AZGFD has a management plan to conserve and maintain viable
prairie dog populations and the ecosystems they inhabit statewide
(Underwood 2007, entire). The acreage area criteria, along with
implementation of management plans for viable prairie dog populations
and ferrets and their habitats, will ensure that any sites selected for
reintroduction have sufficient quantity and quality of habitat to
support establishment of ferret populations.
Additional occupied prairie dog habitat is necessary before ferrets
are released at additional sites within the SWEPA. Ferret
reintroduction sites are relatively large, and their management
requires coordination with multiple partners. AZGFD and other partners
are currently implementing activities to monitor and manage prairie dog
habitat in potential reintroduction sites in support of future ferret
reintroductions. This 10(j) rule will facilitate new partnerships with
private landowners and encourage voluntary management of prairie dog
habitat in anticipation of future ferret reintroductions by providing
regulatory flexibility regarding incidental take associated with
activities deemed compatible with ferret recovery (50 CFR 17.84(g)).
The 10(j) rule will also allow for regulatory consistency across
different land management agencies or authorities. For these reasons,
we consider the SWEPA an important step toward increasing the number of
ferret reintroduction sites and our contribution toward ferret
recovery.
Increased Prey Stability
Prairie dog populations in Arizona have increased from historical
lows in the 1960's, and the State is managing them for long-term
viability. The potential for continued expansion of occupied prairie
dog habitat across Arizona through prairie dog conservation and disease
management, coupled with past success of ferret reintroductions in
Arizona and across the species' range, suggests that ferret-occupied
areas can expand through additional reintroductions and dispersal.
Reintroduction of ferrets in the larger SWEPA will contribute to
achieving the USFWS ferret Recovery Plan guidelines for Arizona and
contribute to ferret recovery across the species' range (USFWS 2013a,
p. 77).
Summary
The USFWS and our partners have considerable experience
reintroducing ferrets rangewide and in Arizona. We have guidelines for
selecting suitable reintroduction sites (USFWS 2013a, entire. pp. 73-
74; USFWS 2016a, pp. 1-10; AZGFD 2016, p. 7) and developed protocols
and management plans for those sites (USFWS 2016a, entire; AZGFD 2016,
appendices). The SWEPA contains a sufficient quantity and distribution
of habitat to support reintroductions at additional sites with
continued and additional prairie dog management. Additionally, the
causes of extirpation of ferrets in Arizona have been or are being
addressed; the widespread poisoning of prairie dogs is no longer
occurring, the USFWS and partners continue to develop plague management
techniques, and the conversion of habitat into cropland is not
occurring at a significant scale. Lastly, the demonstrated success of
existing reintroduced ferret populations in Arizona indicates that
additional reintroduction efforts in the SWEPA will be successful in
establishing and sustaining additional ferret populations, required for
species recovery.
Effects of the SWEPA on Recovery Efforts for the Species
The USFWS's recovery strategy for the ferret range-wide requires
establishment of numerous, spatially dispersed populations of ferrets
within the range of all three prairie dog species to reduce the risk of
stochastic events affecting multiple populations (e.g., plague),
increase management options, and maintain genetic diversity (USFWS
2013a, table 7) (see ``Recovery, Captive Breeding and Reintroduction
Efforts to Date'' above). Delisting criteria for the species include 30
populations in 9 of 12 States within the species' historical range and
distributed among the ranges of 3 prairie dog species (USFWS 2013a, p.
6). To implement this recovery strategy and achieve recovery criteria,
additional successful reintroductions of ferrets are necessary (USFWS
2013a, p. 7). We will accomplish this by encouraging new partnerships
with landowners and managers and the voluntary purposeful prairie dog
management needed to support ferret populations via regulatory
flexibilities.
Participation by numerous partners is critical to achieve the
ferret's delisting criteria of multiple spatially dispersed populations
and support the species redundancy, representation, and resiliency
necessary for recovery. To achieve this strategy, the Recovery Plan
suggests recovery guidelines for each State within the historical range
of the species for the number of ferrets and prairie dog habitat
acreages (proportional to the historical amount of prairie dog habitat)
to contribute to meeting recovery criteria (USFWS 2013a, p. 69). These
recovery guidelines by State are intended to improve risk management
and ensure equity of recovery responsibilities across State boundaries
(USFWS 2013a, table 8). The USFWS collaborated with AZGFD, the Navajo
Nation, the Hualapai Tribe, and private landowners to initiate one of
the early ferret reintroduction sites and the first in a Gunnison's
prairie dog population.
The USFWS's Recovery Plan downlisting and delisting criteria
guidelines for Arizona are 74 free-ranging breeding adult ferrets on
17,000 ac (6,880 ha) of Gunnison's prairie dog occupied habitat, and
148 breeding adults on 34,000 ac (13,760 ha), respectively. The
guidelines for New Mexico and Utah are 220 and 25 breeding adult
ferrets for downlisting, respectively, and 440 and 50 breeding adults
for delisting (USFWS 2013a, table 8). Delisting criteria for the entire
range include five ferret populations in colonies of both Gunnison's
and white-tailed prairie dogs (USFWS 2013a, p. 6). About 27 percent of
the Gunnison's prairie dog range occurs in Arizona (Seglund et al.
2006, p. 70), so establishing additional ferret populations in
Gunnison's prairie dog habitat within the SWEPA will contribute to
meeting this criterion.
Currently, there are two established ferret reintroduction sites in
Arizona. As of 2013, we considered the Aubrey Valley/Double O Ranch
site one of the four most successful reintroduced populations
throughout the species' range; it had a population that exceeded the
recommended downlisting criteria for Arizona and we considered it self-
sustaining (USFWS 2013a, pp. 5, 22, 77). However, the population
declined appreciably, for which we suspect that plague may be the
cause. Although plague has likely extirpated ferrets at the other
established reintroduction site, Espee Ranch, efforts to control plague
and restore habitat for ferrets continue. The SWEPA will include all
potential ferret habitat in Arizona and on
[[Page 69056]]
participating Tribal lands, including Hualapai Tribal lands, a portion
of Hopi Tribal lands, and Navajo Nation lands in Arizona, New Mexico,
and Utah (see ``Experimental Population'' above). Establishing
additional populations within the SWEPA will reduce the vulnerability
of extirpation of the species. Additionally, the widely distributed
reintroduction sites identified, and the potential for other
reintroduction sites (e.g., on the Navajo Nation) will reduce the
effects of localized or stochastic events on overall recovery efforts,
by reducing the likelihood that all individuals or all populations
would be affected by the same event. Reintroducing viable ferret
populations in the New Mexico and Utah portions of the Navajo Nation
would not only aid in recovery of the species but also in meeting the
Recovery Plan's recovery guidelines for those States (USFWS 2013a, p.
77).
The significant threat of plague to ferret populations emphasizes
the need for several spatially dispersed reintroduction sites across
the widest possible distribution of the species' historical range
(USFWS 2013a, p. 70), supporting the value of a statewide approach to
reintroductions. Establishment of the SWEPA will facilitate ferret
reintroductions across a large geographic area and will result in
establishment of several populations that will persist over time, thus,
contributing to recovery of the species.
Actions and Activities That May Affect the Introduced Population
Classes of Federal, State, Tribal, and private actions and
activities that may currently affect ferret viability, directly or
indirectly, across the species' range are urbanization, energy
development, agricultural land conversion, range management, and
recreational shooting and poisoning of prairie dogs (USFWS 2019, p.
13). Actions and activities that affect prairie dogs may also
indirectly affect ferrets, given the ferret's dependency on prairie
dogs as a food source and their burrows for shelter.
In Arizona, land ownership within the range of Gunnison's prairie
dog is approximately as follows: Tribal--49.05 percent; private--21.62
percent; Federal--16.80 percent; State--12.53 percent; city/county--
0.01 percent (Seglund 2006, table 3).
Although urbanization may adversely affect local prairie dog
colonies, effects across the range of the species in Arizona are not
substantial due to the small amount of urban land, and the rural
settings of the ferret reintroduction sites. Similarly, oil and gas and
other types of mineral exploration and extraction development cover
less than one percent of the prairie dog range in Arizona (Underwood
2007, p. 10), and this development is not associated with established
or potential ferret reintroduction sites. Solar and wind energy
development has expanded in recent years but also comprises a very
small part of the landscape. In Arizona, most solar power facilities
are located in the southern and far western part of the State, outside
of the range of Gunnison's prairie dog (U.S. Energy Information
Administration 2022, n.p.). To date, there have been a number of wind
projects in the range of Gunnison's prairie dog, but none currently
constructed within established or potential reintroduction sites, and
the existing infrastructure of wind projects occupies less than 0.005
percent of the ferret's potential range (USFWS 2019, p. 40). As
discussed above, agricultural development affects less than one third
of one percent of the range of Gunnison's prairie dog (Seglund 2006, p.
16). We do not expect agricultural land conversion to have a measurable
effect on the future condition of the ferret in Arizona based on a 20-
year analysis (USFWS 2019, p. 56).
There are about 22 million ac (8,900,000 ha) of rangeland, used
predominantly for grazing, in Arizona across Tribal, private, Federal,
and State lands (USDA 2019, p. 19), and these lands represent potential
habitat for both the prairie dog and ferret (Ernst et al. 2006, p. 91).
Livestock grazing became a prominent activity on the Arizona landscape
in the 1880s and peaked in intensity around the late 1890s and early
1900s (Milchunas 2006, p. 7). Grazing in arid and semiarid areas can
alter species composition of plant communities, disrupt ecosystem
functions, and alter ecosystem structure (Fleischner 1994, p. 631).
Available literature reveals a wide range of potential effects of
livestock grazing on ecosystems that vary with site-specific
characteristics, including habitat type, grazing intensity, and history
of grazing (Jones 2000, entire; Milchunas and Lauenroth 1993, entire;
Milchunas 2006, entire).
Few studies have examined the effects of grazing on prairie dogs.
Cheng and Ritchie (2006, p. 550) observed lower growth rates in Utah
prairie dogs (C. parvidens) in plots treated to simulate grazing in a
sagebrush steppe habitat. Conversely, forage in simulated grazed plots
had higher nutrition and greater digestibility, and the prairie dogs
showed preference for those patches (Cheng and Ritchie 2006, pp. 549-
550). Ponce-Guevara et al. (2016, pp. 5, 7) found that black-tailed
prairie dog populations increased in areas of a desert grassland where
cattle grazing reduced woody encroachment. The potential for
competitive effects of large grazing herbivores on prairie dog
populations likely depends on site-specific factors, such as habitat
productivity and herbivore densities (Cheng and Ritchie 2006, p. 554).
Despite the potential for competition, prairie dogs remained prominent
on rangelands in Arizona during the period of heaviest livestock
grazing and did not begin declining until the time of systematic
prairie dog eradication programs (Oakes 2000, pp. 169-171). This long
history of prairie dog persistence with livestock grazing in Arizona
and the persistence of ferrets at the AVEPA lead us to conclude that
livestock grazing and ranching activities can be compatible with
maintaining occupied prairie dog habitat capable of supporting ferrets.
Depending on intensity, recreational shooting of prairie dogs can
negatively affect local prairie dog populations through direct fatality
of individuals (Vosburgh and Irby 1998, entire; Keffer et al. 2001,
entire; Knowles 2002, pp. 14-15). The resulting decrease in prey base
negatively affects ferrets, and it is likely this activity could occur
on ferret reintroduction sites (Reeve and Vosburgh 2006, entire).
Recreational shooting reduces the number of prairie dogs in a colony,
thereby decreasing prairie dog density (Knowles 1988, p. 54), occupied
acreage (Knowles and Vosburgh 2001, p. 12), and reproduction (Stockrahm
and Seabloom 1979, entire). Recreational shooting could also cause
direct fatality to prairie dog-associated species such as ferrets
(Knowles and Vosburgh 2001, p. 14; Reeve and Vosburgh 2006, pp. 120-
121). Although we do not have documentation of incidental take of
ferrets by prairie dog shooters, direct ferret fatality due to
accidental shooting is possible. Lastly, recreational shooting of
prairie dogs also contributes to the environmental issue of lead
accumulation in wildlife food chains (Knowles and Vosburgh 2001, p. 15;
Pauli and Buskirk 2007, entire). Killing large numbers of animals with
lead bullets and not removing carcasses from the field may present
potentially dangerous amounts of lead to scavengers and predators of
prairie dogs, such as ferrets. We have not documented ferret ingestion
of lead to date (USFWS 2013a, p. 28). To address these recreational
shooting conservation issues, AZGFD implements prairie dog annual
shooting closures on public lands from April 1 to June 30 to reduce
potential effects on prairie dog
[[Page 69057]]
reproduction (USFWS 2019, p. 29). In addition, in the event of prairie
dog population declines in an established reintroduction site for any
reason, the AZGFD Commission may close prairie dog shooting until the
population recovers (AZGFD 2016, p. 15).
Poisoning of prairie dogs has the potential to occur within both
Gunnison's and black-tailed prairie dog habitat and can affect ferrets
through loss of prey and inadvertent secondary poisoning for some
poisons. In recent years, the extent of prairie dog poisoning has been
closely regulated, limited in area, and confined to specific needs
compared to historical poisoning. From 2013 through 2019 in Arizona,
APHIS treated prairie dogs with zinc phosphide at three private
properties, totaling 56 ac (23 ha) of colonies, for livestock and
property protection on pasture and farmland near rural communities (C.
Carrillo, pers. comm., APHIS, October 23, 2019). None of these
treatments were in or near current or proposed ferret reintroduction
areas.
Certain activities associated with prairie dog recreational
shooting and poisoning have the potential to result in incidental
ferret fatality. For example, use and establishment of roads within
prairie dog and ferret habitat may result in ferret road kills and
increase human access for prairie dog shooting (Gordon et al. 2003, p.
12). However, we have no information to suggest that incidental
fatalities have a significant effect on ferret population viability.
When the USFWS established the AVEPA, we determined existing and
foreseeable land use practices within the AVEPA to be compatible with
sustaining ferret viability (61 FR 11320, March 20, 1996). These
practices include grazing and related activities (including existing
and foreseeable levels of prairie dog control), big game hunting,
prairie dog shooting, and the trapping of furbearers and predators.
Other land uses include transportation and rights-of-way (e.g., for
utilities). Our success in reintroducing ferrets in the AVEPA over 26
years supports that finding. Similarly, in the USFWS's establishment of
the statewide nonessential experimental population of ferrets in
Wyoming, we found that land use activities currently occurring across
that State, primarily livestock grazing and associated ranch management
practices, recreation, residential development, and mineral and energy
development, are compatible with ferret recovery and that there is no
information to suggest that foreseeable similar future activities would
be incompatible with ferret recovery (80 FR 66821, October 30, 2015).
Based on previous successes with other experimental ferret populations
in areas influenced by similar land use activities and actions,
including the AVEPA within Arizona, we conclude that the effects of
Federal, State, Tribal, and private actions and activities will not
pose a substantial threat to ferret establishment and persistence
within the SWEPA and that SWEPA establishment will benefit the
conservation of ferrets.
Experimental Population Regulation Requirements
Our regulations at 50 CFR 17.81(c) include a list of what the USFWS
provides in regulations designating experimental populations under
section 10(j) of the ESA. We explain what our regulations include and
provide our rationale for those regulations below.
Means To Identify the Experimental Population
Our regulations require that we provide appropriate means to
identify the experimental population, which may include geographic
locations, number of individuals to be released, anticipated movements,
and other information or criteria.
Identifying the Location and Boundaries of the SWEPA
The 40,905,350-ac SWEPA occurs in the State of Arizona and on
sovereign lands of the Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, and the Navajo
Nation, including Navajo Nation lands in New Mexico, and Utah (see
``Experimental Population'' above); we delineate the boundaries below
in the figure titled ``Southwest Nonessential Experimental Population
Area (SWEPA) for the ferret.'' These boundaries are based on various
grasslands and parts of biotic communities in which grasslands are
interspersed, with which prairie dogs are associated, including Plains
and Great Basin Grassland, Great Basin Conifer Woodland, Great Basin
Desertscrub, and Petrane Montane Conifer Forest biotic communities
(AZGFD 2016, pp. 8-10) (Brown et al. 1979, entire), and represent a
184-fold increase in area from the AVEPA (USFWS 2021, p. 7, figure 2).
State political subdivisions include portions of Apache, Cochise,
Coconino, Gila, Graham, Mohave, Navajo, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, and
Yavapai Counties of Arizona; Cibola, McKinley, Rio Arriba, Sandoval,
and San Juan Counties of New Mexico; and San Juan County, Utah.
The SWEPA consists of two separate areas: (1) northeast and
northcentral Arizona, the southeast corner of Utah, and northwest New
Mexico on the Navajo Nation, and (2) southeastern Arizona.
The SWEPA will encompass and replace the AVEPA. In addition, two
areas enrolled in the programmatic SHA under certificates of inclusion,
the Espee Allotment and Double O Ranch, are within the SWEPA. Although
this experimental population designation can overlay SHAs, we contacted
enrollees to assess interest in replacing their certificates of
inclusion with the provisions of this 10(j) rule. We propose phasing
out the SHA certificates of inclusion in the future for interested
landowners. As a result, the USFWS would conduct future reintroductions
of ferrets within the SWEPA under the experimental population
designation regulation.
Number of Anticipated Ferret Releases
The number of ferrets released at a given reintroduction site
depends on multiple variables and can vary extensively between sites.
In the AVEPA, for example, the USFWS and AZGFD released 35 ferrets over
5 years without documenting wild reproduction, which is necessary for a
site to become self-sustaining. We continued releasing ferrets until
the population appeared to be self-sustaining. After 4 years, the
population appeared to be faltering, and we resumed ferret releases.
Over a span of 11 years, from 1996 to 2006, we released 354 ferrets at
the AVEPA. After 2011, we released an additional 112 excess kits from
breeding facilities into the AVEPA. We added 41 ferrets at the Double O
Ranch over 4 years (2016-2019) for research purposes after ferrets from
AVEPA naturally dispersed there. We released 99 ferrets at Espee Ranch
over a span of 3 years (2007 to 2009). The USFWS recommends initially
releasing up to 20 to 30 ferrets at new reintroduction sites in the
SWEPA, with the total number of ferrets released across multiple years
at new reintroduction sites likely similar to the established
reintroduction sites in Arizona.
Actual or Anticipated Movements
Understanding ferret movement patterns and distances will ensure
accurate identification of ferrets associated with the SWEPA.
Researchers have documented newly released captive-born ferrets
dispersing up to 30 miles (49 km) from the release site (Biggins et al.
1999, p. 125), and wild-born ferrets more than 12 miles (20 km) (USFWS
2019, p. 7). AZGFD documented ferrets up to 15 miles outside the AVEPA
starting in 2012, 16
[[Page 69058]]
years after initial releases (J. Cordova, AZGFD, pers. comm., November
22, 2022).
While dispersal of ferrets depends on variables such as competition
within a given population and the availability of adjacent habitat and
prey, we would expect a pattern of ferret dispersal from new
reintroduction sites in the SWEPA to be similar to those observed in
the AVEPA. Outside of the SWEPA, the closest current reintroduced
population of ferrets is Coyote Basin, Utah, which is about 200 mi (320
km) away, substantially greater than documented ferret dispersal
distances. Therefore, we will consider any ferret found in the wild
within the boundaries of the SWEPA to be part of the experimental
population.
Reintroduction Sites
The USFWS recommends the establishment of at least five ferret
reintroduction sites in the SWEPA to buffer against stochastic or
catastrophic events and reliably meet Recovery Plan recovery guidelines
(USFWS 2022a). Federal and State public lands in Arizona and Tribal and
private lands currently support large expanses of grasslands with
varying sizes of Gunnison's prairie dog colonies (AZGFD 2016, figure
1). Reintroduction sites may include those discussed below or
additional sites where there are willing landowners and managers, and
suitable prairie dog habitat exists.
Established Reintroduction Sites Within the SWEPA
(1) Aubrey Valley/Double O Ranch--The AVEPA encompasses 221,894 ac
(89,800 ha) of private, Tribal, State, and Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) managed lands and is located about 5 miles northwest of Seligman
in Coconino, Yavapai, and Mohave Counties. The adjacent Double O Ranch
encompasses 236,792 ac (95,828 ha) of private, State, and USFS managed
lands south of the AVEPA. Together, these sites contain 264,016 ac
(106,846 ha) of grasslands. AZGFD mapped an average of 52,455 ac
(21,228 ha) of Gunnison's prairie dog colonies in the AVEPA between
2007 and 2016 (AZGFD 2016, p. 8) (H. Hicks, AZGFD, pers. comm., January
26, 2018). In 2014 and 2016, respectively, Gunnison's prairie dogs
occupied 7,074 and 6,313 known ac (2,863 and 2,555 ha) on Double O
Ranch (AZGFD 2016, p. 7; H. Hicks, AZGFD, pers. comm., January 26,
2018). Plague is likely present in the AVEPA.
(2) Espee Ranch--The Espee Allotment encompasses 145,644 ac (58,941
ha) of private and State lands about 17 miles northeast of Seligman, in
Coconino County, Arizona. There are 139,255 ac (56,356 ha) of
grasslands (AZGFD 2016, pp. 8-9). In 2007, prior to release of ferrets,
approximately 29,000 ac (11,736 ha) of occupied prairie dog habitat was
mapped (AZGFD 2007, p. 1). Since then, the number of prairie dog
occupied acres has fluctuated greatly, with 3,228 occupied ac (1,306
ha) in 2014 and 21,771 occupied ac (8,811 ha) in 2018 (J. Cordova,
AZGFD, pers. comm., August 18, 2022). Plague is present on the Espee
Ranch and is the suspected reason for the lack of recent ferret
observations despite multiple releases.
Potential Reintroduction Sites Within the SWEPA
The four areas described below do not currently meet the minimum
necessary Gunnison's prairie dog occupied acreage to support ferrets.
However, active management, such as translocations of prairie dogs, and
dusting for plague or administration of a plague vaccine, along with
annual monitoring of prairie dog populations, may provide for the
needed acreage of occupied prairie dog habitat in these areas (AZGFD
2016, p. 9).
(1) Kaibab National Forest, Williams/Tusayan Ranger Districts--
These areas cover over 613,000 ac (248,078 ha) of USFS, Department of
Defense, private, and State managed lands surrounding the city of
Williams in Coconino and Yavapai Counties. There were 96,954 ac (39,237
ha) of grasslands with 4,984 ac (2,017 ha) of known Gunnison's prairie
dog occupied area in 2015 (AZGFD 2016, p. 9).
(2) CO Bar Ranch--This ranch encompasses 263,758 ac (106,741 ha) of
private, State, BLM, and Tribal lands and is located about 24 miles
north of Flagstaff in Coconino County. There were 184,815 ac (74,794
ha) of grasslands with 870 ac (352 ha) of known Gunnison's prairie dog
occupied area in 2015 (AZGFD 2016, p. 9).
(3) Petrified Forest National Park--This area encompasses 223,027
ac (90,258 ha) of NPS, State, Tribal, BLM, and privately managed lands
east of Holbrook in Navajo and Apache Counties. There were 214,135 ac
(86,659 ha) of grasslands with 87 ac (35 ha) of known Gunnison's
prairie dog occupied area in 2015 (AZGFD 2016, p. 10).
(4) Lyman Lake--This area encompasses 316,958 ac (128,271 ha) of
private, State, AZGFD, BLM, and USFS lands south of St. Johns in Apache
County. There were 273,227 ac (110,573 ha) of grasslands with 2,045 ac
(828 ha) of known Gunnison's prairie dog occupied area in 2015 (AZGFD
2016, p. 10).
Black-tailed prairie dog habitat exists in southeastern Arizona
(Cockrum 1960, p. 76; figure 1). In 2008, the AZGFD reintroduced this
species into a small portion of its historical range via translocations
from wild populations in New Mexico (W. Van Pelt, AZGFD, pers. comm,
July 6, 2022). This new black-tailed prairie dog population occurs on
the BLM-administered Las Cienegas National Conservation Area. Surveys
in 2021 estimated that a minimum of 210 black-tailed prairie dogs
occupied 28 ac (11.3 ha) (J. Presler, AZGFD, pers. comm., February 7,
2022). It would likely take many years to reach enough black-tailed
prairie dog occupied acreage with a stable population to support a
reintroduction of ferrets. However, efforts to expand black-tailed
prairie dog colony acreage would offer opportunities to re-create
habitat for ferrets (USFWS 2013a, p. 51).
We will consider reintroduction sites on Tribal Lands if Tribes are
interested and where suitable prairie dog habitat exists. Forty-nine
percent of the land within the range of Gunnison's prairie dog in
Arizona is under Tribal ownership (Seglund et al. 2006, table 3). The
Navajo Nation is the largest owner of Gunnison's prairie dog habitat
(Johnson et al. 2010, p. 6). Working with the Hopi Tribe, Hualapai
Tribe, and Navajo Nation, we may be able to identify other potential
sites for ferret reintroduction on their Tribal sovereign lands. All
three Tribes have expressed interest in working with the USFWS in
ferret recovery (J. Nystedt, USFWS, pers. comm., March 23, 2022; Navajo
Nation 2017, entire; D. Clarke, Hualapai Tribe, pers. comm., March 26,
2018; Hopi Tribe 2021, entire). The Hualapai and Hopi reservations and
Hopi-owned ranches coincide entirely with Arizona (i.e., their lands
are wholly within the borders of the State), whereas the Navajo Nation
also coincides with parts of the States of New Mexico and Utah, within
which the Navajo Nation has sovereign authority to manage wildlife.
Surveys of prairie dog populations on Tribal lands, in addition to
other information such as incidence of plague, are needed as part of
the process of considering these lands for ferret reintroduction. The
Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe, in collaboration with Natural Heritage
New Mexico, conducted a remote survey of Gunnison's prairie dogs on the
lands of both Tribes in 2010. The technique used, involving standard
photo-interpretation to identify disturbance in potential habitat on
digital orthophoto quarter quads, estimated the total area of occupied
Gunnison's prairie dog habitat on the Navajo Nation and Reservation of
[[Page 69059]]
the Hopi Tribe at 253,562 ac (102,615 ha) (Johnson et al. 2010, pp. iv,
18).
The Navajo Nation recently received a USFWS Tribal Wildlife Grant
to investigate areas for future ferret reintroductions, including
prairie dog habitat mapping, disease monitoring, and development of a
ferret reintroduction plan for the Navajo Nation. As mentioned
previously, we originally included some lands of the Hualapai Tribe and
deeded lands owned by the Navajo Nation when we designated the AVEPA,
and the Tribes have worked cooperatively with the USFWS and AZGFD on
ferret recovery. The Hopi Tribe has expressed interest in ferret
recovery activities on a portion of their lands, including ranches and
part of their Reservation. They requested excluding District 6 of their
Reservation, so we have excluded that area from the SWEPA.
Is the experimental population essential or nonessential?
When we establish experimental populations under section 10(j) of
the ESA, we must determine whether such a population is essential to
the continued existence of the species in the wild. This determination
is based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available.
Our regulations 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 (50 CFR 17.80(b)).
All other populations are considered nonessential.
The ESA states that, prior to any release ``the Secretary must find
by regulation that such release will further the conservation of the
species'' (49 FR 33893, August 27, 1984). Reintroductions are, by their
nature, experiments, the fate of which is uncertain. However, it is
always our goal for reintroductions to be successful and contribute to
recovery. The importance of reintroductions to recovery does not
necessarily mean these populations are ``essential'' under section
10(j) of the ESA. In fact, Congress' expectation was that ``in most
cases, experimental populations will not be essential'' (H.R.
Conference Report No. 835 supra at 34; 49 FR 33888, August 27, 1984).
The preamble to our 1984 publication of ESA 10(j) implementing
regulations reflects this understanding, stating that an essential
population will be a special case, and not the general rule (49 FR
33888, August 27, 1984).
In our final rule establishing the nonessential experimental
population in Aubrey Valley, the USFWS found the AVEPA to be
``nonessential'' because the captive-breeding population is both the
secure source for all reintroductions, and the primary repository of
genetic diversity for the species (61 FR 11320, March 20, 1996). We
considered all reintroduced ferrets to be in excess to the captive
population, and we could replace any deceased reintroduced animals
through captive breeding (61 FR 11323, March 20, 1996).
The USFWS did not anticipate changing the nonessential designation
for the AVEPA unless the experiment failed or until the ferret
recovered (61 FR 11323, March 20, 1996). However, because this final
rule will replace the AVEPA through incorporation into the SWEPA, an
evaluation as to whether the new SWEPA experimental population is
essential to the continued existence of the species in the wild is
appropriate.
As discussed above, we expect the SWEPA to further the conservation
of the species by contributing to the establishment of multiple,
widespread populations that will persist over time and contribute to
achieving recovery goals for the species. However, we consider the
SWEPA nonessential because there are now a number of reintroduced
ferret populations in the wild, across the range of the species. There
are 18 active reintroduction sites across the ferret's historical range
(J. Hughes, USFWS, pers. comm., December 13, 2021), consisting of a
minimum of 340 ferrets in 2018, with a minimum of 254 at the 4 most
successful reintroduction sites (Rocky Mountain Arsenal National
Wildlife Refuge, Colorado; Conata Basin/Badlands, South Dakota; and
Shirley Basin and Meeteetse, Wyoming) (USFWS 2019, table 3). In the
black-footed ferret SSA (USFWS 2019, pp. 43-83), we used the
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, entire) to assess how the
populations at the active sites contribute to the current and future
species condition to address the ferret's viability in the wild across
its range.
Resiliency indicates a population's ability to withstand
environmental and demographic stochasticity. We assessed the resiliency
of each ferret population across the species' range based on the 5-year
mean number of breeding adults, habitat suitability, annual plague
management, annual ferret vaccinations, ferret population persistence,
and level of prairie dog conservation. Of the 14 sites active at the
time of our assessment, we considered 2 in high-resiliency condition
and 8 in moderate-resiliency condition (USFWS 2019, table 11). We
estimated that in 20 years, if management and threats remain at current
levels, the two high-resiliency populations will remain in that
condition, seven of the eight moderate-resiliency populations will
remain in that condition, and one of the moderate-resiliency
populations will become low-resiliency.
Redundancy is the ability of a species to withstand catastrophic
events, via the number and distribution of populations. Representation,
or ecological or genetic diversity across a species' range, enables a
species to better respond to changes in the environment. Current and
future high- and moderate-resiliency populations occur in the wild
across six States, including Wyoming, South Dakota, Kansas, Colorado,
Utah, and Arizona. This broad distribution of ferret populations across
the Western United States protects against catastrophic events
affecting all wild ferret populations simultaneously, and it allows for
a variety of physical and biological conditions in which the species
may express adaptive capacity going forward. Additionally, captive-
breeding efforts continue to support the establishment of more
populations throughout the species' range. Loss of the SWEPA would not
affect these remaining populations of ferrets in the wild.
The current ferret population in Arizona, while contributing
incrementally to conservation in concert with other sites, is a
relatively small portion of the total number and distribution of ferret
populations needed for species recovery. The Recovery Plan's delisting
criteria for ferrets calls for 30 or more populations, with at least 1
population in each of at least 9 of 12 States within the historical
range of the species, and at least 5 populations within colonies of
Gunnison's and white-tailed prairie dogs. About 27 percent of
Gunnison's prairie dog range occurs in Arizona. This equates to about 9
to 14 percent of all prairie dog occupied habitat (i.e., the range of
all 3 prairie dog species) (USFWS 2013a, p. 24). In Arizona, the
relative recommended contribution of habitat to ferret delisting is
about seven percent (USFWS 2013a, table 8, p. 77).
The SWEPA will further the recovery of the ferret by allowing us to
establish multiple wild populations within the species' historical
range. We conclude that the loss of all reintroduced ferrets within the
SWEPA is not likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival of
the species in the wild due to maintenance of the captive population
for additional reintroductions into the wild, the number of
reintroduction sites and
[[Page 69060]]
established populations rangewide, and the expected incremental
contribution of Arizona to the recovery of the ferret. Furthermore, the
SWEPA covers a relatively small portion of potential ferret habitat
rangewide: about seven percent; thus, the potential size of the
experimental population within the SWEPA will be small relative to the
potential number of ferrets rangewide. Therefore, as required by 50 CFR
17.81(c)(2), we determine the SWEPA experimental population is not
essential to the continued existence of the species in the wild, and we
designate the SWEPA experimental population as nonessential.
Management Restrictions, Protective Measures, and Other Special
Management
We are applying the experimental population designation and
regulations to the entire SWEPA; thus, a single set of statutes and
regulations and a single management framework will apply to all non-
Federal and Federal lands containing potential ferret habitat within
the designated SWEPA boundary. This approach will extend regulatory
assurances to all areas where ferrets could potentially establish,
including the current properties covered by the SHA. There are no
significant differences between the terms and conditions of the SHA and
10(j) regulations in terms of how landowners operate their ranches with
respect to ferret recovery.
The USFWS will undertake SWEPA reintroductions in cooperation with
current and future partners. Existing management plans or those that
wildlife managers develop in cooperation with us and other partners and
stakeholders will guide management of ferret populations in the SWEPA
(e.g., USFWS 2016a, AZGFD 2016).
As discussed in the ``Actions and Activities that May Affect the
Introduced Population,'' Federal, State, Tribal, and private actions
will not pose a substantial threat to ferret establishment and
persistence in the SWEPA because land management activities, such as
agricultural land conversion, recreational shooting of prairie dogs,
poisoning of prairie dogs, urbanization, and energy development,
currently occurring or anticipated to occur at prospective
reintroduction sites in Arizona are very limited in scope. In addition,
as discussed in ``Addressing Causes of Extirpation within the
Experimental Population Area'' above, due to the low demand for and
regulatory restrictions on prairie dog poisoning, we do not anticipate
any change in prairie dog control efforts that would reduce prairie dog
occupied habitat to the extent that they would compromise the viability
of any potential ferret population. The best available information
indicates that future range and ranching activities will remain
compatible with ferret recovery because they do not limit essential
ferret behavior such as feeding, breeding, or sheltering. We base this
assessment on 26 years of ferret reintroductions and management at the
AVEPA and Espee and Double O Ranches in Arizona, and at other
reintroduction sites throughout the range of the species (80 FR 66826,
October 30, 2015).
The AZGFD, BLM, USFS, NPS, Tribes, and private landowners manage
sites with high potential for ferret establishment, and these areas
receive protection through the following legal mechanisms:
Legal Mechanisms
(1) Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA; 43
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)--The BLM's mission is set forth under the FLPMA,
which mandates that the BLM manage public land resources for a variety
of uses, such as energy development, livestock grazing, recreation, and
timber harvesting, while protecting the natural, cultural, and
historical resources on those lands. The BLM manages listed and
sensitive species under guidance provided in the BLM Manual Section
6840--Special Status Species Management. The Manual directs the BLM to
conserve ESA-listed species and the ecosystems upon which they depend,
ensure that all actions authorized or carried out by the BLM comply
with the ESA, and cooperate with the recovery planning and recovery of
listed species. The BLM has experience in managing the ferret at four
reintroduction sites in four States that occur at least in part on BLM
lands. Therefore, we anticipate appropriate management by the BLM on
future ferret reintroduction sites that include BLM lands.
(2) National Forest Management Act of 1976, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1600 et seq.)--This law instructs the USFS to strive to provide for a
diversity of plant and animal communities when managing USFS lands. The
USFS identifies species listed as endangered or threatened under the
ESA, including the ferret, a Category 1 species at risk based on
rangewide and national imperilment. The USFS has experience managing
the ferret on one reintroduction site that occurs at least in part on
USFS lands. Therefore, we anticipate appropriate management by the USFS
on future ferret reintroduction sites that include USFS lands.
(3) Organic Act of 1916, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1-4)--This law
requires the NPS to conserve National Park resources, consistent with
the established values and purposes for each park. In addition, the
Organic Act instructs the NPS ``to conserve the scenery and the natural
and historical objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the
enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave
them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.'' NPS
management policies require them to conserve ESA-listed species and to
prevent detrimental effects on these species. The NPS has experience
managing the ferret at two National Parks in South Dakota, where the
NPS protects ferrets and their habitats from large-scale loss or
degradation, per their mandate. Management of these reintroduction
sites would need to continue regardless of the species' listing status.
Therefore, we anticipate appropriate management by the NPS on any
future ferret reintroduction sites that include NPS lands.
(4) Navajo Nation Law--Navajo Nation Code (NNC), title 17, chapter
3, subchapter 21, provides protections for ferrets. Title 17 NNC
section 507 makes it unlawful for any person to take wildlife on either
of the following lists, as quoted from the code:
(a) ``The list of wildlife indigenous to the Navajo Nation that
they determine to be endangered by regulation of the Resources
Committee of the Navajo Nation Council.'' The Navajo Nation added the
ferret to this list pursuant to Resources Committee Resolution RCF-014-
91.
(b) The U.S. lists of endangered native and foreign fish and
wildlife, as set forth in section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973 as endangered or threatened species, to the extent that the
Resources Committee adopts these lists. Navajo Nation Code (17 NNC
section 504) also makes it unlawful for any person to take or possess a
fur-bearing animal, which includes ferrets by definition (17 NNC
section 500), except as permitted by the Director, Navajo Nation
Department of Fish and Wildlife.
(5) Hopi Tribal Law--Tribal Ordinance 48 (Wildlife) documents the
Tribe's exclusive jurisdiction to regulate and adjudicate all matters
pertaining to wildlife found on the Hopi Reservation. All wildlife
found on the Reservation, whether resident or migratory, native or
introduced, is the property of the Hopi Tribe, and Tribal Law provides
the times and manner of allowable take.
[[Page 69061]]
(6) Arizona State Law--General provisions of Arizona Revised
Statutes, title 17, protects all of Arizona's native wildlife,
including federally listed threatened and endangered species.
(7) Endangered Species Act--The ESA will continue to provide
protection to ferrets in the SWEPA through section 10 by requiring
certain management entities to obtain an enhancement of survival permit
from the USFWS under section 10(a)(1)(A) for any intentional taking of
a ferret that is prohibited by section 9 of the ESA and not exempted
through this rule. The authorities of section 6 of the ESA and 50 CFR
17.21, 17.31, and 17.84(g) cover AZGFD's management activities. Section
7(a)(1) of the ESA also requires all Federal agencies to use their
authorities to further the purposes of the ESA.
Other Protections and Management Restrictions
Other protections and management restrictions and measures in the
SWEPA include:
(1) Incidental take: ESA 10(j) experimental population rules
contain specific prohibitions and exceptions regarding take of
individual animals. These rules are compatible with most routine human
activities in the expected reestablishment area. Section 3(19) of the
ESA defines ``take'' as ``to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound,
kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such
conduct.'' Under 50 CFR 17.3, ``harass'' means an intentional or
negligent act or omission that creates the likelihood of injury to
wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt
normal behavioral patterns that include, but are not limited to,
breeding, feeding, or sheltering. And ``harm'' means an act that
actually kills or injures wildlife, including significant habitat
modification that actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly
impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding,
or sheltering. The regulations further define ``incidental take'' as
take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of
an otherwise lawful activity. This nonessential experimental population
designation rule will allow most incidental take of ferrets in the
experimental population area, provided the take is unintentional and
not due to negligent conduct. However, if there was evidence of
intentional take, we would refer the matter to the appropriate law
enforcement entities for investigation. This is consistent with
regulations for areas currently enrolled in the SHA and in the AVEPA
where we do not allow intentional take.
(2) Special handling: In accordance with 50 CFR 17.21(c)(3), any
employee or agent of the USFWS or of a State wildlife agency may, in
the course of their official duties, handle ferrets to aid sick or
injured ferrets, salvage dead ferrets, and conduct other activities
consistent with 50 CFR 17.84(g), their section 6 work plan, and 50 CFR
17.31. Employees or agents of other agencies would need to acquire the
necessary permits from the USFWS for these activities.
(3) Arizona promulgation of regulations and other management for
the conservation of the ferret as well as other species that, in turn,
would benefit ferret recovery: For example, the AZGFD includes the
ferret on the Species of Greatest Conservation Need Tier 1A (AZGFD
2012, p. 216). The list provides policy guidance on management
priorities only, not legal or regulatory protection. The State also
implements annual prairie dog shooting closures on public lands from
April 1 to June 30.
(4) Coordination with landowners and managers: We discussed this
rule with potentially affected State and Federal agencies, Tribes,
local governments, private landowners, and other stakeholders in the
SWEPA. These agencies and landowners and managers have indicated either
support for, or no opposition to, this revision to the AVEPA. In
advance of our developing the original rule for AVEPA, the AZGFD
determined that designation of a nonessential experimental population
was necessary to achieve landowner support to make a ferret
reintroduction project viable (AZGFD 2016, p. 2; 61 FR 11325, March 20,
1996). To receive the same public support for their Management Plan,
the AZGFD recommended expanding the AVEPA (AZGFD 2016, p. 2). Following
consideration of their recommendation, we coordinated with AZGFD and
the Navajo, Hopi, and Hualapai Tribes to develop the SWEPA.
(5) Public awareness and cooperation: We informed the public of the
importance of the SWEPA for the recovery of the ferret through the
proposed rule and requested public comment. The replacement of the
AVEPA to establish the SWEPA under section 10(j) of the ESA as a
nonessential experimental population increases reintroduction
opportunities and provides greater flexibility in the management of the
reintroduced ferret. The nonessential experimental population
designation will facilitate cooperation of the State, Tribes, private
landowners, and other interests in the affected area.
(6) Potential effects to other species listed under the ESA: There
are four federally listed species with distributions that overlap the
SWEPA and with habitat requirements that could overlap the grassland
habitats that support prairie dogs (table 1). However, we have not
documented any of these species in current or potential ferret
reintroduction sites and/or these species are unlikely to occur or
compete with ferrets for resources. We do not expect ferret
reintroduction efforts to result in adverse effects to these species.
Table 1--Federally Listed Species in the SWEPA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current status in Arizona
Species under the ESA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi)........ Nonessential experimental.
California condor (Gymnogyps Nonessential experimental,
californianus). Endangered.
Northern aplomado falcon (Falco femoralis Nonessential experimental.
septentrionalis).
Pima pineapple cactus (Coryphantha scheeri Endangered.
var. robustispina).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measures To Isolate or Contain the Experimental Population From
Nonexperimental Populations
There are no naturally occurring wild populations of ferrets.
Outside of reintroduced populations, the ferret is extirpated
throughout its historical range, including in Arizona, New Mexico, and
Utah (USFWS 2017, entire) (see ``Historical Range'' above). Therefore,
we do not need any measures to isolate or contain reintroduced ferrets
in the SWEPA from other populations of black-footed ferret.
Review and Evaluation of the Success or Failure of the SWEPA
Monitoring is a required element of all ferret reintroduction
projects. Reintroduction projects will conduct the three following
types of monitoring:
(1) Reintroduction Effectiveness Monitoring: Reintroduction
partners will monitor ferret population demographics and potential
sources of fatality, including plague, annually for 5 years following
the last release using spotlight surveys, snow tracking, other visual
survey techniques, or possibly radiotelemetry of some individuals
following AZGFD's Management Plan and the USFWS's Operations Manual
(USFWS 2016a, pp. 25-59) or similar procedures identified in a
management plan developed for a specific reintroduction site.
Thereafter, partners
[[Page 69062]]
will complete demographic surveys periodically to track population
status. Surveys will incorporate methods to monitor breeding success
and long-term survival rates, as appropriate. The USFWS anticipates
that AZGFD, Tribes, and/or other participating partners will conduct
monitoring, and they will include monitoring results in their annual
reports.
(2) Donor Population Monitoring: We will acquire ferrets from the
captive-breeding population or from another viable reintroduction site.
The USFWS and our partners manage ferrets in the captive-breeding
population in accordance with the AZA SSP[supreg] (Graves et al. 2018,
entire). The AZA SSP[supreg] Husbandry Manual provides up-to-date
protocols for the care, propagation, preconditioning, and
transportation of captive ferrets, and all participating captive-
breeding facilities use it.
The USFWS may translocate ferrets from other reintroduction sites,
provided their removal will not negatively affect the extant
population, and appropriate permits are issued in accordance with
current regulations (50 CFR 17.22) prior to their removal. Population
monitoring, following any removals for translocation, will occur under
guidance of the USFWS-approved management plan for the donor site.
(3) Monitoring Effects to Other Listed Species and Critical
Habitat: We do not expect adverse effects to other federally listed
species or critical habitat (see ``Other Protections and Management
Restrictions'' number 6, above).
Findings
Based on the above information and using the best scientific and
commercial data available (in accordance with 50 CFR 17.81), we find
that releasing ferrets into the SWEPA will further the conservation of
the species and that these reintroduced populations are not essential
to the continued existence of the species in the wild.
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule
Below, we highlight some of the changes made in the preamble to
this final rule as a result of comments and additional analysis:
Added information that suggests that reductions in prairie
dog numbers and fitness may contribute to plague epizootics (see
``Threats/Causes of Decline'' above).
Added the number of new reintroduction sites we intend to
establish in the SWEPA (see ``Experimental Population'' above).
Edited and added information in our discussion about the
effects of grazing on prairie dogs to emphasize the complexity of the
interactions and the site-specific variation of effects (see ``How Will
the Experimental Population (SWEPA) Further the Conservation of the
Species?'' above).
Added information about the resiliency, redundancy, and
representation of the ferret from the SSA to further support our
experimental population designation of nonessential (see ``How Will the
Experimental Population (SWEPA) Further the Conservation of the
Species?'' above).
Clarified language associated with the minimum occupied
prairie-dog acreage for Gunnison's prairie dogs related to ferret
reintroductions (see ``Experimental Populations'' above).
This final rule also incorporates minor, non-substantive clarifying
edits (e.g., citation clarification, resolution of numerical or other
inconsistencies, etc.) and the incorporation of additional information
based on the public and peer review comments we received. However, the
information we received during the comment period for the proposed rule
did not change our findings or the species-specific regulations that
apply to this experimental population of ferrets.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the proposed rule published on June 25, 2021 (86 FR 33613), we
requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the
proposal by August 24, 2021. In addition, in accordance with our joint
policy on peer review published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), and updated guidance issued on August 22, 2016 (USFWS
2016b, entire), we solicited peer review of our proposed rule from six
knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise in ferret ecology
and management. We received responses from four peer reviewers. We also
contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, Tribes, scientific
experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited
them to comment on the proposal.
We reviewed all comments received from the public, States, Tribes,
and peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding
the revision of an experimental population of ferrets in Arizona.
Substantive comments are addressed in the following summary and have
been incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
Summary of Comments
Comment: One peer reviewer commented that we should include
literature suggesting that other factors that reduce prairie dog
numbers and fitness (e.g., grazing, shooting, poisoning, and drought)
may contribute to triggering a plague epizootic.
Response: We added text and cited additional literature accordingly
(see ``Threats/Causes of Decline'' above).
Comment: Two peer reviewers suggested that we update the text to
incorporate recent research on SPV.
Response: We added text and cited an additional study accordingly
(see ``Recovery, Captive Breeding, and Reintroduction Efforts to Date''
above).
Comment: One peer reviewer and several commenters asked us to
elaborate as to why we consider the reintroduction in the AVEPA
successful, considering the recent decline in ferret numbers. Three
commenters specifically expressed concerns that current land use
practices and drought may have influenced the recent declines in the
AVEPA.
Response: The population in the AVEPA increased to a minimum of 123
ferrets in 2012, and the population continues to persist following the
subsequent decline. Because land management activities have been
relatively consistent in the AVEPA since the first reintroduction in
1996, we conclude that those activities are unlikely to have caused the
declines we observed in the AVEPA after 2012. Based on positive tests
for plague in the area, plague is the most probable cause for the
declines. Plague remains the most significant challenge to ferret
population resiliency rangewide, and we will continue to require
multiple management tools to lessen its effects on ferret populations.
Accordingly, we expect the number of ferrets in each population to
fluctuate over time, decreasing during plague outbreaks and increasing
when plague is effectively controlled at a site. This scenario
emphasizes the importance of having multiple, widely spaced populations
to safeguard the species from the widespread chronic effects of plague
as well as other periodic or random disturbances that may result in
decreased population size or the loss of a population in one or more
given areas.
Comment: Several commenters requested that we expand the
experimental population area to include all of New Mexico, because
potential habitat occurs there. Another commenter inquired about our
inclusion of a portion of New Mexico.
Response: The proposed 10(j) rule included only portions of New
Mexico that coincide with Navajo Nation lands. We have clarified this
point in the final rule text. We developed the proposed
[[Page 69063]]
boundary of the SWEPA in close coordination with our partners in
Arizona--AZGFD, the Navajo Nation, the Hualapai Tribe, and the Hopi
Tribe--to include the areas for which they would manage the field
operations of a reintroduced ferret population. We acknowledge that
there are other areas in New Mexico, and throughout the ferret's
historical range, that may provide new reintroduction opportunities.
Legal mechanisms are available to support ferret reintroductions at
these sites, including, for example, the 2013 rangewide programmatic
SHA and proposal of additional experimental populations under section
10(j). We will identify and apply the appropriate mechanism to
reintroduce ferrets on a site-specific basis after close coordination
with partners in those areas.
Comment: Two commenters stated that the expansion of the
experimental population over such a large area is unnecessary, because
that larger area is not needed to meet the guidelines for Arizona
specified in the ferret Recovery Plan. One commenter stated that the
successful reintroduction at Aubrey Valley resulted in a ferret
population in 2012 that exceeded the number of ferrets in the recovery
guidelines for Arizona. The other commenter stated that the amount of
prairie dog habitat in the AVEPA currently exceeds the amount of
habitat in the recovery guidelines for Arizona.
Response: We provided State-specific guidelines in the rangewide
Recovery Plan to assist planning needs and encourage broader recovery
support across the ferret's historical range. The Recovery Plan states
that the downlisting or delisting criteria may be fulfilled if they are
met by some configuration other than that in the State-specific
guidelines. Moreover, while we have acknowledged the success in Aubrey
Valley, the recent decline in the ferret population at that site
emphasizes the importance of having multiple, widely distributed
populations to safeguard the species from the widespread chronic
effects of plague as well as other periodic or random disturbances that
may result in the loss of a population in one or more given areas.
Establishing additional ferret populations in Arizona will help to
ensure Arizona's contribution to the species' recovery over the long
term.
Comment: One commenter was concerned that, by not explicitly
identifying any specific suitable areas in the proposed rule, the
proposed SWEPA is likely including more acreage than necessary for
reintroduction.
Response: The SWEPA includes habitats associated with prairie dogs;
that is, various grasslands and biotic communities in which grasslands
are interspersed. We acknowledge that the entire SWEPA does not consist
entirely of habitat suitable for ferrets, and we will reintroduce
ferrets only into areas that meet the criteria for reintroductions. In
addition to the two active reintroduction areas in the SWEPA, there are
four potential reintroduction areas, which will require active
management before they can support a ferret population. In addition to
these sites, we may identify other reintroduction sites in the SWEPA in
the future. Furthermore, the SWEPA includes areas into which ferrets
could potentially disperse from a reintroduction site; inclusion of
these areas provides regulatory certainty to the landowners and
managers in those potential dispersal areas.
Comment: One commenter was concerned that the large area of the
proposed SWEPA will mean that ferrets may be introduced anywhere in
that area but will not receive actual protections of the ESA.
Response: We have determined that establishing the proposed SWEPA
is necessary to achieve widespread landowner support for viable ferret
reintroduction projects in Arizona. The biggest hurdle to securing
support of ferret reintroductions is overcoming partner fear of
liability associated with section 9 prohibitions on take under the ESA.
Relaxing section 9 incidental take prohibitions through the
flexibilities afforded via section 10(j) of the ESA will facilitate
ferret reintroductions throughout the species' range in Arizona. Based
on ferret reintroductions at Aubrey Valley/Double O Ranch, existing
land use practices can be compatible with ferret recovery. Section 9
prohibitions of the ESA will still apply to intentional or negligent
conduct that results in take.
Comment: Four commenters discussed the effects of ferret
reintroductions on cattle grazing. Two commenters expressed concern
that managing landscapes for ferrets, specifically prairie dog habitat,
in other areas has resulted in poorly managed, less resilient
ecosystems and are concerned about this happening in the SWEPA,
especially in conjunction with drought as an additional stressor. One
commenter extended this concern to grazing wildlife in addition to
livestock.
Response: Prairie dogs, an important component of grassland
ecosystems, are native to the area included within the proposed SWEPA.
Managing for prairie dog colonies within the SWEPA will potentially
restore beneficial ecosystem functions in managed areas. Prairie dogs
positively affect ecosystem processes, resulting in increased soil
mixing and nitrogen levels, for example, and affect vegetation
composition, resulting in increased habitat heterogeneity on the
landscape (Kotliar 1999, p. 178). Research has associated increases in
plant nutritional levels and digestibility with prairie dog colonies
(Detling and Whicker 1987, pp. 24-25). Livestock grazing occurs in and
adjacent to the two established reintroduction sites in Arizona and has
been compatible with ferret recovery. Future reintroduction sites will
be selected based on their potential to support ferret reintroductions.
Landowner and manager participation in activities directed at improving
or maintaining habitat capable of supporting a ferret population is
strictly voluntary. Prior to a ferret reintroduction, we will work with
our partners to conduct outreach to landowners and affected
stakeholders. AZGFD has a history of developing good working
relationships with the livestock industry, notably landowners of the
Aubrey Valley/Double O and Espee Ranch reintroduction sites, to
initiate ferret reintroductions and conduct ongoing monitoring and
maintenance at those sites.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that, although
agricultural crops do not represent a significant portion of the
proposed SWEPA, management for prairie dog colonies could have negative
effects on lands used for growing crops.
Response: We, in collaboration with our partners, identify
potential reintroduction sites where there is landowner interest, and
where current or desired land use practices are compatible with
ferrets. Participation is voluntary. If reintroduced ferrets disperse
from a reintroduction site, the 10(j) designation will allow for
incidental take of ferrets (e.g., take that could happen from livestock
grazing, farming, prairie dog control) in those additional areas in the
SWEPA. We, in collaboration with our partners, would coordinate with
landowners and managers affected by dispersing ferrets about available
options, including voluntary participation in ferret recovery or
potential removal of the ferrets from their land.
Comment: One commenter thought it seemed unwarranted to include the
area in southeastern Arizona in the SWEPA at this time, because the
population of prairie dogs in that area is not native, and it will take
many years to establish a stable prairie dog population large
[[Page 69064]]
enough to support the reintroduction of ferrets in this area.
Response: According to Hoffmeister (1986, p. 194), black-tailed
prairie dogs are native to southeastern Arizona and occurred there
until approximately 1938. We added this reference to the text within
the rule (see ``Biological Information'' above). AZGFD reintroduced
black-tailed prairie dogs in southeastern Arizona and manages those
reintroductions. Though these prairie dog populations are currently too
small to support a ferret population, we included the black-tailed
prairie dog historical range in southeastern Arizona in the proposed
SWEPA to increase opportunities for potential future ferret
reintroductions.
Comment: One commenter pointed out that we state the total number
of reintroduction sites as both 29 and 30 in different places in the
proposed rule.
Response: We currently consider the Conata Basin/Badlands as 1
site; thus, we referenced 29 reintroduction sites in the proposed rule.
In another place in the proposed rule, we inadvertently counted the
Conata Basin/Badlands site as two sites. We initiated two additional
reintroduction sites in 2021 that we had not included in the proposed
rule. We thus modified the text in this final rule to state the number
of currently active sites as 31.
Comment: One commenter stated that our determination that enzootic
plague caused the ferret declines in the AVEPA is not wholly accurate
and asked us to remove the reference to plague as the cause of the
decline until we have information that is more conclusive.
Response: The ferret population in the AVEPA was increasing through
2012 when 123 breeding adults were documented. However, following 2012,
the population has declined, despite consistent site management
practices. Because of this and the recent detection of plague in
coyotes and badgers in the Aubrey Valley, plague is the most likely
cause of ferret decline in the AVEPA.
Comment: AZGFD requested that we include that the primary purpose
of some of the ferrets released in Aubrey Valley was to place excess
kits from propagation facilities, and the primary purpose for the
ferrets we released at Double O Ranch was for research purposes.
Response: We adjusted the text accordingly in this final rule (see
``Experimental Population Regulation Requirements'' above).
Comment: One commenter asked about benefits to landowners that
participate in ferret reintroductions and specifically asked about
financial compensation. Another commenter expressed that financial
compensation to participating landowners would improve the ferret
reintroduction program.
Response: While the 10(j) rule does not describe a specific plan to
compensate participating landowners, governmental and nongovernmental
organizations have provided incentives to Tribes and private landowners
associated with some ferret reintroductions in the past. Site-specific
management plans will include details of any applicable compensation
programs.
Comment: Three commenters expressed concerns that the large area of
the SWEPA would expand the regulatory area and put more regulatory
burden and potential penalties under the ESA on landowners. One
commenter specifically expressed concern that a landowner without an
SHA would experience increased regulatory burden if a ferret dispersed
onto their property from an adjacent reintroduction site.
Response: The AVEPA reduced regulatory requirements by allowing
most incidental take of ferrets. Applying the 10(j) rule to the SWEPA
benefits the landowners within the entire SWEPA by providing them the
same regulatory certainty and flexibilities of the existing
programmatic SHA but without having individually to enroll their land
in the SHA. If reintroduced ferrets disperse from a reintroduction
site, the 10(j) designation will allow for incidental take of ferrets
(e.g., take that could happen from livestock grazing, farming, prairie
dog control) in those additional areas in the SWEPA. We, in
collaboration with our partners, would also coordinate with landowners
affected by dispersal about available options, including voluntary
participation in ferret recovery or potential removal of the ferrets
from their land.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we retain the option for
private landowners to enter into SHAs if they chose to assist in ferret
recovery efforts.
Response: SHAs are compatible with 10(j) populations. Private
landowners are not required to terminate an existing SHA, and new
certificates of inclusion for the current programmatic SHA are not
prohibited. SHAs remain an option for participating landowners;
however, there are no significant differences between the terms and
conditions of the SHA and 10(j) regulations related to how landowners
operate their lands with respect to ferret recovery.
Comment: Two commenters stated that we should reintroduce ferrets
to a site only after consent of all affected landowners, including
landowners adjacent to and in the ferret dispersal range of a
reintroduction site.
Response: Reintroduction sites are selected based on their
potential to support ferret reintroductions and where there are willing
landowners and managers. Prior to a ferret reintroduction, we will work
with our partners to conduct outreach to landowners and affected
stakeholders. The SWEPA includes areas into which ferrets could
potentially disperse from a reintroduction site. We, in collaboration
with our partners, will coordinate with landowners and managers
affected by dispersing ferrets about available options, including
voluntary participation in ferret recovery or potential removal of the
ferrets from their land.
Comment: Two commenters stated that management for prairie dogs or
ferret reintroductions on Federal land should occur only with the
consent of grazing permittees using those lands. One commenter
suggested that we set limits to livestock grazing on public lands.
Response: We will coordinate with other Federal agencies to support
ferret reintroductions in ways that are compatible with their missions.
Federal land management agencies have their own laws, policies, and
regulations outlining how they manage lands under their authorities.
Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed rule clearly
identifies and considers prairie dog control methods in Arizona, but
fails to do so for New Mexico and Utah, and is concerned that
establishing the 10(j) rule will ultimately lead to new and challenging
conflicts between Federal and State authorities.
Response: The area of the proposed SWEPA that extends into New
Mexico and Utah is entirely within the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Nation
manages wildlife resources within their boundaries independent of the
States. We did not propose to include any land in New Mexico or Utah
outside of the Navajo Nation.
Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about negative
effects of livestock grazing to prairie dog populations. One commenter
specifically requested that the final EA include additional information
about the effects of livestock grazing on prairie dog colonies and
ferret reintroductions.
Response: We have considered the effects that livestock grazing,
and other activities may have on establishing an experimental
population of ferrets. Livestock grazing became a significant feature
on the Arizona landscape in the
[[Page 69065]]
1880s and peaked in intensity around the late 1890s and early 1900s
(Milchunas 2006, p. 7). Grazing in arid and semiarid areas can alter
species composition and communities, disrupt ecosystem functions, and
alter ecosystem structure (Fleischner 1994, p. 631). Despite these
effects, prairie dogs remained prominent on rangelands in Arizona
during the period of heaviest grazing and did not begin declining until
the time of systematic prairie dog eradication programs (Oakes 2000,
pp. 169-171). Available literature reveals a wide range of potential
effects of livestock grazing on ecosystems and considers some negative
and some beneficial (Milchunas 2006, entire; Jones 2000, entire).
Effects vary with site-specific characteristics and management,
including habitat type, grazing intensity, and history of grazing
(Milchunas 2006, entire; Jones 2000, entire; Milchunas and Lauenroth
1993, entire). The long history of prairie dog persistence with
livestock grazing in Arizona and persistence of ferrets at the AVEPA
lead us to conclude that livestock grazing and ranching activities can
be compatible with maintaining occupied prairie dog habitat capable of
supporting ferrets. We added text in this final rule to support this
conclusion (see ``How Will the Experimental Population (SWEPA) Further
the Conservation of the Species?'' above). We do not evaluate effects
of livestock grazing outside of the context of ferret reintroductions,
because that consideration is beyond the scope of the evaluation
necessary to establish an experimental population. In the draft EA, we
do not evaluate the effects of livestock grazing on the affected
environment, because the NEPA process requires us to consider the
consequences of our proposed action. Livestock grazing currently occurs
in the proposed SWEPA and is not part of our proposed action.
Comment: One commenter stated that we did not define ``well-managed
grazing'' in the proposed rule or elsewhere and noted that some of the
references we cited described ``an overgrazed condition.'' The
commenters asked that we clarify what we consider ``well-managed
grazing.''
Response: The terminology ``well-managed grazing'' and
``overgrazing'' that we used and cited in the proposed rule was
qualitative and relative. We have edited the text in this final rule
not to rely on terms describing relative grazing intensity. The effects
of livestock grazing on prairie dog populations and their habitat are
complicated and depend on the habitat quality and quantity and other
conditions at each specific site. Based on the persistence of ferrets
at Aubrey Valley/Double O Ranch, rangelands managed for livestock
grazing can support prairie dog populations. Prior to introducing
ferrets in the SWEPA, we will assess prairie dog populations to
determine if the site will support a ferret population.
Comment: One commenter stated that we should not require the
removal of ferrets that leave the experimental population area, because
such dispersal would further species recovery.
Response: The SWEPA includes all potential ferret habitat within
Arizona and the Navajo Nation, excluding the Hopi Villages in District
6. All currently identified potential reintroduction sites within the
SWEPA are far from the borders of the SWEPA. Thus, we expect ferret
dispersal outside of the SWEPA to be unlikely. In the unlikely event
that a ferret occurs outside of the SWEPA, regardless of origin, we
will work closely with affected landowners and managers to ensure that
we develop applicable conservation measures cooperatively and to the
benefit of landowners, managers, and ferrets. The rule allows for, but
does not require, removal of ferrets outside of the SWEPA.
Comment: One commenter stated that reintroduction efforts should be
primarily focused on how best to manage plague in prairie dog
populations, not only regarding the effects on ferret reintroduction,
but also to other species in the area and local communities. Another
commenter stated that the rule should include proactive measures to
bring potential reintroduction sites into the condition necessary to
host ferret populations of sufficient size and resilience to contribute
towards recovery. This commenter further stated that the rangewide
decline in the ferret population since about 2007 ``appears to be that
reintroduction sites are generally too small to support ferret
populations through plague outbreaks.''
Response: Plague management is currently, and will continue to be,
a management focus at existing and potential future ferret
reintroduction sites, which will also benefit other species and local
communities. The factors responsible for the eruption of epizootics and
the maintenance of enzootic plague are currently not fully understood;
research has identified multiple influential factors (USFWS 2019, p.
17). Because plague may persist in an enzootic state at several
existing and potential reintroduction sites, and the social nature of
prairie dogs facilitates plague transmission, larger colony size is not
a safeguard against the spread of plague. A more effective strategy now
is having multiple, widely spaced populations to buffer plague
transmission.
Comment: One commenter seemed to interpret the purpose of ferret
reintroduction as a form of prairie dog control.
Response: Our responsibility under the ESA is to conserve
threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they
depend. Our purpose in establishing the SWEPA is to promote the
recovery of the ferret by establishing viable ferret populations.
Viable ferret populations depend on persistent prairie dog populations.
We are willing to work with landowners and managers amenable to
maintaining prairie dog populations on their property to support a
reintroduced ferret population. Outside of reintroduction areas, we, in
collaboration with our partners, will work with landowners to avoid or
minimize any adverse effects to ferrets that could occur from prairie
dog control.
Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed rule understated
the effects of current prairie dog poisoning. The commenter
specifically pointed out that we list prairie dog poisoning as a
concern in the Recovery Plan and recommended more protective
regulations to improve opportunities for ferret reintroductions.
Response: The Recovery Plan describes the historical effect of
poisons on the decline of prairie dogs and ferrets and assesses the
effects of prairie dog poisoning to ferrets rangewide. The current use
of poison to control prairie dogs is much reduced from historical use,
and the current level of threat varies across the ferret's range. In
the proposed rule, we considered the threat of prairie dog poisoning to
ferrets in Arizona and concluded that prairie dog poisoning within the
State is relatively minimal compared to historical use. For example,
black-tailed prairie dogs were extirpated from southeastern Arizona by
the late 1930's due to widespread indiscriminate poisoning for all
small burrowing mammals (Hoffmeister 1986, p. 196). Comparatively, from
2013 through 2019, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's
(APHIS) Wildlife Services treated prairie dogs with zinc phosphide at
three private properties totaling 56 ac (23 ha) of prairie dog colonies
(C. Carrillo, pers. comm., APHIS, October 23, 2019). In addition, the
poisons that pose the greatest risk to ferrets, anticoagulants, are
banned in Arizona. Other poisons have the potential to affect ferrets
by affecting prairie dog populations. In past
[[Page 69066]]
ferret reintroductions in Arizona, we worked with partners to identify
landowners and managers willing to manage prairie dogs on their
properties for ferrets. We will take a similar approach for future
ferret reintroductions.
Comment: Three commenters expressed concerns about the effects of
shooting on prairie dog populations at ferret reintroduction sites. Two
commenters thought that we had not adequately considered the effects of
prairie dog shooting. One commenter mentioned specific research about
the effects of shooting on prairie dog populations and requested that
the EA incorporate that research. All three commenters asked for
increased restrictions on prairie dog shooting to support ferret
reintroductions. One commenter additionally expressed concern about
potential lead poisoning from shooting prairie dogs.
Response: We considered the potential for effects of prairie dog
shooting on ferret reintroductions in the SWEPA in this 10(j) rule. We
referenced relevant studies about effects of shooting on prairie dog
populations (see ``Actions and Activities that May Affect the
Introduced Population''). These effects vary across sites and with
intensity of shooting. Based on current prairie dog monitoring data, we
do not think that shooting is having substantial population-level
effects on prairie dogs in established reintroduction sites in the
SWEPA or in the potential reintroduction sites that are being
monitored. Prairie dog monitoring will inform the suitability of a
potential ferret reintroduction site and indicate whether additional
management is needed to maintain prairie dog populations in support of
ferrets. AZGFD regulates prairie dog hunting in most of Arizona, and as
described in their Management Plan, they may close areas to prairie dog
hunting at ferret reintroduction sites if monitoring shows a greater
than 15 percent decline in prairie dog occupied acreage over a 3-year
period. Tribes regulate prairie dog hunting on their respective lands.
To the extent requested, we will assist any Tribe interested in
reintroducing ferrets to address prairie dog management at potential
reintroduction sites.
We did not evaluate the effects of prairie dog shooting on ferrets
in the EA, because that type of a consideration is outside of the scope
of an EA (40 CFR 1501.5). In the EA we are required to evaluate how the
proposed action will affect the condition of the proposed SWEPA. In our
evaluation of the social and economic conditions, we considered the
effects of the proposed action to natural resource-based recreation,
including prairie dog shooting.
While lead contamination is a potential threat resulting from
prairie dog shooting, we have not documented any lead poisoning of
ferrets. This species may be less susceptible to chronic lead poisoning
than are longer lived predators (Pain et al. 2009, p. 107).
Comment: One commenter stated that our discussion of environmental
consequences in the EA should include Tribal prairie dog shooting
regulations in addition to the State regulations we included.
Response: As sovereign nations, each Tribe has the authority to
regulate hunting on their lands. When reintroduction sites contain
Tribal land, we do and will work with Tribes to ensure that measures to
manage prairie dogs are compatible with ferret reintroductions.
Comment: One commenter asked about the extent to which ferret prey
bases are being sustained by supplemental feeding, a strategy listed in
AZGFD's Management Plan.
Response: AZGFD lists prairie dog supplemental feeding as a
potential management strategy for specific circumstances; it is not a
long-term strategy (AZGFD 2016, p. 15). We will reintroduce ferrets
only at sites that have demonstrated persistent prairie dog populations
at levels necessary to support ferrets.
Comment: One commenter asked that we address the potential threat
of feral dogs to ferrets.
Response: Prior to a ferret reintroduction, we will assess
potential site-specific threats. We expect feral dogs to pose a similar
threat at ferret reintroduction sites as do coyotes. Coyote predation
was a concern at early ferret reintroduction sites. Increased
preconditioning of captive-born ferrets through outdoor pen rearing in
recent years facilitates learning of important natural predator-
avoidance behaviors and has led to increased survival rates following
ferret releases into the wild (Biggins et al. 1998, pp. 647-648). In
addition, like coyotes, feral dogs are a potential carrier of disease.
We vaccinate all ferrets for canine distemper before reintroductions,
continue disease management at all reintroduction sites, and expect
that our current practices would minimize the potential threat that
feral dogs, like coyotes, may pose at a reintroduction site.
Comment: One commenter suggested that we need to assess the effects
of land management activities (e.g., livestock grazing, off-highway
vehicle use, and other recreational activities) at black-tailed prairie
dog sites.
Response: Currently, the SWEPA does not contain enough occupied
black-tailed prairie dog habitat to support a ferret reintroduction.
Management may increase black-tailed prairie dogs in the future. When a
black-tailed prairie dog population becomes large enough to support a
ferret reintroduction, we will assess the threats to a ferret
population and address those threats in a site-specific management
plan.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern about effects of human-
wildlife interactions on ferrets and pointed out the lack of data
informing appropriate distances between ferret populations and human
residential areas.
Response: We are not aware of effects of a reintroduction site's
proximity to a human residential area on ferrets. Reintroduction sites
are typically relatively remote and distant from large residential
developments. The potential reintroduction sites identified in the
proposed SWEPA are not within or adjacent to areas with high human
densities.
Comment: One commenter stated that the 10(j) rule should commit to
proactive management measures to bring potential reintroduction sites
into the condition necessary to support ferret populations of
sufficient size and resilience to contribute towards recovery.
Response: The establishment of the SWEPA to support future
reintroductions promotes ferret recovery. Existing management plans or
plans we develop in cooperation with our partners and stakeholders will
guide management of ferret populations at individual reintroduction
sites in the SWEPA. We remain committed to working with partners to
encourage and implement proactive prairie dog management at current and
potential reintroduction sites within the SWEPA.
Comment: One commenter, in response to a statement about the
negative consequences of fragmented prairie dog colonies in the
preamble of the proposed rule under ``Ecology/Habitat Use/Movement'',
stated: ``An argument could be made that black-footed ferret
populations that are associated with Gunnison's prairie dogs, which are
extremely fragmented and less dense than black-tailed prairie dogs,
could be more resilient to stochastic events than what is inferred.''
Response: The less dense spatial distribution of Gunnison's prairie
dogs could increase resiliency by buffering the population against the
spread of plague and other stochastic events. However, prairie dog
colonies that exist
[[Page 69067]]
in smaller, isolated configurations are likely to have reduced
resiliency because the smaller populations are more vulnerable to
extirpation, and the isolation limits immigration and genetic exchange.
We changed the wording in this final rule to clarify our description of
the spatial distribution of prairie dog habitat (see ``Threats/Causes
of Decline'' above).
Comment: One commenter suggested that we add ``availability of
prey'' as a factor influencing ferret dispersal in our discussion of
``Actual or Anticipated Movements.''
Response: We edited the text accordingly in this final rule. We
previously incorporated prey into our consideration of habitat in the
proposed rule, however, we agree that explicitly identifying it in our
discussion of actual or anticipated movements improves clarity.
Comment: One commenter asked what the estimated sustained
population level is for the ferret.
Response: The Recovery Plan identifies the number of populations
necessary rangewide to downlist the ferret from endangered to
threatened and to remove the ferret from listing under the ESA: at
least 10 and at least 30 populations, respectively. The Recovery Plan
criteria indicate that each of those populations consist of at least 30
breeding adults, and it details our methodology for establishing these
criteria. We expect the number of ferrets in each population to
fluctuate over time, decreasing during plague outbreaks and increasing
when plague is effectively controlled at a site. This assumption
emphasizes the importance of having multiple, widely spaced populations
to safeguard the species from the widespread chronic effects of plague
as well as other periodic or random disturbances that may result in the
loss of a population in one or more given areas.
Comment: Two commenters noted the discrepancy between the acreage
of Gunnison's prairie dog habitat identified by the USFWS and AZGFD
needed to support a ferret population: 7,415 and 5,540 ac (3,000 and
2,242 ha), respectively. One commenter expressed concern that this
discrepancy has implications for reducing the success of
reintroductions.
Response: The two different numbers identified by us and AZGFD
represent two different estimates, not requirements, of the amount of
Gunnison's prairie dog habitat needed to support a ferret population.
The USFWS acknowledges in this final rule that the actual amount of
prairie dog habitat needed will vary across the ferret's range. We
allocate ferrets for reintroductions based on the best information
available about the proposed site. While this information includes the
total acreage of prairie dog habitat, we also consider other site-
specific factors to assess a site's overall ability to support a ferret
population. We have edited the text in this final rule to clarify that
these numbers are estimates, and not requirements, to guide ferret
reintroduction site selection (see ``Experimental Population'' above).
Comment: One commenter stated that the USFWS cannot make an
essentiality determination for a proposed 10(j) population if there is
no specific proposed reintroduction. The commenter further stated that,
even if making a determination were appropriate, the proposed rule
failed to justify a nonessential designation for the SWEPA, because we
did not adequately address the species' viability in the wild or
consider the status of other ferret populations in the wild.
Response: When we authorize the reintroduction of an endangered
species outside of its current range as an experimental population, we
are required to make 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. We are not required by either the
ESA or applicable regulations to postpone making this determination
until we have made a decision regarding a ``specific proposed
reintroduction.'' We have made the essentiality determination in this
rule in accordance with the ESA and applicable regulations. We have
addressed species' viability in the wild across its range to make an
essentiality determination for the proposed SWEPA. We used the
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation to assess current and future species viability (Shaffer
and Stein 2000, entire) in our SSA (USFWS 2019, pp. 43-83); we
summarize that assessment in the ``Is the Experimental Population
Essential or Nonessential?'' portion of the preamble to the proposed
rule.
Given the current and anticipated future numbers of ferret
populations and their distribution in the wild, there is no indication
that populations established in the SWEPA could be described as those
``whose loss would be likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of
survival of the species in the wild.'' Loss of the SWEPA would not
affect the remaining populations of ferrets in the wild. For these
reasons, a nonessential determination for the SWEPA is valid.
Additionally, captive-breeding efforts continue to support the
establishment of more populations throughout the species' range.
Comment: One commenter stated that the draft EA fails to disclose
that all the reintroduced ferret populations are listed as 10(j)
nonessential and that the USFWS cannot rely on other ``nonessential''
populations to designate the SWEPA population as nonessential.
Response: Not all the ferret populations in the wild are
nonessential experimental populations; we have used a variety of other
regulatory mechanisms, including section 10(a)(1)(A) permits and SHAs,
to reintroduce ferrets. Of the 18 currently active ferret
reintroduction sites, 5 are nonessential experimental populations. The
remainder occur under section 10(a)(1)(A) permits and SHAs. In 2019,
active reintroduction sites were evaluated in the SSA; two were
considered to be in high-resiliency condition and eight to be in
moderate-resiliency condition (USFWS 2020, pp. 63-64). All the
aforementioned regulatory mechanisms remain available to facilitate
future ferret reintroductions across the species' range. Subpart H,
part 17, of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations does not limit
consideration of any population of a species when making an
essentiality determination and requires an evaluation of the species as
a whole, including all populations captive and wild.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that we made our
essentiality determination out of convenience to landowners and
managers. The commenter specifically cited text in the proposed rule:
We prefer applying the experimental population designation and
regulations to the entire proposed SWEPA, because a single set of
statutes and regulations and a single management framework would then
apply to all lands, non-Federal and Federal, containing potential
ferret habitat within the designated SWEPA boundary.
Response: The cited text is from the portion of the preamble
pertaining to management restrictions, protective measures, and other
special management and not from the portion pertaining to whether the
proposed experimental population is essential or nonessential. We did
not consider the cited text within the context of our essentiality
determination. Rather, the cited text refers to the use of a single
regulatory mechanism, the 10(j) rule, rather than multiple regulatory
or permitting mechanisms, within the SWEPA.
[[Page 69068]]
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that ``a broad
nonessential designation divests Federal land managers of important
tools to protect the species, including the obligation to formally
consult to prevent jeopardy under ESA section 7(a)(2), and the ability
to designate critical habitat.'' The commenter expressed concern that
there would never be an obligation to evaluate the potential for
cumulative management actions to result in jeopardy.
Response: Under 50 CFR 17.83(a), for the purposes of section 7 of
the ESA, we treat a nonessential experimental population as if it were
a threatened species when located in a National Wildlife Refuge or unit
of the National Park Service (NPS), and Federal agencies follow
conservation and consultation requirements per sections 7(a)(1) and
7(a)(2) of the ESA, respectively. We treat nonessential experimental
populations outside of a National Wildlife Refuge or NPS unit as
species proposed for listing, and Federal agencies follow the
provisions of sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(4) of the ESA. Section 7(a)(4)
requires Federal agencies to confer with us on actions that are likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed to be
listed. Because the nonessential experimental population is, by
definition, not essential to the continued existence of the species in
the wild, the effects of proposed actions on the population will
generally not rise to the level of ``jeopardy.'' Nonetheless, some
Federal agencies voluntarily confer with us on actions that may affect
a species proposed for listing. Ferrets were listed under the ESA prior
to the 1978 critical habitat amendments; therefore, designation of
critical habitat for this species even outside of nonessential
experimental population areas is at the discretion of the Secretary (50
CFR 424.12(e); USFWS 2013a, p 13).
Comment: One commenter stated that the EA should consider
additional action alternatives, including an alternative that exempts
federally managed lands from the SWEPA and an alternative that does not
extend nonessential status to federally managed lands in the SWEPA. One
commenter noted that, while the EA addresses the need of a 10(j) rule
to garner support from private landowners on private lands, it does not
specifically analyze the viability of ferret reintroductions on
federally managed lands where there are regulatory mandates to further
the conservation of imperiled species.
Response: In the EA, we evaluated the alternatives that we think
are reasonable and feasible. Future reintroduced ferret populations
will likely cross boundaries of land ownership. The potential sites
identified in the rule contain private, Federal, State, and Tribal
lands. Having a single regulatory mechanism for the entire experimental
population will simplify management of the population. We did not
consider an alternative that does not extend nonessential status to
federally managed land, because land ownership is not a consideration
of an essentiality determination.
Comment: One commenter stated that, rather than addressing
management in the SWEPA, we deferred to the plan that AZGFD developed
specifically for the AVEPA, not the SWEPA.
Response: AZGFD developed their Management Plan for the Black-
footed Ferret in Arizona based on the best available science, including
information in USFWS documents, such as the Recovery Plan and the
Operations Manual, to guide ferret management statewide. We reviewed
and commented on the AZGFD's Management Plan in its development, and it
complements the USFWS Recovery Plan and the Operations Manual. For
potential reintroduction sites on Tribal lands, we will offer our
cooperation and assistance in the development of applicable management
plans.
Comment: One commenter noted that the draft EA and proposed rule do
not set timeframes or other commitments for reintroductions and provide
only vague plans for ferret reintroduction in the SWEPA. The commenter
further stated that the 10(j) rule must commit to management efforts to
ensure successful reintroductions.
Response: Neither section 10(j) of the ESA nor the 10(j)
regulations found at 50 CFR 17.81 require the USFWS to set timeframes
or other commitments for reintroductions. In the proposed rule, we
included the information necessary to identify the experimental
population, as required by regulation. The potential reintroduction
sites require additional management before site conditions could
support a ferret population. We will work with our partners to develop
site-specific management plans that include specific details regarding
reintroductions, when site conditions can support ferret populations.
Identifying these details in the future will allow us to take advantage
of future opportunities as they arise. Our regulations require us to
consider the likelihood that the experimental population will become
established and survive in the foreseeable future but do not require
commitment to specific management actions. In the proposed rule, we
considered the potential for appropriate management for the ferret and
its habitat in Arizona. Given the AZGFD's past commitment to ferret
reintroduction and its development of a Management Plan for ferret
reintroduction throughout its range in Arizona, and interest from the
Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, and the Navajo Nation in reintroductions of
and management for ferrets on their Tribal lands, we have a high level
of confidence in implementation of management to support ferret
populations in the SWEPA.
Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed rule lacks
concrete, enforceable mechanisms to prevent unsustainable levels of
take.
Response: Neither the ESA nor the 10(j) regulations found at 50 CFR
17.81 require concrete, enforceable mechanisms to prevent unsustainable
levels of take. In accordance with 50 CFR 17.82, we have identified
special rules for ferret nonessential experimental populations in 50
CFR 17.84(g). These allow most forms of incidental take of ferrets in
the experimental population area, if the take is unintentional and not
due to negligent conduct. Intentional and negligent take within the
experimental population area is still prohibited and unlawful pursuant
to section 9 of the ESA. The persistence of ferrets in the AVEPA/Double
O Ranch has demonstrated that these same take provisions for the AVEPA/
Double O Ranch have not meaningfully affected that population. We will
work with our partners and stakeholders to apply existing management
plans or develop site-specific management plans for future
reintroduction sites. We addressed the sustainability of the ferret
population in the ``Likelihood of Population Establishment and
Survival'' portion of the preamble to the proposed rule.
Comment: One commenter was concerned that the USFWS is abdicating
Federal authority of the reintroduction program to AZGFD. The commenter
further stated that the rule should make clear that the USFWS holds
primary responsibility for ferret recovery, has the authority to
conduct and manage reintroductions even when parties such as permittees
and State agencies oppose such efforts, and that the USFWS and other
Federal agencies are under a constant duty pursuant to ESA section
7(a)(1) to utilize their authority in furtherance of ferret
conservation.
Response: The USFWS has in no way abdicated its Federal authority
regarding the ferret reintroduction program to AZGFD. Our final 10(j)
rule revising the current nonessential experimental population of the
black-footed ferrets is
[[Page 69069]]
a responsible use of our authority under the ESA. Section 6 of the Act
specifically states that, in carrying out the programs authorized by
the ESA, the Secretary shall cooperate to the maximum extent
practicable with the States and that the Secretary may enter into
agreements with any State for the administration and management of any
area established for the conservation of endangered species or
threatened species. The USFWS is active in the management of all
current and future potential ferret reintroduction sites. Additionally,
we are responsible for allocating captive-bred ferrets and ensuring
that reintroduction sites are suitable for supporting ferret
populations. Our regulations in 50 CFR 17.81(d) require us to consult
with AZGFD in developing and implementing this 10(j) rule, which we
have done. This rule, to the maximum extent practicable, represents an
agreement between the USFWS, affected Tribes, State and Federal
agencies, and persons holding any interest in land that the
establishment of an experimental population may affect. The mission of
the USFWS directs us to work with others to conserve, protect, and
enhance wildlife and their habitats. The USFWS Recovery Plan for the
Black-footed Ferret additionally states that the development of
partnerships with private landowners and Tribes is essential to
recovery of the species.
The AZGFD has demonstrated its commitment to ferret conservation
through their long-term active involvement in ferret conservation,
including the development of the Management Plan for the Black-footed
Ferret in Arizona. AZGFD has also demonstrated a commitment to our
scientific understanding of ferret ecology and husbandry techniques and
to developing relationships with private landowners essential for
ferret conservation. The feasibility of future reintroductions will
depend on such relationships with private landowners. Given these
factors, we partner with AZGFD on ferret reintroductions on non-Tribal
lands in Arizona.
In addition to private lands, all four future potential
reintroduction sites identified in the proposed rule include Federal
lands. We will coordinate with our Federal partners to use their
authorities to further ferret recovery. We will also offer our
cooperation and assistance to Tribes in the development of applicable
management plans on Tribal lands.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and
14094)
Executive Order 14094 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 and
E.O. 13563 and states that regulatory analysis should facilitate agency
efforts to develop regulations that serve the public interest, advance
statutory objectives, and are consistent with E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563,
and the Presidential Memorandum of January 20, 2021 (Modernizing
Regulatory Review). Regulatory analysis, as practicable and
appropriate, shall recognize distributive impacts and equity, to the
extent permitted by law. 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 final rule in a manner consistent with
these requirements.
E.O. 12866, as reaffirmed by E.O. 13563 and E.O. 14094, provides
that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant
rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever a Federal agency is
required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final
rule or revision to a rule, it must prepare, and make available for
public comment, a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the
effect of the action on small entities (small businesses, small
organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, these acts
require no regulatory flexibility analysis if the head of an agency
certifies that the action will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that an action will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. We are certifying that this final rule will not have a
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities.
The following discussion explains our rationale.
The affected area includes release sites in Arizona, Tribal lands
that coincide with Arizona, lands of the Navajo Nation that coincide
with Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah, and adjacent areas into which
ferrets may disperse, which over time could include significant
portions of the SWEPA. Because of the regulatory flexibility for
Federal agency actions provided by the nonessential experimental
designation and the exemption for incidental take in the special rule,
this rule is not expected to have significant effects on any activities
on Federal, State, Tribal, or private lands in the revised area.
Concerning section 7(a)(2), we treat the population as proposed for
listing outside of NPS and USFWS-managed National Wildlife Refuge
lands, and we do not require Federal action agencies other than NPS and
USFWS National Wildlife Refuges to consult with us on their activities.
Section 7(a)(4) requires other Federal agencies to confer (rather than
consult) with the USFWS on actions that are likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a species proposed for listing. However, because
a nonessential experimental population is, by definition, not essential
to the survival of the species, we will likely never require a
conference for the ferret populations in the SWEPA. Furthermore, the
results of a conference are advisory in nature and do not restrict
Federal agencies from carrying out, funding, or authorizing activities.
In addition, section 7(a)(1) requires Federal agencies to use their
authorities to carry out programs to further the conservation of listed
species, which will apply on any lands in the revised area. As a
result, and in accordance with these regulations, some modifications to
proposed Federal actions in the SWEPA may occur to benefit the ferret,
but we do not expect implementation of these regulations to halt or
substantially modify proposed projects.
This revision includes the same authorizations provided in the
AVEPA for incidental take of the ferret but over a larger landscape,
the SWEPA. The regulations implementing the ESA 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 that are in
accordance with Federal, Tribal, State, and local laws and regulations.
This rule does not authorize intentional take of ferrets for purposes
other than authorized data collection or recovery purposes. Intentional
take for research
[[Page 69070]]
or recovery purposes would require a section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery
permit under the ESA.
The principal activities on private property in or near the revised
nonessential experimental population area are livestock grazing and
associated ranch management practices (e.g., fencing, weed treatments,
water developments, and maintenance). Ferret presence will not affect
these land uses because there will be no new or additional economic or
regulatory restrictions imposed upon States, non-Federal entities, or
members of the public due to the presence of the ferret, and Federal
agencies will have to comply with sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(4) of the
ESA only in these areas. Therefore, we do not expect this rulemaking to
have any significant adverse impacts to activities on private lands in
the SWEPA.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with this act:
(1) This rule will not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small
governments because it will not place additional requirements on any
city, county, or other local municipalities. The USFWS determined that
this rule will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given
year on local or State governments or private entities. Therefore, this
rule does not require a small government agency plan.
(2) This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under this
act; it will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or more in
any year. The revised nonessential experimental population area for the
ferret will not impose any additional management or protection
requirements on the States or other entities.
Takings (E.O. 12630)
In accordance with E.O. 12630, this rule does not have significant
takings implications. It allows for the take, as defined in the ESA, of
reintroduced ferrets when such take is incidental to an otherwise legal
activity, such as livestock grazing, agriculture, recreation (e.g.,
off-highway vehicle use), and other activities that are in accordance
with law and regulation. Therefore, the revision of the AVEPA to
encompass a larger area, the SWEPA, will not conflict with existing or
proposed human activities or hinder public land use.
This order does not require a takings implication assessment
because this rule: (1) will not effectively compel a property owner to
suffer a physical invasion of property, and (2) will not deny
economically beneficial or productive use of the land. The rule
substantially advances a legitimate government interest (conservation
and recovery of a listed species) and does not present a barrier to
reasonable and expected beneficial use of private property.
Federalism (E.O. 13132)
In accordance with E.O. 13132, we have considered whether this rule
has significant federalism effects and determined we do not need to
conduct a federalism assessment. It does 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 rule with the affected resource
agencies. Achieving the recovery goals for this species would
contribute to the eventual delisting of the ferret and its return to
State management. We do not expect any intrusion on State
administration or policy, change in roles or responsibilities of
Federal or State governments, or substantial direct effect on fiscal
capacity. The rule operates to maintain the existing relationship
between the State and the Federal Government, and we will implement it
in coordination with the State of Arizona. Therefore, this rule does
not have significant federalism effects or implications to warrant
preparation of a federalism assessment under the provisions of E.O.
13132.
Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has
determined that this rule will not unduly burden the judicial system
and will meet the requirements of sections (3)(a) and (3)(b)(2) of the
Order.
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new collection of information that
requires 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 reporting the taking of experimental populations (50 CFR 17.84)
and assigned control number 1018-0095 (expires 09/30/2023, and in
accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10, an agency may continue to conduct or
sponsor this collection of information while the submission is pending
at OMB). The USFWS may not collect or sponsor and may not require
response to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.)
In compliance with all provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), we have analyzed the impact of this final
rule. In cooperation with the AZGFD, the Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe,
and the Navajo Nation, we have prepared an environmental assessment and
a FONSI for this action and have made them available for public
inspection (see ADDRESSES).
Government-to-Government Relationships With Tribes
In accordance with the Executive Memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951, May 4, 1994), E.O. 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), and the Department of the Interior Manual Chapter
512 DM 2, we have considered possible effects of this rule revision on
federally recognized Indian Tribes. We determined that the SWEPA
overlaps or is adjacent to Tribal lands. Potential reintroduction sites
identified in this revision, the CO Bar Ranch and Petrified Forest
National Park, are near or adjacent to Tribal lands, as is the existing
AVEPA where a reintroduced ferret population exists. We offered
government-to-government consultation to nine Tribes: the Havasupai,
Hopi, Hualapai, San Carlos Apache, San Juan-Southern Paiute, White
Mountain Apache, and Yavapai-Prescott Tribes, Navajo Nation, and the
Pueblo of Zuni. We met with the Hualapai, Hopi, and White Mountain
Apache Tribes and the Navajo Nation about the proposed revision.
Participation in ferret recovery is voluntary. If suitable habitat for
ferret recovery is available on their lands, Tribes may choose either
not to participate, or to participate through authorities under section
10(j), section 10(a)(1)(A), or the SHA (USFWS 2013b, entire). If we
introduce ferrets onto non-Tribal lands adjacent to Tribal lands and
any ferrets disperse onto Tribal lands, the aforementioned authorities
will provide more regulatory flexibility under the ESA through
allowances for incidental take.
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (E.O. 13211)
E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare statements of energy
effects when undertaking certain actions. We
[[Page 69071]]
do not expect this rule to have a significant effect on energy
supplies, distribution, and use. Because this action is not a
significant energy action, this order does not require a statement of
energy effects.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this final rule is
available online at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-
R2-ES-2020-0123, or upon request from the Arizona Ecological Services
Field Office (see ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this rule are staff members of the USFWS
Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants,
Reporting and record keeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we 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. In Sec. 17.11 in paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife under ``MAMMALS'' by revising the entries for
``Ferret, black-footed'' and adding seven new entries for the ``Ferret,
black-footed'' to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status and applicable
rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals
* * * * * * *
Ferret, black-footed............. Mustela nigripes.... Wherever found, E 32 FR 4001, 3/11/
except where listed 1967;
as an experimental 35 FR 16047, 10/13/
population. 1970.
Ferret, black-footed............. Mustela nigripes.... U.S.A. (parts of WY XN 56 FR 41473, 8/21/
(Shirley Basin/ 1991;
Medicine Bow 50 CFR
Management Area); 17.84(g).\10j\
see Sec.
17.84(g)(9)(i)).
Ferret, black-footed............. Mustela nigripes.... U.S.A. (parts of SD XN 59 FR 42682, 8/18/
(Conata Basin/ 1994;
Badlands 50 CFR
Reintroduction 17.84(g).\10j\
Area); see Sec.
17.84(g)(9)(ii)).
Ferret, black-footed............. Mustela nigripes.... U.S.A. (parts of MT XN 59 FR 42696, 8/18/
(Northcentral 1994;
Montana 50 CFR
Reintroduction 17.84(g).\10j\
Area); see Sec.
17.84(g)(9)(iii)).
Ferret, black-footed............. Mustela nigripes.... U.S.A. (parts of AZ, XN 61 FR 11320, 3/20/
NM, UT (Southwest 1996;
Experimental 88 FR [INSERT
Population Area), Federal Register
see Sec. page where the
17.84(g)(9)(iv)). document begins],
10/5/2023; 50 CFR
17.84(g).\10j\
Ferret, black-footed............. Mustela nigripes.... U.S.A. (parts of CO, XN 63 FR 52824, 10/1/
UT (Northwestern 1998;
Colorado/ 50 CFR
Northeastern Utah 17.84(g).\10j\
Experimental
Population Area),
see Sec.
17.84(g)(9)(v)).
Ferret, black-footed............. Mustela nigripes.... U.S.A. (parts of SD XN 65 FR 60879, 10/13/
(Cheyenne River 2000;
Sioux Tribe 50 CFR
Reintroduction 17.84(g).\10j\
Area), see Sec.
17.84(g)(9)(vi)).
Ferret, black-footed............. Mustela nigripes.... U.S.A. (parts of SD XN 68 FR 26498, 5/16/
(Rosebud Sioux 2003;
Reservation 50 CFR
Experimental 17.84(g).\10j\
Population Area),
see Sec.
17.84(g)(9)(vii)).
Ferret, black-footed............. Mustela nigripes.... U.S.A. (most of WY XN 80 FR 66821, 10/30/
(Wyoming 2015;
Experimental 50 CFR
Population Area), 17.84(g).\10j\
see Sec.
17.84(g)(9)(viii)).
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Amend Sec. 17.84 by revising paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(6)(iv), and
(g)(9)(iv), and removing the fourth map (depicting the Aubrey Valley
Experimental Population Area) and adding in its place Map 4 to
paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.84 Special rules--vertebrates.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) The black-footed ferret populations identified in paragraphs
(g)(9)(i) through
(viii) of this section are nonessential experimental populations.
We will manage each of these populations, and each reintroduction site
in the Southwest and Wyoming nonessential experimental populations, in
accordance with their respective management plans.
* * * * *
(6) * * *
(iv) Report such taking in the Southwest Experimental Population
Area (SWEPA) to the Field Supervisor, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish
and
[[Page 69072]]
Wildlife Service, Phoenix, Arizona (telephone: 602-242-0210).
* * * * *
(9) * * *
(iv) We consider the Southwest Experimental Population Area (SWEPA)
to be the area shown on a map following paragraph (g)(12) of this
section. The SWEPA includes the core recovery areas for this species in
Arizona. The boundary of the northern section of the SWEPA is those
parts of Apache, Coconino, Gila, Mohave, Navajo, and Yavapai Counties,
Arizona, that include the northern area as delineated on the map,
excluding Hopi District 6. The northern section also includes portions
of Cibola, McKinley, Rio Arriba, Sandoval, and San Juan Counties, New
Mexico, and San Juan County, Utah, that coincide with Navajo Nation
lands. The boundary of the southern section of the SWEPA is those parts
of Cochise, Pima, Pinal, Graham, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona, that
include the southern area as delineated on the map. After the first
breeding season following the first year of black-footed ferret
release, we will consider any black-footed ferret found in the SWEPA as
part of the nonessential experimental population. We would not consider
a black-footed ferret occurring outside of the Arizona, New Mexico, and
Utah portions of the SWEPA a member of the nonessential experimental
population, and we may capture it for genetic testing. We may dispose
of the captured animal in the following ways:
(A) If an animal is genetically determined to have originated from
the experimental population, we may return it to the reintroduction
area or to a captive-breeding facility.
(B) If an animal is determined to be genetically unrelated to the
experimental population, we will place it in captivity under an
existing contingency plan.
* * * * *
Map 4 to paragraph (g)--Southwest Nonessential Experimental Population
Area (SWEPA) for the black-footed ferret
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 69073]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05OC23.062
* * * * *
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-21978 Filed 10-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C