[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