[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