Proposed Rule2021-12991
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revision of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Black-Footed Ferrets (Mustela nigripes) in the Southwest
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
June 25, 2021
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service and USFWS), propose to revise the regulation 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 proposed rule would allow the reintroduction of ferrets across a larger landscape as part of a nonessential experimental population and include the AVEPA within a larger "Southwest Experimental Population Area" (SWEPA), which includes parts of Arizona and identified contiguous Tribal land in New Mexico and Utah. This proposed revision provides a framework for establishing and managing reintroduced populations of ferrets that will allow greater management flexibility and increased landowner cooperation. The best available data indicate that reintroduction of the ferret into suitable habitat in the proposed SWEPA is biologically feasible and will promote the conservation of the species. We are seeking comments on this proposal and on our draft environmental assessment (EA) that analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed regulatory revisions.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 120 (Friday, June 25, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 120 (Friday, June 25, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33613-33632]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12991]
[[Page 33613]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2020-0123; FXES11130200000-212-FF02ENEH00]
RIN 2018-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: Proposed rule; announcement of a draft environmental
assessment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service and USFWS),
propose to revise the regulation 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 proposed rule would allow
the reintroduction of ferrets across a larger landscape as part of a
nonessential experimental population and include the AVEPA within a
larger ``Southwest Experimental Population Area'' (SWEPA), which
includes parts of Arizona and identified contiguous Tribal land in New
Mexico and Utah. This proposed revision provides a framework for
establishing and managing reintroduced populations of ferrets that will
allow greater management flexibility and increased landowner
cooperation. The best available data indicate that reintroduction of
the ferret into suitable habitat in the proposed SWEPA is biologically
feasible and will promote the conservation of the species. We are
seeking comments on this proposal and on our draft environmental
assessment (EA) that analyzes the potential environmental impacts
associated with the proposed regulatory revisions.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
August 24, 2021. If you are using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
ADDRESSES), the deadline for submitting an electronic comment is 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time on this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the proposed rule and draft EA by
one of the following methods:
Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>. In the Search box, enter the Docket Number for
this rulemaking: FWS-R2-ES-2020-0123. Then, in the Search panel on the
left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the
Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may submit a comment
by clicking on ``Comment Now!''
By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2020-0123, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W,
5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We will post all comments on <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see ``Public Comments'' below for more information).
Copies of Documents: The proposed rule, draft EA, and supporting
documents are available at the following website: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a> in Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2020-0123. Persons who use
a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Humphrey, 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 who are hearing-impaired or
speech-impaired may call the FRS at 1-800-877-8337 for TTY assistance.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
We want to ensure that any final rule developed from this proposed
revision to the 1996 rule is as effective as possible. Therefore, we
invite Tribal and other governmental agencies, the scientific
community, industry, and other interested parties to submit comments
(including recommendations and information) concerning any aspect of
this proposed revision. Your comments should be as specific as
possible.
To issue a final rule implementing this revision, we will take into
consideration all comments and information we receive. Such
communications may lead to a final rule that differs from this proposed
revision. All comments, including commenters' names and addresses, if
provided to us, will become part of the supporting record.
You may submit your comments concerning the proposed revision by
one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. You must submit comments to
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a> before 11:59 p.m. (Eastern Time) on the date
specified in DATES. We will not consider hardcopy comments not
postmarked by the date specified in DATES.
We will post your entire comment--including your personal
identifying information--on <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>. If you provide
personal identifying information in your comment, you may request at
the top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The comments we receive and any supporting documentation we used in
preparing this proposal will be available for public inspection at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>, or by appointment, during normal business
hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological
Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
We specifically seek comments on:
<bullet> The appropriateness of revising the current AVEPA, and
establishing new boundaries for the nonessential experimental
population area to encompass all potential ferret habitat within
Arizona and identified Tribal lands in New Mexico and Utah, for
reintroduced populations of black-footed ferrets;
<bullet> Threats to ferrets in the proposed nonessential
experimental population area that we have not considered in this
revision that might affect a reintroduced population;
<bullet> The suitability of the proposed boundaries for this
nonessential experimental population;
<bullet> The effects of reintroducing ferrets on public, private,
and Tribal lands and activities such as ranching, recreation,
residential development, and other land uses; and
<bullet> The compatibility of this proposal with ongoing
implementation of the programmatic ferret Safe Harbor Agreement (SHA)
in cooperation with non-Federal landowners.
Background
Statutory and Regulatory Framework
The 1982 amendments to the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) included
the addition of section 10(j) that allows for the designation of
reintroduced populations of listed species as ``experimental
populations.'' Our implementing regulations for section 10(j) are in
title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations in part 17 (specifically at
50 CFR 17.81); hereafter,
[[Page 33614]]
we refer to species-specific rules under section 10(j) of the ESA as
``10(j) rules.'' These regulations state that the Service may designate
a population of endangered or threatened species that we have released
or will release into suitable natural habitat outside the species'
current natural range, but within its probable historical range, as an
experimental population.
Under 50 CFR 17.81(b), before authorizing the release as an
experimental population of any population of an endangered or
threatened species, the Service must find by regulation that such
release will further the conservation of the species. In making such a
finding, the Service 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); and
(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).
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 Proposed
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 and/or contain the experimental
population designated in the regulation from natural 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(d), the Service shall consult with appropriate
State fish and wildlife agencies, local governmental entities
[including Tribal governments], 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 Service, affected Tribes, State and
Federal agencies, and persons holding any interest in land that the
establishment of an experimental population may affect.
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 whose loss 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 subsections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2), respectively. We
treat nonessential experimental populations outside of a National
Wildlife Refuge or NPS unit as species proposed for listing, and
agencies only follow subsections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(4). 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 Service 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,
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 proposed SWEPA. Nonetheless, some Federal
agencies voluntarily confer with the Service on actions that may affect
a proposed species.
Legal Status
We listed the black-footed 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 8491, 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 black-footed ferrets
established via reintroduction in Aubrey Valley as a nonessential
experimental population (61 FR 11320, March 20, 1996). The Aubrey
Valley Experimental Population Area (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 Tribal lands (Hualapai Reservation), and 33 percent deeded
lands (owned by the Navajo Nation).
In 2013, the USFWS developed a range-wide programmatic Safe Harbor
Agreement (SHA) to encourage non-Federal landowners to voluntarily
undertake conservation activities on
[[Page 33615]]
their properties to benefit the ferret (USFWS 2013b, entire) (see
``Historical Range'' below). Through Certificates of Inclusion, we
enroll willing landowners in our SHA section 10(a)(1)(A) Enhancement of
Survival Permit. We treat ferrets as endangered outside of the AVEPA,
and the provisions and exceptions of the experimental population
designation do not apply; however, through the SHA, incidental take of
ferrets by participating landowners and nonparticipating neighboring
landowners is permissible. Also, through their certificates, we provide
participating landowners assurances we will not require additional
restrictions provided they follow provisions outlined in the SHA and
detailed in a Reintroduction Plan developed by the landowner for the
enrolled lands. The Service tailors conservation activities to each
specific site under the SHA.
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 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 black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) is a medium-sized member
of the weasel family (Mustelidae) weighing 1.4 to 2.5 pounds (645 to
1125 grams) and measuring 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. 30).
Ecology/Habitat Use/Movement
Black-footed 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, less fragmented prairie dog colonies are more
likely to be resilient and less likely to be extirpated by stochastic
events compared to those associated with smaller, fragmented 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 Service 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 4.35 miles
(7 kilometers [km]) apart. 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), a population of 30 breeding adult ferrets would require 4,450 ac
(1,800 ha) of black-tailed prairie dog colonies, or 7,415 ac (3,000 ha)
of Gunnison's prairie dog colonies.
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 30
miles (49 km) (Biggins et al. 1999, p. 125), and wild-born ferrets more
than 12 miles (20 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 one-half 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 (U.S.) and from Saskatchewan and Alberta in Canada
(Anderson et al. 1986, pp. 25-50). A rancher discovered the last wild
population of ferrets (from which all existing ferrets descend) near
Meeteetse, Wyoming, in 1981, after we had presumed the species extinct
(Clark et al. 1986, p. 8; Lockhart et al. 2006, p. 8). By 1987, the
Service 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,
we have not located any wild populations, despite extensive and
intensive rangewide searches; it is unlikely any undiscovered natural
wild populations remain. For these reasons, the Service considers the
ferret extirpated throughout its historical range, except for
reintroduced populations (USFWS 2017, p. 2).
In the Southwest, ferrets occurred in Arizona, Colorado, New
Mexico, and Utah, within the historical range of Gunnison's prairie
dogs, and in New Mexico and likely southeastern Arizona and Mexico,
within the historical range of black-tailed prairie dogs (Hillman and
Clark 1980, entire). In Arizona, historical ferret collections (1929-
1931) come from three locations in Coconino County (Belitsky et al.
1994, p. 29). In 1967, Federal Animal Damage Control personnel (now
known as Wildlife Services) reported seeing ferret sign while poisoning
prairie dogs (pers. com. 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 lands of the Navajo Nation, a sovereign Indian tribe.
However, the Navajo Nation has determined that the ferret no longer
occurs on their lands (Navajo Nation 2020). Prairie dogs also occur in
significant numbers on the lands of two other sovereign Indian tribes,
the Hopi Tribe (Johnson et al. 2010, entire) and the Hualapai Tribe,
the latter of which the AVEPA partially overlaps.
Dramatic historical declines in prairie dogs, coupled with
prevalence of plague
[[Page 33616]]
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 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 to coincide with the historical ranges
of the Gunnison's and black-tailed prairie dogs.
Threats/Causes of Decline
Black-footed 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 significantly
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 U.S. (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 in turn 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, p. 4). Extirpation of black-tailed prairie
dogs in Arizona probably occurred prior to 1960. As with the rangewide
effects, these prairie dog losses also resulted in the loss of ferrets;
by the 1960's, we thought ferrets were 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 be primarily 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 black-footed ferrets (Forrest et al. 1985; 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 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. 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, that steamships inadvertently introduced to North America in
1900. Because it was foreign and unknown to their immune systems, both
ferrets and prairie dogs 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 prairie dog and ferret populations
and hinder ferret recovery (USFWS 2013a, pp. 33, 100).
The first confirmation of plague in Gunnison's prairie dog in
Arizona was in 1932, but we have limited historical data on the extent
of its effects. In 2003, Wagner and Drickamer 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 regular plague outbreaks (Wagner et
al. 2006, p. 337).
Other Impediments to Recovery
To successfully recover black-footed ferrets we need purposeful
management of prairie dog populations 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 (USFWS 2013a, pp. 46, 58, Table 6; USFWS 2020
p. 5). The keys to correcting current management inadequacies are
active plague management (discussed above), and ongoing, widespread
partner involvement (USFWS 2013a, pp. 46-48) to facilitate
establishment of new reintroduction sites and appropriately manage the
quality and configuration of ferret habitat within the species range.
In addition, consideration of other factors that may act alone or
in concert with threats are necessary when planning and implementing
recovery efforts. For example, canine distemper, a disease endemic to
the U.S., posed a challenge to early ferret reintroduction efforts
(Wimsatt et al. 2006, pp. 249-250). Today, however, we have minimized
the threat of catastrophic population losses from canine distemper by
the use of commercial
[[Page 33617]]
vaccines deployed in captive and wild ferret populations (USFWS 2013a,
pp. 29-30). As discussed in the Black-Footed Ferret Recovery Plan
(USFWS 2013a, pp. 53-55), we anticipate that climate change will alter
and reduce prairie dog habitat and influence plague outbreaks. We also
discuss prairie dog hunting and Federal and non-Federal actions and
activities in the ``Actions and Activities that May Affect the
Introduced Population'' section below.
Recovery, Captive Breeding, and Reintroduction Efforts to Date
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 species, 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 sites and their long-term management.
Although ferret habitat is significantly less than historical times, a
sufficient amount remains if we can appropriately manage its quality
and configuration to support reintroductions (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 the 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 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 suggests recovery guidelines proportional to
the amount of prairie dog habitat historically present to equitably
help support and achieve the 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 guidelines are for black-tailed or white-
tailed prairie dog habitat.
Captive Breeding
The Service and partners established the black-footed ferret
captive-breeding program from 18 ferrets captured from the last known
wild population at Meeteetse, Wyoming, in 1985 to 1987 (Lockhart et al.
2006, pp. 11-12). Of those 18 ferrets, 15 individuals, representing the
genetic equivalent of seven 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 ferrets, both captive and reintroduced, 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 Service and its
partners: The Service's National Black-footed Ferret Conservation
Center near Wellington, Colorado; the Cheyenne Mountain Zoological
Park, Colorado Springs, Colorado; the Louisville Zoological Garden,
Louisville, Kentucky; the Smithsonian Biology Conservation Institute,
Front Royal, 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).
We 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 species 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 Service solicits proposals for allocations of ferrets
to establish new 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 them to the highest priority sites first. The Service uses a
ranking procedure for allocating ferrets to reintroduction sites
(Jachowski and Lockhart 2009, pp. 59-60). 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
pre-conditioning of released ferrets, veterinary and husbandry support,
and research contributions. Members of the Black-footed Ferret Recovery
Implementation Team review the proposals and the Service's rankings of
the proposals (USFWS 2013a, pp. 87-88).
Each year, we allocate 150 to 220 ferrets for reintroduction into
the wild from the captive-breeding population; as of 2020 we had
allocated 5,544 ferrets rangewide (T. Tretten, USFWS, pers. comm. 12/
10/20). The number of ferrets we allocate to a site depends on site
size and prey density (USFWS 2016, 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. A release can involve a single ferret, but
for initial releases, in general, the
[[Page 33618]]
Service recommends releasing 20 to 30 individuals (P. Gober, USFWS,
pers. comm., March 4, 2018).
Rangewide Reintroduction Efforts to Date
The Service and partners have reintroduced ferrets at 30 sites in
the western U.S., Canada, and Mexico. In the United States, 12 ferret
reintroductions have occurred through experimental population
designations under section 10(j) of the ESA, 15 under SHA Enhancement
of Survival permits under section 10(a)(1)(A), and one under section 7
of the ESA (John Hughes, USFWS, pers. comm., January 28, 2018).
Additionally, there has been one reintroduction each in Chihuahua,
Mexico, and in Saskatchewan, Canada. As of December 9, 2019, 13 of 29
reintroduction sites were active, with a total estimated wild
population of about 325 individuals (USFWS 2020, p. 2), 254 of which
are on only 4 sites (USFWS 2019, Table 3). The Service recently
determined 2 reintroduction sites were in high condition (high
resiliency), 8 were in moderate condition (moderate resiliency), 4 were
in low condition (low resiliency), and 15 were extirpated, primarily
due to the plague (USFWS 2019, p. ii). We did not include the most
recent reintroduction site, the thirtieth, in our analysis. There are
240,173 ac (97,197 ha) of active prairie dog colonies on all sites
combined (USFWS 2019, p. 45).
Arizona-Specific Reintroduction Efforts to Date
The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) and Service have
carried out multiple ferret reintroductions and augmentations in
northern Arizona. In 1996, we reintroduced ferrets to the AVEPA in
cooperation with the Hualapai Tribe and the Navajo Nation (61 FR 11320,
March 20, 1996). AVEPA was the fifth ferret reintroduction site in the
U.S. and the first reintroduction site in a Gunnison's prairie dog
population (USFWS 2013a, Figure 1). In 2011, AGFD personnel observed
ferrets outside of the AVEPA, including on the adjacent Double O Ranch,
presumably dispersing from the AVEPA. In 2012, the number of breeding
adults in the AVEPA was 123, which exceeded the recommended State
guidelines for downlisting (USFWS 2013a, Table 2, Table 8). Since then,
AGFD has documented significantly fewer ferrets over several years
(AGFD 2016, p. 3; USFWS 2019, p. 45). We suspect that enzootic plague
may have caused this decline, but we do not know the long-term trend or
whether it is cyclical. Despite lower numbers, we consider the AVEPA to
be a persistent reintroduction site (P. Gober, USFWS, pers. comm, March
4, 2018).
In 2007, we established the Espee Ranch (a.k.a. Allotment)
reintroduction site under a section 10(a)(1)(A) research and recovery
permit. The status of the Espee population is currently unknown but
likely extirpated due to plague (AGFD, unpub. data).
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 SHA with the Service in
2014 and 2016, respectively. The figure at the end of this proposed
rule identifies these SHA lands in the proposed SWEPA. The AVEPA and
adjacent Double O Ranch contain the only known ferrets in the proposed
SWEPA, and we consider them to be one population and reintroduction
site.
Plague Mitigation Efforts
We continue making advances to address plague, even as it remains
the most significant challenge to ferret recovery. Rocke et al. (2006,
entire) developed a vaccine (F1-V) to prevent plague in ferrets, which
we now use operationally, vaccinating all ferrets provided for
reintroduction (Abbott and Rocke 2012, p. 54). Another vaccine under
development is the sylvatic plague vaccine (SPV), which we deliver via
treated baits to wild prairie dogs and may eventually protect ferrets
from habitat reduction due to plague. SPV has been effective in a
laboratory setting (Rocke et al. 2010, entire; Abbott and Rocke 2012,
pp. 54-55), and a recent broad-scale experiment to test efficacy in the
field found it prevented colony collapse where plague epizootics were
documented (Rocke et al. 2017, p. 443). In addition, we have managed
both enzootic and epizootic plague by application of the insecticide
deltamethrin, in powder form, into prairie dog burrows to control fleas
(Seery et al. 2003, p. 443; 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,
we continue working to improve the application and efficacy of the
insecticide deltamethrin and are researching other pesticides, such as
fipronil, a systemic pulicide (flea-specific insecticide) that is
incorporated into grain baits for prairie dog consumption (Poch[eacute]
et al. 2017, entire; Eads et al. 2019, entire).
Summary
Ferret recovery will be 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 undergoing extirpation concurrently as others
establish or reestablish after extirpation. The dynamic nature of
ferret recovery and conservation is illustrated by the Service's
experience with the AVEPA population, which at one point was self-
sustaining with ferrets dispersing outside the experimental population
area, but then experienced a significant population decline, presumably
due to plague, in 2013. Therefore, future ferret recovery is dependent
on establishment of multiple, spatially spread populations of
reintroduced ferrets in Arizona to contribute to species recovery,
which establishment of the SWEPA will help achieve.
Proposed Experimental Population
We propose to 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 based
the proposed 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 black-footed ferret in
Arizona. The only ferrets occurring within the proposed SWEPA are
within the AVEPA and adjacent areas and constitute a single population.
Therefore, the SWEPA, which will encompass the AVEPA, would be wholly
geographically separate from other populations. Currently, scattered
throughout the SWEPA there are approximately 358,000 ac (144,880 ha) of
prairie dog colonies (H. Hicks, AGFD, pers. comm., January 26, 2018;
Johnson et al., 2010, p. iv) inhabiting about 0.875 percent of the
area. Establishment of the SWEPA allows the Service to reintroduce
ferrets as a nonessential experimental population within the SWEPA area
that encompasses all potential ferret habitat within the boundaries of
the State of Arizona, including the Hopi Reservation, the Hualapai
Reservation, and the Navajo Nation in its entirety, which includes the
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
is Federal, private, State, and Tribal.
[[Page 33619]]
Potential Release Sites
The Service selects ferret reintroduction sites and conducts
reintroductions based on the Black-Footed Ferret Field Operations
Manual (Operations Manual) (USFWS 2016, entire), and other site-
specific plans and procedures. We propose all suitable habitat, meeting
the minimum acreage requirements to support a population of ferrets
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 SWEPA areas may become suitable in the future with
appropriate management, and ferrets may also disperse from successful
reintroduction sites as observed previously with the AVEPA 10(j). By
including all suitable habitat within the SWEPA, where ferrets may be
reintroduced or disperse as potential reintroduction sites, this
experimental population designation will extend regulatory flexibility
to any adjacent non-participating landowners to alleviate potential
concerns.
Currently, the Service anticipates reintroducing ferrets only into
a small portion of the SWEPA that meets criteria for reintroductions.
Six reintroduction areas have been identified by AGFD in their
Management Plan for the Black-footed Ferret in Arizona (Management
Plan) (AGFD 2016) based on prairie dog population estimates. Within the
Management Plan, the areas are organized into Active Management Areas
(MA), Suitable MAs, and Potential MAs. The AGFD currently manages
Active MAs for ferrets. Suitable MAs have sustained minimum prairie
dog-occupied acreage for 3 years and are ready to receive ferrets to
establish new populations (see ``Ferret Allocations'' below). Potential
MAs do not meet the minimum prairie dog-occupied acreage and need
management to improve prairie dog populations (e.g., translocations or
plague control) (AGFD 2106, pp. 8-10). Two sites within the SWEPA
currently are Active MAs: (1) AVEPA/Double O Ranch and (2) Espee Ranch,
respectively. There are four Potential MAs. These areas are located in:
(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).
Ferret Allocations
The Service allocates ferrets through an annual process (see
``Captive Breeding'' above). To qualify for the annual application and
ranking process, AGFD, Tribes, and/or other land managers develop
annual site-specific reintroduction plans and submit them to the
Service by mid-March for consideration. The site manager of the
proposed reintroduction site may be required to implement plague
management at the site (e.g., applying Delta Dust[supreg]
[deltamethrin]), prior to and after ferret reintroduction.
Typically, the Service only considers ferret allocations to
proposed reintroduction sites that contain enough prairie dog-occupied
habitat to support at least 30 breeding adult ferrets. For Gunnison's
prairie dogs this typically equates to 7,415 acres (3,000 ha), and for
black-tailed prairie dogs, typically 4,450 acres (1,800 ha); however,
these amounts vary depending on site conditions, such as the density of
prairie dogs (USFWS 2019, p. 10). In addition, AGFD requires a minimum
of 5,540 acres of Gunnison's prairie dog-occupied habitat for 3 years
to consider it a ferret reintroduction site on AGFD lands (AGFD 2016,
p. 15). For more information about allocations, see ``Possible Adverse
Effects on Wild and Captive-Breeding Populations'' below.
Release Procedures
The Service and ferret reintroduction managers follow the
Operations Manual, allowing for adjustments to the techniques according
to Service-approved management plans (e.g., AGFD 2016). All captive-
reared ferrets receive adequate preconditioning in outdoor pens at the
National Black-footed Ferret Conservation Center, or other Service-
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).
We vaccinate ferrets for canine distemper and plague, and implant
passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags for later identification,
prior to release. The Service makes arrangements with reintroduction
site managers for a release date from August to November, which is when
young-of-the-year ferrets disperse (USFWS 2016, p. 16). Typically, the
Service 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
Field managers use the Operations Manual and Arizona's Management
Plan to manage reintroduction sites on non-Tribal lands. Field managers
use the Operations Manual and any appropriate Tribal ferret management
plan and other site-specific plans and procedures for reintroductions
on Tribal lands. The field manager conducting the reintroduction
develops a site-specific management plan in conjunction with the
landowner or manager and the Service. For most Federal, State, and
private land sites, the field manager would be AGFD, and on Tribal
lands, the field manager would be the appropriate Tribal wildlife
authority. The Service is an active cooperator in the management of all
sites. All involved parties follow all applicable laws regulating the
protection of ferrets (see ``Management Restrictions, Protective
Measures, and Other Special Management'' below). AGFD's Management Plan
(AGFD 2016) outlines procedures for prairie dog and ferret population
monitoring; health and disease monitoring and management; prairie dog
translocation; seasonal hunting closures; and supplemental feeding;
captive-bred ferret releases and captive breeding; and predator
management. It also includes protocols for ferret monitoring, capture,
and handling (AGFD 2016, Appendices G and H).
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 Service must find by
regulation that such release will further the conservation of the
species. We explain our rationale for making our finding below.
Possible Adverse Effects on Wild and Captive-Breeding Populations
Wild Populations
We know of no naturally occurring wild populations of black-footed
ferrets throughout the historical range of the species (see
``Historical Range'' above). The Service 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 as
surplus all ferrets used to establish populations at reintroduction
sites that come from the captive-bred population or, occasionally, from
self-sustaining reintroduced populations. If animals are translocated
from other reintroduction
[[Page 33620]]
sites, only wild-born kits from self-sustaining reintroduced
populations are considered for translocation into new or non-self-
sustaining reintroduction sites (Lockhart, pers. comm., 2000-2007, as
cited in USFWS 2013a, p. 26, S. Larson, USFWS, pers. comm. April 22,
2008).
Captive-Breeding Population
In order to understand the effects of the proposed SWEPA on the
captive population of ferrets, it is important to understand how the
Service manages the black-footed ferret captive-breeding program (see
``Captive Breeding'' above).
In Arizona, we initially released 40 ferrets at AVEPA in 1996, 45
at Espee Ranch in 2007 and six at Double O Ranch in 2016. As of 2019 we
have released 466 ferrets at AVEPA, 99 at Espee, and 41 at Double O
(AGFD 2016, p. 5; J. Cordova, AGFD, pers. comm., October 10, 2019).
We would use ferrets from the captive-bred population or a self-
sustaining wild population to establish a population at reintroduction
sites in the proposed SWEPA. In conformance with the Service's
allocation process, we anticipate the release of 20 to 30 captive-
raised or wild-translocated ferrets at any reintroduction site during
the first year of the project. Subsequent annual supplemental releases
are expected until the population becomes self-sustaining.
We anticipate no adverse effects on existing populations of
ferrets, whether captive or wild, due to the removal of individuals
from those populations for the purpose of reintroducing and
establishing new populations in the proposed 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 allocation process, which prioritizes the limited
number of ferrets available for reintroduction.
Likelihood of Population Establishment and Survival
In this section we address the likelihood that populations
introduced into the proposed SWEPA will become established and survive
in the foreseeable future.
Addressing Causes of Extirpation Within the Experimental Population
Area
Investigating the causes for the extirpation of black-footed
ferrets is necessary to understand whether we are sufficiently
addressing threats to the species in the proposed 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 have not changed significantly 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 was
historically (USFWS 2013a, pp. 49-51). State and Federal agencies have
limited involvement in prairie dog control unless they pose a threat to
human safety or health (e.g., plague transmission in an urban setting).
Attitudes about control have also shifted to nonlethal methods.
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. EPA labeled Rozol[supreg] and Kaput-D[supreg] only for
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, poisoning may occur on State, Federal, and private
lands without a specific State permit. However, 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). Federal
agencies and the State closely regulate and manage poisoning, and the
extent of poisoning has been extremely limited in area compared to
historical poisoning, usually in developed areas and confined to
specific needs. For example, from 2013 through 2018, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service's (APHIS) Wildlife Services treated prairie
dogs with zinc phosphide at three private properties totaling 56 acres
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 was in or near current or
proposed reintroduction areas. Given the limited use of prairie dog
poisons in Arizona and the number of 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 mortality, and indirectly by decimating
prairie dogs, the ferret's prey. Management of plague has improved,
including dusting prairie dog burrows with insecticide to control fleas
and vaccinating ferrets, and the development of vaccines to prevent
large-scale plague outbreaks in prairie dogs is underway. In Colorado,
ferret survival significantly improved when researchers applied the
insecticide deltamethrin as a prophylactic treatment to control fleas
in prairie dog burrows (Seery et al. 2003, p. 443; Seery 2006, entire).
Researchers are currently investigating the potential of vaccinating
wild prairie dogs for plague via oral bait. This has the potential to
limit plague cycles more effectively and economically than direct
vaccination of ferrets, though we may need to employ both in some
cases. Based on our experiences at various reintroduction sites, we
think we can manage the threat from plague by monitoring, dusting,
vaccinating, and maintaining more,
[[Page 33621]]
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 we develop them (AGFD 2016, p. 19,
appendices E and F). In addition, AGFD, the Service, and the U.S.
Geological Survey recently began planning an intensive plague study for
the AVEPA to determine whether plague is present at an enzootic level
that current plague surveillance is not detecting (Rachel Williams,
USFWS, pers. comm., October 16, 2019). Plague will be an ongoing
challenge to ferret recovery, but with current management tools,
promising new treatments, and the benefit of being able to establish
widely spaced populations across the SWEPA, we will be able to manage
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 (USFWS 2019, p. 56). In Arizona, agricultural development
currently covers about 700,000 to 1.3 million ac (283,000 to 526,000
ha) or about one to two percent of the landscape (U of A Cooperative
Extension 2010; American Farmland Trust 2020) predominantly in central
and southern Arizona, outside 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, is less than
one percent of the range of the Gunnison's prairie dog (Seglund 2006,
p. 15). There are about 26 million acres of agricultural activity in
Arizona in the form of pastures and rangeland for livestock grazing
(USDA 2019; U of A 2010). These non-cultivated agricultural lands may
represent habitat for the prairie dog and ferret in the State (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 2013a, p. 20).
Reintroduction Expertise
The Service and its partners have considerable experience
establishing reintroduced black-footed ferret populations. Since 1991,
we have initiated 30 ferret reintroduction projects, including 2 in
Arizona (USFWS 2019, Table 3). While, these projects have had varying
degrees of success, they have all contributed to our understanding of
the species' needs and effective management toward establishing
reintroduced populations. The Service 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., SPV), update strategies and protocols, and
identify new reintroduction sites, to progress towards recovery (AGFD
2016, p. 19).
Since reintroductions began, we have developed and refined
techniques in several areas. These include management and oversight of
the captive-breeding program, veterinary care and animal husbandry
(USFWS 2016, entire), advances in the preconditioning program (Biggins
et al. 1998, entire; USFWS 2016, 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 SPV use
in concert with vigilant plague epizootic monitoring may be the most
effective way to reduce the range-wide effects of plague (Abbott et al.
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),
and we need considerable management inputs to maintain both the captive
and reintroduced populations (USFWS 2019, p. 65).
In Arizona specifically, we adapted our management and refined
techniques to enhance reintroduction efforts. For example, when ferrets
did not appear to be breeding at Aubrey Valley after 5 years of
releases, AGFD modified their release strategies to incorporate pen
breeding and springtime releases and documented wild-born kits the
following year (AGFD 2016, p. 5). The Service also continually adapts
and refines our plague monitoring and management. At Espee, for
example, we learned plague was present only after we released ferrets
despite AGFD's use of pre-release plague surveillance and management
protocols. Subsequently, AGFD incorporated the latest disease
monitoring protocols and adaptive management into its Management Plan
(AGFD 2016, p. 19, appendices E and F). In addition, at Espee Ranch,
AGFD is participating in trials of the experimental SPV, the results of
which will contribute to both the national effort to deploy SPV in the
field as well as our understanding of local plague conditions. Given
the Service's 30 years of experience with reintroducing ferrets across
their historical range and our 25 years in Arizona, development and
refinement of management and reintroduction techniques, and ongoing
adaptive management, 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 of occupied habitat
since 1961 (Seglund 2006, p. 16). Outside of Navajo and Hopi land,
Arizona currently has more than 108,000 ac (43,707 ha) of occupied
prairie dog habitat (H. Hicks, AGFD, 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 active prairie dog colonies (Johnson et al.,
2010, p. iv). With purposeful management, this amount and distribution
of prairie dog occupied habitat would be able to support multiple
ferret reintroduction sites.
In addition to the statewide amount of habitat, individual
reintroduction sites need to be of sufficient size to support
reintroduced ferrets. Two sites in Arizona currently meet or have met
the State Gunnison's prairie dog-occupied acreage criterion (5,540
acres) to reintroduce ferrets, the AVEPA/Double O Ranch and Espee
Allotment (AGFD 2016, p. 6). AGFD classifies both as Active MAs, where
the State can release, manage, and monitor ferrets (AGFD 2016, p. 8).
In 2018, the AVEPA/Double O Ranch contained about 65,500 ac (26,500 ha)
of active prairie dog colonies and 264,000 ac (106,850 ha) of potential
acreage (USFWS 2019, Table 3). This is enough acreage for Arizona to
meet the habitat portion of the State guidelines for delisting.
However, as explained below, we need multiple sites to guard against
stochastic or catastrophic events at any given site. In addition to the
two Active MAs, the AGFD has identified four Potential MAs. Arizona has
a plan to provide appropriate management for the ferret and its habitat
(AGFD 2016, entire). In addition, Arizona has a management plan to
conserve and maintain viable prairie dog populations and the ecosystems
they inhabit (Underwood
[[Page 33622]]
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.
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 prairie dogs 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 proposed SWEPA would allow us to meet
Arizona's ferret recovery goals and contribute to ferret recovery
across their range.
Summary
The Service and our partners have considerable experience
reintroducing ferrets range-wide and in Arizona. We have criteria for
selecting suitable reintroduction sites and developed protocols and
plans to manage those sites. In Arizona, we have the quantity, quality,
and distribution of habitat to support reintroductions. Additionally,
the causes of extirpation of ferrets in Arizona have been or are being
addressed; the wide-spread poisoning of prairie dogs is no longer
occurring, the Service 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 indicate that
additional reintroduction efforts in the SWEPA will be successful in
establishing and sustaining additional black-footed ferret populations,
required for species recovery.
Effects of the SWEPA on Recovery Efforts for the Species
The Service's recovery strategy for the black-footed ferret
requires establishment of numerous, spatially disperse 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), which establishment of the
proposed SWEPA will facilitate.
Participation by numerous partners across the ferret's former range
is critical to achieve the ferret's delisting criteria of multiple
spatially dispersed populations and maximize species redundancy,
representation, and resiliency. To achieve this strategy, for each
State in the historical range of the species, the Recovery Plan
suggests recovery guidelines 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). We intend the recovery guidelines by State to improve risk
management and ensure equity of recovery responsibilities across State
boundaries (USFWS 2013a, Table 8). Arizona has led ferret recovery
efforts, providing one of the early ferret reintroduction sites and the
first in a Gunnison's prairie dog population. Tribes have also played
an important role in ferret recovery in several areas of the species'
historical range by providing land for about 24 percent of the
reintroduction sites rangewide (USFWS 2013a, p. 44; USFWS 2019, Table
3).
The recovery plan's State guidelines for Arizona to contribute to
ferret downlisting and delisting criteria 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). 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 would contribute to
meeting this criterion.
Currently, there is only one population of ferrets in Arizona. As
of 2013, we considered the AVEPA 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 significantly, for which we
suspect that plague may be a cause. The proposed SWEPA will include all
potential ferret habitat in Arizona and on participating Tribal lands,
including Hualapai Tribal lands, a portion of Hopi Tribal lands, and
Navajo Nation lands in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah (see ``Proposed
Experimental Population'' above). Establishing additional populations
within the proposed SWEPA will reduce the vulnerability of extirpation
of the species. Additionally, AGFD's proposed widely spaced
reintroduction sites, 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 on the Navajo
Nation 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 guidelines for those States.
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. Establishing the proposed SWEPA will facilitate ferret
reintroduction across a large geographic area and will likely 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 black-footed ferret viability,
directly or indirectly, across its 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/
[[Page 33623]]
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 significant due to the small amount
of urban land, and the distance of urban areas from ferret MAs.
Similarly, the amount of oil and gas and other types of mineral
exploration and extraction development covers less than one percent of
the prairie dog range in Arizona (Underwood 2007, p. 10), and this
development is not associated with ferret MAs. Solar and wind energy
development has expanded in recent years but also comprises a very
small part of the landscape. In Arizona, all solar power facilities are
located in the southern and far western part of the State, outside the
range of Gunnison's prairie dog (U.S. Energy Information Administration
2020). To date, there have been a number of wind projects in the range
of Gunnison's prairie dog, but none are currently constructed within
ferret MAs, 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 26 million acres of rangeland, used predominantly
for grazing, in Arizona across Tribal, private, Federal, and State land
(USDA, 2019), and these lands represent potential habitat for both the
prairie dog and ferret (Ernst et al. 2006, p. 91). Overgrazing in arid
areas can alter ecosystem structure, which can affect prairie dogs by
decreasing availability of forage and causing an increase in woody
shrubs. Conversely, well-managed grazing can benefit prairie dog and
other rodent populations by creating increases in shortgrass species
(Norris 1950, p. 4; Smith 1958, p. 21; Koford 1958, pp. 66-67). Routine
livestock grazing and ranching activities are largely compatible with
maintaining occupied prairie dog habitat capable of supporting ferrets
(USFWS 2013a, p. 20).
Depending on intensity, recreational shooting of prairie dogs can
negatively affect local prairie dog populations through direct
mortality of individuals (Vosburgh and Irby 1998, entire; Keffer et al.
2001, entire; Knowles 2002, pp. 14-15), with the resulting decrease in
prey base negatively affecting 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 also
causes direct mortality to prairie dog-associated species such as
ferrets (Knowles and Vosburgh 2001, p. 14; Reese and Vosburgh 2006, pp.
120-121). Although incidental take of ferrets by prairie dog shooters
is not documented to date, direct ferret mortality 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. Luckily, we have not documented ferret
ingestion of lead to date (USFWS 2013a, p. 28). To address these
recreational shooting conservation issues, AGFD implements prairie dog
shooting closures on public lands from April 1 to June 30 to reduce
potential effects on prairie dog reproduction (USFWS 2019, p. 29). In
addition, in the event of prairie dog population declines in an active
ferret MA for any reason, the AGFD Commission may close prairie dog
hunting until the population recovers (AGFD 2016, p. 13).
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 2018 in Arizona,
APHIS treated prairie dogs with zinc phosphide at three private
properties, totaling 56 acres 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 all of the aforementioned
activities (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 Service originally established 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 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 reintroducing ferrets in the AVEPA over 25 years supports that
finding. Similarly, in the Service'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 similar future activities would be
incompatible with ferret recovery (80 FR 66821, October 30, 2015).
Based on our previous success with other experimental populations in
areas influenced by similar land use activities and actions, including
the AVEPA within the proposed SWEPA, we conclude that the effects of
Federal, State, 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
black-footed ferrets.
Experimental Population Regulation Requirements
Our regulations at 50 CFR 17.81(c) include a list of what we should
provide in regulations designating experimental populations under
section 10(j) of the ESA. We explain what our proposed 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.
[[Page 33624]]
Identifying the Location and Boundaries of the SWEPA
The 40,905,350-ac SWEPA is located in the three States of Arizona,
New Mexico, and Utah (see ``Proposed Experimental Population'' above),
and we delineate the boundaries below in the figure titled ``Southwest
Nonessential Experimental Population Area (SWEPA) for the black-footed
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 (AGFD 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). Within the SWEPA are the
sovereign Indian lands of the Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, and the
Navajo Nation. 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 proposed 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 proposed 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, would be within
the SWEPA. Although this proposed experimental population designation
can overlay SHAs, we contacted enrollees to assess interest in
replacing their certificates of inclusion with this 10(j) rule. If we
finalize this revised experimental population designation, we propose
phasing out the SHA certificates of inclusion following finalization of
the rule to allow for a transition for interested landowners. As a
result, the Service proposes to conduct all future reintroductions of
ferrets within the SWEPA under the proposed experimental population
designation regulation.
Number of Anticipated Ferret Releases
The number of ferrets we will release at a given reintroduction
site depends on multiple variables and can vary significantly between
sites. In the AVEPA, for example, AGFD released ferrets for 5 years
before 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, but then began to release
ferrets again after 4 years when the population appeared to be
faltering. In total, over a span of 24 years starting in 1996, the
Service released 466 ferrets in the AVEPA. In addition, we released 99
ferrets at Espee in a span of 3 years (2007 2009), and 41 at the Double
O Ranch over 4 years starting in 2016. The Service anticipates
initially releasing 20 to 30 ferrets at new reintroduction sites in the
SWEPA, with the number of ferrets released subsequently similar to
other 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) (Biggins et al. 1999, p. 125), and
wild-born ferrets more than 12 miles (20 km) (USFWS 2019, p. 7). AGFD
first documented ferrets outside the AVEPA in 2011, 15 years after
initial releases. In the years between the 2011 sightings and 2016,
when the Service released ferrets onto the Double O Ranch, there were
about 10 sightings outside of the AVEPA, with the farthest being about
15 miles outside the AVEPA. These sightings were by AGFD personnel
during surveys of selected areas and incidentally by area residents.
While dispersal of ferrets will depend on variables such as competition
within a given population and the availability of adjacent habitat, 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 proposed 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 would consider any black-footed ferret found
in the wild within the boundaries of the SWEPA part of the nonessential
experimental population.
Identified Reintroduction Sites
In the area of the proposed SWEPA under Arizona State jurisdiction,
the current goal is to reintroduce ferrets into suitable habitat within
three to five AGFD designated MAs (AGFD 2016, p. 6). We may consider
additional locations if landowners are willing to host ferrets where
suitable prairie dog occupied acreage exists, including on Tribal
lands. If the Navajo Nation were to request to reintroduce ferrets on
their lands, potential reintroduction sites could include the New
Mexico or Utah portions of the Navajo Nation.
Two sites in Arizona currently meet or have met the minimum
Gunnison's prairie dog-occupied acreage requirement for a population of
ferrets (AVEPA/Double O Ranch and Espee Ranch). Arizona's Federal and
State public lands and Tribal and private lands currently support a
large amount of grasslands with varying sizes of Gunnison's prairie dog
colonies (AGFD 2016, Figure 1). Within the ferret's historical range in
Arizona, the AGFD and Service have identified four additional potential
reintroduction sites or Potential MAs, introduced in the prior
``Proposed Experimental Population'' section and discussed further
below.
Existing Reintroduction Sites (Active MAs) Within the SWEPA
(1) AVEPA/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 Forest
Service (FS) managed lands south of the AVEPA. Together, these sites
contain 264,016 ac (106,846 ha) of grasslands. AGFD mapped an average
of 52,455 ac (21,228 ha) of Gunnison's prairie dog colonies in the
AVEPA between 2007 and 2016 (AGFD 2016, p. 8) (H. Hicks, AGFD, 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 (AGFD 2016, p. 7; H. Hicks, AGFD, 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, of which Gunnison's prairie dogs occupied 3,228 known ac
(1,306 ha) in 2014 (AGFD 2016, pp. 8 9). Plague is present on Espee
Ranch and is the suspected reason for the lack of ferret observations
despite multiple releases.
Future Potential Reintroduction Sites (Potential MAs) Within the SWEPA
The remaining four areas described below do not currently meet the
minimum necessary Gunnison's prairie
[[Page 33625]]
dog-occupied acreage to support ferrets. We would need active
management, such as translocations of prairie dogs, dusting for plague,
or administration of a plague vaccine (e.g., SPV), along with annual
monitoring of prairie dog populations, to potentially meet the minimum
acreage of occupied prairie dog habitat (AGFD 2016, p. 9).
(1) Kaibab National Forest, Williams/Tusayan Ranger Districts--
These areas cover over 613,000 ac (248,078 ha) of National Forest
System (NFS), military, 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 (AGFD 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 (AGFD 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 (AGFD 2016, p. 10).
(4) Lyman Lake--This area encompasses 316,958 ac (128,271 ha) of
private, State, AGFD, BLM, and NFS 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 (AGFD
2016, p. 10).
Tribal Lands
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
Service and AGFD in ferret recovery (Hopi Tribe 2017, entire; Navajo
Nation 2017, entire; Hualapai Tribe 2018, 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 includes parts of the States of
New Mexico and Utah, within which the Navajo Nation has sovereign
authority to manage wildlife.
We would need surveys of prairie dog populations on Tribal lands,
in addition to other information such as incidence of plague, prior to
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. This technique, using standard photo-interpretive
techniques to identify disturbance in suitable habitat on digital
orthophoto quarter quads, estimated the area of active Gunnison's
prairie dog towns on the Navajo Nation and Reservation of the Hopi
Tribe at 253,562 ac (102,615 ha) (Johnson et al. 2010, pp. iv, 18). As
mentioned previously, we originally included some lands of the Hualapai
Tribe when we designated the AVEPA, and the Tribe has worked
cooperatively with AGFD on ferret recovery. The Hopi Tribe, while
expressing interest in ferret recovery activities on some of their
lands (e.g., ranches and part of their Reservation) requested excluding
District 6 of their Reservation, pending review of this proposal by
members of the Hopi Villages within District 6. If the Hopi Tribe, in
consultation with the Hopi Villages, decides to include District 6
within the proposed SWEPA, then we will revise the final rule
accordingly.
Southeastern Arizona
Black-tailed prairie dog habitat exists in southeastern Arizona
(Cockrum 1960, p. 76). In 2008, the AGFD reintroduced this species into
a small portion of its historical range via translocations from wild
populations in New Mexico (Van Pelt 2009, p. 41, Figure 1). This new
population occurs on the BLM-administered Las Cienegas National
Conservation Area. Surveys in 2017 estimated a minimum of 135 black-
tailed prairie dogs occupied 19 ac (7.7 ha) (H. Hicks, AGFD, pers.
comm., October 3, 2017). 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).
Is the proposed experimental population essential or nonessential?
Essential experimental populations are those ``whose loss would be
likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival of the species
in the wild'' (50 CFR 17.80(b)). The Service defines ``survival'' as
the condition in which a species continues to exist in the future while
retaining the potential for recovery (USFWS and NMFS 1998). Inherent in
the definition of ``essential'' is the effect the potential loss of the
experimental population would have on the species (49 FR 33893, August
27, 1984).
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 implementing regulations
reflect 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 Service 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 reintroduced animals lost through
captive breeding (61 FR 11323, March 20, 1996).
The Service 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 we are
proposing to replace the AVEPA through incorporation into the proposed
SWEPA 10(j), 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 proposed SWEPA to further the
conservation of the species by contributing to the establishment of
multiple, widespread populations that will persist over time, which
contribute to achieving recovery goals for the species. However, we
consider the
[[Page 33626]]
SWEPA nonessential because there are now a number of reintroduced
ferret populations in the wild, across the range of the species, that
provide redundancy in case of local extirpations. There are 14 active
reintroduction sites across the historical range, with a minimum
average of 340 breeding adult ferrets, and 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).
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 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 is 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). Arizona's relative recommended contribution of
habitat to ferret delisting is about seven percent (USFWS 2013a, Table
8, p. 77).
The proposed SWEPA will further the recovery of the ferret by
opening all suitable habitat in the defined SWEPA area to the
establishment of multiple wild populations within the species'
historical range. However, we conclude loss of reintroduced ferrets
within the proposed area is not likely to appreciably reduce the
likelihood of survival of the species in the wild. This is due to
maintenance of the captive population, the number of reintroduction
sites and established populations in the wild rangewide, and the
expected incremental contribution of Arizona to the recovery of the
ferret given Arizona has seven percent of the total range of all three
prairie dog species. Therefore, as required by 50 CFR 17.81(c)(2), we
determine the proposed SWEPA experimental population is not essential
to the continued existence of the species in the wild, and we propose
to designate the SWEPA experimental population as nonessential.
Management Restrictions, Protective Measures, and Other Special
Management
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 suitable ferret
habitat within the designated SWEPA boundary. This approach would also
extend regulatory assurances to all areas where ferrets could
potentially establish, including the current properties covered by the
SHA. There would be 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 Service will undertake SWEPA reintroductions in cooperation
with AGFD, the Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, and other
landowners. 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., AGFD 2016).
As discussed in the ``Actions and Activities that May Affect the
Introduced Population'' section, Federal, State, Tribal, and private
actions will not pose a substantial threat to ferret establishment and
persistence in the proposed SWEPA. This is 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, 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 due to the low demand for poisoning and
regulatory restrictions. We also base this conclusion on our experience
with ferret reintroduction sites in Arizona over the past 25 years and
elsewhere throughout the species' range. The best available information
indicates that future range and ranching activities will remain
compatible with ferret recovery because they do not limit essential
behavior such as feeding, breeding, or sheltering. We base this
assessment on our ferret reintroduction efforts at the AVEPA and Espee
and Double O ranches, and other reintroduction sites throughout the
range of the species (80 FR 66826, October 30, 2015).
The AGFD, BLM, FS, 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 (43 U.S.C. 1701
et seq.) (FLPMA)--The BLM's mission is set forth under the FLPMA, which
mandates that 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 BLM to conserve listed species
and the ecosystems upon which they depend, ensure that all actions
authorized or carried out by 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 its lands. Therefore, we
anticipate appropriate management by the BLM on any 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 FS to strive to provide for a
diversity of plant and animal communities when managing NFS lands. The
FS identifies species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA,
including the ferret, as Category 1 species at risk based on rangewide
and national imperilment. The FS has experience managing the ferret on
one reintroduction site that occurs at least in part on NFS lands.
Therefore, we anticipate appropriate management by the FS on any future
ferret reintroduction sites that include NFS 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 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
[[Page 33627]]
future generations.'' NPS management policies require them to conserve
listed species and to prevent detrimental effects on these species. The
NPS has experience managing the ferret at two 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 black-footed 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.'' Pursuant to Resources
Committee Resolution RCF 014-91, they added the black-footed ferret to
the list.
(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.
(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 would continue to provide
protection to ferrets through section 10 by requiring certain
management entities to obtain an enhancement of survival permit from
the Service 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, 50 CFR
17.21, 50 CFR 17.31, and 50 CFR 17.84(g) cover AGFD'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 & Management Restrictions
Other protections and management restrictions and measures in the
proposed SWEPA would include:
(1) Incidental take: Experimental population special rules contain
specific prohibitions and exceptions regarding take of individual
animals. These special 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. If we adopt the nonessential experimental
population designation rule as proposed, it 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
were 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 Service 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 Service 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 AGFD includes the
ferret on the Species of Greatest Conservation Need Tier 1A (AGFD 2012,
p. 216). The list provides policy guidance on management priorities
only, not legal or regulatory protection. The State also implements
prairie dog shooting closures on public lands from April 1 to June 30.
(3) Coordination with landowners and land managers: We discussed
this proposed rule with potentially affected State and Federal
agencies, Tribes, local governments, private landowners, and other
stakeholders in the expected SWEPA. These agencies, landowners, and
land managers have indicated either support for, or no opposition to,
the proposed revision to the AVEPA. In advance of our developing the
original rule for AVEPA, the AGFD determined that designation of a
nonessential experimental population was necessary to achieve landowner
support to make a ferret reintroduction project viable (AGFD 2106, p.
2; 61 FR 11325, March 20, 1996). To receive the same public support for
their Management Plan, the AGFD proposed a statewide nonessential
experimental designation for the ferret (AGFD 2016, p. 2).
(5) Public awareness and cooperation: We will inform the public of
the importance of the SWEPA for the recovery of the ferret through this
proposed rule and associated public meetings, if requested. The
replacement of the AVEPA to establish the SWEPA under section 10(j) of
the ESA as a nonessential experimental population would increase
reintroduction opportunities and provide greater flexibility in the
management of the reintroduced ferret. The nonessential experimental
population designation will facilitate cooperation of the State,
Tribes, 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
proposed 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 for resources. We do not expect ferret reintroduction efforts
to result in adverse effects to these species.
[[Page 33628]]
Table 1--Federally Listed Species in the Proposed 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 Natural
Populations
There are no naturally occurring wild populations of black-footed
ferrets. The ferret is extirpated throughout its historical range,
including in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah, with the exception of
reintroduced populations (USFWS 2017, entire) (see ``Historical Range''
above). Therefore, we do not need any measures to isolate or contain
reintroduced ferrets in the SWEPA from natural populations.
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 radio-telemetry of some individuals
following AGFD's management plan (2016) or similar procedures
identified in a management plan developed for a specific reintroduction
site. Thereafter, partners 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 Service anticipates that AGFD 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 partners may translocate ferrets from
another viable reintroduction site. The Service 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 Service may also 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. Partners
will conduct population monitoring following any removals for
translocation under guidance of the Service-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 proposed SWEPA will further the
conservation of the species and that these reintroduced populations are
not essential to the continued existence of the species.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy, ``Notice of Interagency Cooperative
Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities,'' (59 FR
34270, July 1, 1994), we will seek the expert opinion of at least three
appropriate independent specialists regarding scientific data and
interpretations contained in this proposed revision. We will send
copies of this proposed revision to the peer reviewers immediately
following publication in the Federal Register. The purpose of such
review is to ensure we based our decisions on scientifically sound
data, assumptions, and analysis. Accordingly, the final decision may
differ from this proposal.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will
review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not
significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this proposed rule in a manner
consistent with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) as amended by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996; 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
Under these acts, 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 revision 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, lands of the
Navajo Nation in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah, and adjacent areas into
which ferrets may disperse, which over time could include significant
portions of the proposed 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 revision 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
[[Page 33629]]
population as proposed for listing, and do not require Federal action
agencies to consult with us on their activities. Section 7(a)(4)
requires Federal agencies to confer (rather than consult) with the
Service 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
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 would 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 implementing of these regulations to halt or
substantially modify proposed projects.
This revision would include the same authorization 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.
The proposed rule would not authorize intentional take for purposes
other than authorized data collection or recovery purposes. Intentional
take for research 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 would not affect
these land uses because there would 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 would only have to comply with sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(4) of
the ESA in these areas. Therefore, we do not expect this rulemaking to
have any significant adverse impacts to activities on private lands in
the proposed SWEPA.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with this act:
(1) This proposed revision will not ``significantly or uniquely''
affect small governments because they would not place additional
requirements on any city, county, or other local municipalities. The
Service determined and certifies under this act, that it will not
impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or
State governments or private entities. Therefore, this act does not
require a Small Government Agency Plan.
(2) This proposed 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 would not impose any additional management or
protection requirements on the States or other entities.
Takings (E.O. 12630)
In accordance with E.O. 12630, the proposed revision does not have
significant takings implications. It would allow 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 Federal, State, and local laws
and regulations. Therefore, the revision of the AVEPA to encompass a
larger area, the proposed SWEPA, would not conflict with existing or
proposed human activities or hinder public land use.
This order does not require a takings implication assessment
because this proposed 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 revision
would substantially advance a legitimate government interest
(conservation and recovery of a listed species) and would 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
proposed revision has significant federalism effects and determined we
do not need to conduct a federalism assessment. It would not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. In keeping
with Department of the Interior policy, we requested information from
and coordinated development of this proposed revision with the affected
resource agencies. Achieving the recovery goals for this species would
contribute to its eventual delisting 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
special 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 proposed 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 revision would not unduly burden the judicial
system and would 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
require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). OMB has
previously approved the information collection requirements associated
with reporting the taking of experimental populations (50 CFR 17.84)
and assigned control number 1018-0095 (expires 09/30/2023). We may not
collect, or sponsor, and may not require you to respond 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 NEPA, the Service has
analyzed the impact of this proposed rule. Based on this analysis and
any new information resulting from public comment on the proposed
action, we will determine if there are any significant impacts or
effects caused by this rule. In cooperation with the AGFD, the Hopi
Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, and the Navajo Nation, we have prepared a draft
environmental assessment on this proposed action and have made it
available for public inspection online at
[[Page 33630]]
<<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>> or <<a href="http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/">http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/</a>>. We solicit comments on the draft EA as set forth above in
DATES and 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 the proposed revision
on federally recognized Indian Tribes. We determined that the proposed
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 on non-Tribal lands adjacent to Tribal lands and they
disperse onto Tribal lands, the aforementioned authorities will provide
a more relaxed, flexible regulatory situation 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 do not expect this
proposed 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.
Clarity of This Regulation
E.O. 12866, E.O. 12988, and Presidential Memorandum of June 1,
1998, require the Service to write all actions in plain language. This
means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. Your comments about
this proposed revision to the 1996 final rule should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should identify the numbers of the sections
and paragraphs that are not clear, the sections or sentences that are
too long, or the sections where you feel lists and tables would be
useful.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is
available at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a> at Docket Number FWS-R2-ES-
2020-0123, or upon request from the Arizona Ecological Services Field
Office (see ADDRESSES).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are staff members of the
Service's Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES and
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Signing Authority
The Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approved this
document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document
to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as
an official document of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Martha
Williams, Principal Deputy Director Exercising the Delegated Authority
of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approved this document
on June 14, 2021, for publication.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245,
unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by revising the entries for ``Ferret, black-
footed'' under ``MAMMALS'' in the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife 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/
1967; 35 FR 8491,
6/2/1970.
Ferret, black-footed............. Mustela nigripes.... U.S.A. (parts of WY XN 56 FR 41473, 8/21/
(Shirley Basin/ 1991; 50 CFR
Medicine Bow 17.84(g).\10j\
Management Area);
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; 50 CFR
Badlands 17.84(g).\10j\
Reintroduction
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; 50 CFR
Montana 17.84(g).\10j\
Reintroduction
Area); see Sec.
17.84(g)(9)(iii)).
[[Page 33631]]
Ferret, black-footed............. Mustela nigripes.... U.S.A. (parts of AZ, XN 61 FR 11320, 3/20/
NM, UT (Southwest 1996;
Experimental [Federal Register
Population Area), CITATION OF FINAL
see Sec. RULE]; 50 CFR
17.84(g)(9)(iv)). 17.84(g).\10j\
Ferret, black-footed............. Mustela nigripes.... U.S.A. (parts of CO, XN 63 FR 52824, 10/1/
UT (Northwestern 1998; 50 CFR
Colorado/ 17.84(g).\10j\
Northeastern Utah
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; 50 CFR
Sioux Tribe 17.84(g).\10j\
Reintroduction
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; 50 CFR
Reservation 17.84(g).\10j\
Experimental
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; 50 CFR
Experimental 17.84(g).\10j\
Population Area),
see Sec.
17.84(g)(9)(viii)).
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Amend Sec. 17.84(g) by revising paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(6)(iv), and
(g)(9)(iv) to read as set forth below and removing the fourth map
(depicting the Aubrey Valley Experimental Population Area) and adding
in its place the map shown below:
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 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. 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.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 33632]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JN21.010
* * * * *
Madonna Baucum,
Regulations and Policy Chief, Division of Policy, Economics, Risk
Management, and Analytics, Joint Administrative Operations, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-12991 Filed 6-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on June 25, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.