Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 69045 

Figure 1 to § 803.1 

§ 803.3 [Amended] 

■ 3. Amend § 803.3 by: 

■ a. In paragraph (a), removing 

‘‘Director, Office of Administration’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘Chief Human 

Capital Officer’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (b), removing 

‘‘Director, Office of Administration’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘Chief Human 

Capital Officer’’. 

§ 803.5 [Amended] 

■ 4. Amend § 803.5, in paragraph (c), by 

removing ‘‘Director, Office of 

Administration’’ and ‘‘20594–003’’ and 

adding in their place ‘‘Chief Human 

Capital Officer’’ and ‘‘20594’’, 

respectively. 

William T. McMurry, Jr., 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2023–22193 Filed 10–4–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7533–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2020–0123; 

FXES11130200000–223–FF02ENEH00] 

RIN 1018–BD61 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Revision of a Nonessential 

Experimental Population of BlackFooted Ferrets (Mustela nigripes) in 

the Southwest 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS), are revising 

the regulations for the nonessential 

experimental population of the blackfooted ferret (Mustela nigripes; ferret) in 

Arizona. We established the Aubrey 

Valley Experimental Population Area 

(AVEPA) in 1996 in accordance with 

section 10(j) of the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). This 

rule allows the introduction of ferrets 

across a larger landscape as part of a 

nonessential experimental population 

and includes the AVEPA within a larger 

‘‘Southwest Experimental Population 

Area’’ (SWEPA), which includes parts of 

Arizona and identified contiguous 

Tribal lands in New Mexico and Utah. 

This revision provides a framework for 

establishing and managing reintroduced 

populations of ferrets that will allow 

greater management flexibility and 

increased landowner and manager 

cooperation. The best available data 

indicate that additional reintroductions 

of the ferret into more widely 

distributed habitat in the SWEPA is 

feasible and will promote the 

conservation of the species. 

DATES: This rule is effective November 

6, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule, an 

environmental assessment (EA), and a 

finding of no significant impact (FONSI) 

are available at the following website: 

https://www.regulations.gov in Docket 

No. FWS–R2–ES–2020–0123. Comments 

and materials received, as well as 

supporting documentation used in the 

preparation of this rule, will also be 

available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Arizona Ecological Services Field 

Office, 2500 South Pine Knoll Drive, 

Flagstaff, AZ 86001; telephone 928– 

556–2001. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Heather Whitlaw, Field Supervisor, 

Phone: 602–242–0210. Direct all 

questions or requests for additional 

information to: BLACK-FOOTED 

FERRET QUESTIONS, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological 

Services Office, 9828 North 31st 

Avenue, Suite C3, Phoenix, AZ 85051. 

Individuals in the United States who are 

deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have 

a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes; 

ferrets), medium-sized members of the 

weasel family (Mustelidae), are 

carnivorous, extremely specialized 

predators that are highly dependent on 

prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.) for food 

and shelter (Hillman 1968, p. 438; 

Sheets et al. 1972, entire; Campbell et al. 

1987, entire; Forrest et al. 1988, p. 261; 

Biggins 2006, p. 3). Because ferrets are 

dependent on prairie dogs in this way, 

occupied prairie dog habitat is 

considered synonymous with ferret 

habitat (USFWS 2019, pp. 5–6). The 

USFWS listed the ferret as an 

endangered species in 1967 under the 

Endangered Species Preservation Act of 

1966, which was the predecessor to the 

current Endangered Species Act (ESA; 

16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (32 FR 4001, 

March 11, 1967). With the passage of the 

ESA, we incorporated the ferret into the 

Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife under the ESA, found at 50 

CFR 17.11 (39 FR 1175, January 4, 

1974). 

The 1982 amendments to the ESA 

included the addition of section 10(j), 

which allows for the designation of 

reintroduced populations of listed 

species as ‘‘experimental populations.’’ 

Our implementing regulations for 

section 10(j) of the ESA are in 50 CFR 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1ER05OC23.064</GPH>
69046 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

17.81. These regulations state that the 

USFWS may designate as an 

experimental population a population of 

endangered or threatened species that 

we will release into habitat that is 

capable of supporting the experimental 

population outside the species’ current 

range. Hereafter in this document, we 

refer to a species-specific rule issued 

under section 10(j) of the ESA as a ‘‘10(j) 

rule.’’ 

This Rulemaking Action 

On June 25, 2021, we published a 

proposed rule to expand the existing 

Aubrey Valley Experimental Population 

Area (AVEPA) to encompass a larger 

area, the ‘‘Southwest Experimental 

Population Area’’ (SWEPA), which 

includes parts of Arizona and identified 

contiguous Tribal lands in New Mexico 

and Utah (86 FR 33613). The proposed 

rule provided a framework for 

establishing and managing reintroduced 

populations of ferrets in this area that 

will allow for greater management 

flexibility and increased landowner 

cooperation. The best available data 

indicate that additional reintroductions 

of the ferrets into more widely 

distributed habitat in the proposed 

SWEPA is feasible and will promote the 

conservation of the species. 

We sought comments on the proposed 

rule and on a draft environmental 

assessment of the potential 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

rule until August 24, 2021. We received 

20 comment submissions by that date. 

In accordance with our joint policy on 

peer review published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270, 

July 1, 1994), and our August 22, 2016, 

memorandum updating and clarifying 

the role of peer review, we also sought 

the expert opinion of six appropriate 

independent specialists regarding the 

scientific data and interpretations 

contained in the proposed rule. The 

purpose of such peer review is to ensure 

that we base our decisions on 

scientifically sound data, assumptions, 

and analyses. This final rule 

incorporates, and addresses comments 

received during the public comment 

and peer review processes. 

Under 50 CFR 17.81(b), before 

authorizing the release as an 

experimental population of any 

population of an endangered or 

threatened species, the USFWS must 

find by regulation that such release will 

further the conservation of the species. 

In making such a finding, the USFWS 

shall use the best scientific and 

commercial data available to consider: 

(1) Any possible adverse effects on 

extant populations of a species as a 

result of removal of individuals, eggs, or 

propagules for introduction elsewhere 

(see ‘‘Possible Adverse Effects on Wild 

and Captive-Breeding Populations’’ 

below); 

(2) The likelihood that any such 

experimental population will become 

established and survive in the 

foreseeable future (see ‘‘Likelihood of 

Population Establishment and Survival’’ 

below); 

(3) The relative effects that 

establishment of an experimental 

population will have on the recovery of 

the species (see ‘‘Effects of the SWEPA 

on Recovery Efforts for the Species’’ 

below); 

(4) The extent to which the 

introduced population may be affected 

by existing or anticipated Federal, 

Tribal, or State actions or private 

activities within or adjacent to the 

experimental population area (see 

‘‘Actions and Activities that May Affect 

the Introduced Population’’ below); and 

(5) When an experimental population 

is being established outside of its 

historical range, any possible adverse 

effects to the ecosystem that may result 

from the experimental population being 

established. 

Furthermore, under 50 CFR 17.81(c), 

any regulation designating experimental 

populations under section 10(j) of the 

ESA shall provide: 

(1) Appropriate means to identify the 

experimental population, including, but 

not limited to, its actual or proposed 

location, actual or anticipated 

migration, number of specimens 

released or to be released, and other 

criteria appropriate to identify the 

experimental population(s) (see 

‘‘Identifying the Location and 

Boundaries of the SWEPA’’ below); 

(2) A finding, based solely on the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available, and the supporting factual 

basis, on whether the experimental 

population is, or is not, essential to the 

continued existence of the species in the 

wild (see ‘‘Is the Experimental 

Population Essential or Nonessential?’’ 

below); 

(3) Management restrictions, 

protective measures, or other special 

management concerns of that 

population, which may include but are 

not limited to, measures to isolate, 

remove, and/or contain the 

experimental population designated in 

the regulation from nonexperimental 

populations (see ‘‘Management 

Restrictions, Protective Measures, and 

Other Special Management’’ below); 

and 

(4) A process for periodic review and 

evaluation of the success or failure of 

the release and the effect of the release 

on the conservation and recovery of the 

species (see ‘‘Review and Evaluation of 

the Success or Failure of the SWEPA’’ 

below). 

Under 50 CFR 17.81(e), the USFWS 

consults with appropriate State fish and 

wildlife agencies, affected Tribal 

governments, local governmental 

entities, affected Federal agencies, and 

affected private landowners in 

developing and implementing 

experimental population rules. To the 

maximum extent practicable, 10(j) rules 

represent an agreement between the 

USFWS, affected Tribal governments, 

State and Federal agencies, local 

governments, and persons holding any 

interest in land or water that may be 

affected by the establishment of an 

experimental population. 

Under 50 CFR 17.81(f), the Secretary 

may designate critical habitat as defined 

in section 3(5)(A) of the ESA for an 

essential experimental population. The 

Secretary will not designate critical 

habitat for nonessential populations. 

The term essential experimental 

population means an experimental 

population the loss of which would be 

likely to appreciably reduce the 

likelihood of the survival of the species 

in the wild. We classify all other 

experimental populations as 

nonessential (50 CFR 17.80). 

Under 50 CFR 17.82, we treat any 

population determined by the Secretary 

to be an experimental population as if 

we had listed it as a threatened species 

for the purposes of establishing 

protective regulations with respect to 

that population. The protective 

regulations adopted for an experimental 

population will contain applicable 

prohibitions, as appropriate, and 

exceptions for that population, allowing 

us discretion in devising management 

programs to provide for the 

conservation of the species. 

Under 50 CFR 17.83(a), for the 

purposes of section 7 of the ESA, we 

treat nonessential experimental 

populations as threatened when located 

in a National Wildlife Refuge or unit of 

the National Park Service (NPS), and 

Federal agencies follow conservation 

and consultation requirements per 

paragraphs 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the 

ESA, respectively. We treat nonessential 

experimental populations outside of a 

National Wildlife Refuge or NPS unit as 

species proposed for listing, and Federal 

agencies follow the provisions of 

paragraphs 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(4) of the 

ESA. In these cases, nonessential 

experimental population designation 

provides additional flexibility, because 

it does not require Federal agencies to 

consult under section 7(a)(2). Instead, 

section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies 

to confer (not consult) with the USFWS 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 69047 

on actions that are likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of a species 

proposed to be listed. A conference 

results in conservation 

recommendations, which are 

discretionary. Because the nonessential 

experimental population is, by 

definition, not essential to the 

continued existence of the species in the 

wild, the effects of proposed actions on 

the population will generally not rise to 

the level of ‘‘jeopardy.’’ As a result, 

Federal agencies will likely never 

request a formal conference for actions 

that may affect ferrets established in the 

SWEPA. Nonetheless, some Federal 

agencies voluntarily confer with the 

USFWS on actions that may affect a 

species proposed for listing. 

Legal Status 

We listed the ferret as an endangered 

species in 1967 under the Endangered 

Species Preservation Act of 1966 (32 FR 

4001, March 11, 1967). We later codified 

this list in part 17 of title 50 in the U.S. 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (35 

FR 16047, October 13, 1970). With the 

passage of the ESA in 1973 (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.), we incorporated those 

species previously listed in the CFR into 

the Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants under the ESA, 

found at 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12 (39 FR 

1175, January 4, 1974). 

In 1996, we designated the population 

of ferrets established via reintroduction 

in Aubrey Valley as a nonessential 

experimental population (61 FR 11320, 

March 20, 1996). The AVEPA includes 

parts of Coconino, Mohave, and Yavapai 

Counties in northwestern Arizona. At 

the time of its designation, the AVEPA 

consisted of 22 percent State lands, 45 

percent lands of the Hualapai Tribal 

Nation, and 33 percent deeded lands 

owned by the Navajo Nation. 

We treated ferrets as an endangered 

species outside the AVEPA, and the 

provisions and exceptions of the 

experimental population designation 

did not apply. In 2013, the USFWS 

developed a rangewide programmatic 

Safe Harbor Agreement (SHA) to 

encourage non-Federal landowners to 

voluntarily undertake conservation 

activities on their properties to benefit 

the ferret (USFWS 2013b, entire) (see 

‘‘Historical Range’’ below). Through 

certificates of inclusion, we enrolled 

willing landowners in our SHA through 

enhancement of survival permits issued 

under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA. 

Through the SHA, incidental take of 

ferrets outside of the AVEPA by 

participating landowners and 

nonparticipating neighboring 

landowners was permissible. 

Under state law, general provisions of 

Arizona Revised Statutes, title 17, 

protect all of Arizona’s native wildlife, 

including federally listed threatened 

and endangered species. Under Navajo 

Nation law, it is unlawful for any person 

to take ferrets. All wildlife on the Hopi 

Reservation is the property of the Hopi 

Tribe, and Hopi Tribal law provides for 

take (see ‘‘Management Restrictions, 

Protective Measures, and Other Special 

Management’’ below, for more 

information on State and Tribal legal 

status). 

Biological Information 

Species Description 

The ferret is a medium-sized member 

of the weasel family (Mustelidae) 

weighing approximately 1.4 to 2.5 

pounds (645 to 1125 grams) and 

measuring approximately 19 to 24 

inches (480 to 600 millimeters) in total 

length. Its body color includes 

yellowish-buff, occasionally whitish, 

upper parts, and black feet, tail tip, and 

‘‘mask’’ across the eyes (Hillman and 

Clark 1980, p. 1; Anderson et al. 1986, 

pp. 15–16). 

Ecology/Habitat Use/Movement 

Ferrets are carnivorous, extremely 

specialized predators highly dependent 

on prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.) (Hillman 

1968, p. 438; Biggins 2006, p. 3). Ferrets 

prey predominantly on prairie dogs 

(Sheets et al. 1972, entire; Campbell et 

al. 1987, entire), occupy prairie dog 

burrows, and do not dig their own 

burrows (Forrest et al. 1988, p. 261). 

Ferrets select areas within prairie dog 

colonies that contain high burrow 

densities and thus high densities of 

prairie dogs (Biggins et al. 2006, p. 136; 

Eads et al. 2011, p. 763; Jachowski et al. 

2011a, pp. 221–223; Livieri and 

Anderson 2012, pp. 201–202). Given 

their obligate tie to prairie dogs, ferret 

populations associated with larger, 

highly connected prairie dog colonies 

are more likely to be resilient and less 

likely to be extirpated by stochastic 

events compared to those associated 

with smaller, isolated colonies (Miller et 

al. 1994, p. 678; Jachowski et al. 2011b, 

entire). Resiliency is the ability of 

populations to tolerate natural, annual 

variation in their environment and to 

recover from periodic or random 

disturbances (USFWS 2019, p. 2). Such 

stochastic events include epizootics, 

such as sylvatic plague (plague), and 

extreme weather or climate, including 

drought. 

The last naturally occurring wild 

ferret population, in Wyoming, averaged 

approximately 25 breeding adults 

throughout intensive demographic 

studies from 1982 to 1985 (USFWS 

2019, p. 10). Based on this and 

population modeling, the USFWS 

considers 30 breeding adults a 

minimum for a population of ferrets to 

be self-sustaining (USFWS 2013a, p. 70). 

Ferrets require large, contiguous prairie 

dog colonies to meet their individual 

needs, with colonies no more than 

approximately 4.35 miles (7 kilometers 

[km]) apart (Biggins et al. 1993, p. 78). 

A conservative estimate of habitat 

requirements to support one female 

ferret is 222 acres (ac) (90 hectares [ha]) 

of black-tailed prairie dog (C. 

ludovicianus) colonies, or 370 ac (150 

ha) of Gunnison’s prairie dog (C. 

gunnisoni) colonies (USFWS 2013a, p. 

73). Assuming a two-to-one female-tomale sex ratio and overlapping male and 

female home ranges (Biggins et al. 1993, 

p. 76), we estimate that a population of 

30 breeding adult ferrets may require 

4,450 ac (1,800 ha) of black-tailed 

prairie dog colonies, or approximately 

7,415 ac (3,001 ha) of Gunnison’s prairie 

dog colonies (USFWS 2013a, p. 74). 

Natal dispersal, defined as a 

permanent movement away from the 

birth area, occurs in the fall months 

among the young-of-the-year, although 

adults occasionally make permanent 

moves (Forrest et al. 1988, p. 268). 

Newly released captive-born ferrets 

have dispersed up to approximately 30 

miles (48 km) (Biggins et al. 1999, p. 

125), and wild-born ferrets more than 

approximately 12 miles (19 km) 

(USFWS 2019, p. 7). Males tend to move 

greater distances than females. 

Historical Range 

The black-footed ferret is the only 

ferret species native to the Americas 

(Anderson et al. 1986, p. 24). Before 

European settlement, ferret occurrence 

coincided with the ranges of three 

prairie dog species (black-tailed, whitetailed [C. leucurus], and Gunnison’s), 

which collectively covered about 100 

million ac (40.5 million ha) of Great 

Plains, mountain basins, and semi-arid 

grasslands extending from Canada to 

Mexico (Anderson et al. 1986, pp. 25– 

50; Biggins et al. 1997, p. 420). This 

amount of habitat could have supported 

500,000 to one million ferrets (Anderson 

et al. 1986, p. 58). We have records of 

ferret specimens from Arizona, 

Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, 

New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, 

South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and 

Wyoming in the United States and from 

Saskatchewan and Alberta in Canada 

(Anderson et al. 1986, pp. 25–50). 

Ferrets likely additionally occurred in 

Mexico, based on the proximity of a 

specimen to Mexico, fossil records, and 

prairie dog distribution (USFWS 2019, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
69048 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

p. 42). A rancher discovered the last 

wild population of ferrets (from which 

all existing ferrets descend) near 

Meeteetse, Wyoming, in 1981, after they 

were presumed extinct (Lockhart et al. 

2006, p. 8). By 1987, the USFWS and 

partners removed all known surviving 

wild ferrets (18 individuals) from this 

area to initiate a captive-breeding 

program following disease outbreaks 

(Lockhart et al. 2006, p. 8). Since then, 

no naturally occurring wild populations 

have been located, despite extensive 

and intensive rangewide searches; it is 

unlikely any undiscovered natural wild 

populations remain. For these reasons, 

the USFWS considers the ferret to be 

extant in reintroduced populations and 

extirpated throughout the rest of its 

historical range (USFWS 2017, p. 2). 

In the Southwest, in Arizona, 

Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah, 

ferrets occurred within the historical 

range of Gunnison’s prairie dogs 

(Hillman and Clark 1980, entire); and in 

New Mexico, Mexico, and likely 

southeastern Arizona they occurred 

within the historical range of blacktailed prairie dogs (Hillman and Clark 

1980, entire; Hoffmeister 1986, p. 194). 

In Arizona, historical ferret collections 

(1929–1931) come from three locations 

in Coconino County (Belitsky et al. 

1994, p. 29). In 1967, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Federal Animal Damage 

Control personnel (now known as 

Wildlife Services) reported seeing ferret 

sign while poisoning prairie dogs (pers. 

comm. 1993, as cited in Belitsky et al. 

1994, p. 2). Anderson et al. (1986, p. 25) 

speculated that prairie dog populations 

of sufficient size to support ferrets may 

have existed in northeastern Arizona on 

the Navajo Nation; however, the ferret 

currently is not present in that area 

(Navajo Nation 2020, n.p.). Prairie dogs 

currently occur in substantial numbers 

on Hopi (Johnson et al. 2010, entire) and 

Hualapai Tribal lands, the latter of 

which the AVEPA partially overlaps. 

Dramatic historical declines in prairie 

dogs, coupled with prevalence of plague 

throughout the ferret’s historical range, 

and the failure to locate new wild 

ferrets, suggests the species is extirpated 

in Arizona except where it has been 

reintroduced (USFWS 2017, p. 2). The 

date of historical ferret extirpation in 

the Southwest is unknown; in Arizona, 

we have no verified reports for ferrets 

from 1931 through 1995, after which we 

initiated reintroduction efforts in the 

AVEPA. We consider the historical 

range of the ferret in Arizona to coincide 

with the historical ranges of the 

Gunnison’s and black-tailed prairie 

dogs. 

Threats/Causes of Decline 

Ferret populations decreased 

historically for three main reasons. First, 

major conversion of native range to 

cropland, primarily in the eastern 

portion of the species’ range, began in 

the late 1800s. Second, widespread 

poisoning of prairie dogs to reduce 

perceived competition with domestic 

livestock for forage began in the early 

1900s. Third, in the 1930s, plague began 

to appreciably adversely affect both 

prairie dogs and ferrets (Eskey and Hass 

1940, p. 62). By the 1960s, prairie dog 

occupied habitat reached a low of about 

1.4 million ac (570,000 ha) in the United 

States (Bureau of Sport Fisheries and 

Wildlife 1961, n.p.). For these reasons, 

ferret numbers declined to the point of 

perceived extinction. These threats 

resulted in a substantial loss of prairie 

dogs, which led to an even greater 

decline in ferret populations due to the 

species’ dependence on prairie dog 

colonies (Lockhart et al. 2006, p. 7). 

Such population bottlenecks can result 

in loss of genetic diversity and fitness 

and can manifest following even a 

temporary loss of habitat (USFWS 

2013a, p. 23). 

In Arizona, the combined effects of 

prairie dog poisoning and plague 

decreased the area occupied by 

Gunnison’s prairie dogs from about 6.6 

million ac (2.7 million ha) historically 

to about 445,000 ac (180,000 ha) in 1961 

(Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 

1961, n.p.; Oakes 2000, pp. 169–171). 

Estimates of historical black-tailed 

prairie dog habitat in Arizona range 

from 650,000 ac (263,000 ha) to 

1,396,000 ac (565,000 ha) (Van Pelt 

1999, p. 1; Black-footed Ferret Recovery 

Foundation 1999, n.p.). Extirpation of 

black-tailed prairie dogs in Arizona 

probably occurred around 1960 (Van 

Pelt 1999, pp. 3–4). As with the 

rangewide effects, these prairie dog 

losses also resulted in the loss of ferrets, 

and by the 1960’s, ferrets were 

considered extirpated in Arizona 

(Lockhart et al. 2006, pp. 7–8). 

Cropland Conversion 

Major conversion of native range to 

cropland eliminated millions of acres of 

ferret habitat in the eastern portion of 

the ferret’s range, particularly blacktailed prairie dog colonies (USFWS 

2013a, p. 23). Land conversion caused 

far less physical loss of Gunnison’s 

prairie dog habitat, because outside of 

riparian corridors and proximate 

irrigated lands, much of the habitat 

occupied by this species is not suitable 

for crops (Lockhart et al., 2006, p. 7). 

Knowles (2002, p. 12) noted 

displacement of prairie dogs from the 

more productive valley bottomlands in 

Colorado and New Mexico, but not in 

Arizona. Instead of converting native 

rangeland to irrigated crop and pasture 

lands, land-use of the range in Arizona 

was and continues to consist primarily 

of cattle grazing, with relatively 

minimal crop development. Cropland 

conversion in Arizona, while affecting 

ferrets locally, was not a major cause of 

decline in the State. 

Prairie Dog Poisoning 

Poisoning was a major cause of the 

historical declines of prairie dogs and 

subsequently ferrets (Forrest et al. 1985, 

p. 3; Cully 1993, p. 38; Forrest and 

Luchsinger 2005, pp. 115–120). Similar 

to other threats limiting ferret recovery, 

poisoning affects ferrets through 

inadvertent secondary effects, poisoning 

caused by consumption of poisoned 

prairie dogs, or indirectly, through the 

loss of the prairie dog prey base. 

In Arizona, from 1916 to 1933, rodent 

control operations treated 4,365,749 ac 

(1,766,756 ha) of prairie dog colonies 

(Oakes 2000, p. 179). A 1961 Predator 

and Rodent Control Agency report 

showed a 92 percent decline in 

occupied prairie dog habitat in Arizona 

since 1921, with Gunnison’s prairie 

dogs occupying 445,370 ac (180,235 ha). 

Only 9,956 ac (4,029 ha) of prairie dog 

colonies in the 1961 surveys were 

located on non-Tribal lands. The 1961 

Predator and Rodent Control Agency 

report also documented the extirpation 

of black-tailed prairie dogs from 

Arizona. This historical prairie dog 

poisoning was a major cause of decline 

of ferrets in Arizona. 

Plague 

Sylvatic plague is the most significant 

challenge to ferret recovery (USFWS 

2019, p. 21), with the USFWS 

classifying it as an imminent threat of 

high magnitude (USFWS 2020, p. 5). 

Plague is an exotic disease, caused by 

the bacterium Yersinia pestis, 

transmitted by fleas, which steamships 

inadvertently introduced to North 

America in 1900. Because it was foreign 

and unknown to their immune systems, 

both prairie dogs and ferrets were and 

continue to be extremely susceptible to 

mortality from plague (Barnes 1993, 

entire; Cully 1993, entire; Gage and 

Kosoy 2006, entire). Plague can be 

present in a prairie dog colony in an 

epizootic (swift, large-scale die-offs) or 

enzootic (persistent, low level of 

mortality) state. Most of the information 

we have about the effects of plague is 

from epizootic events. Although its 

effects are not as dramatic as an 

epizootic outbreak, enzootic plague may 

result in negative growth rates for 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 69049 

prairie dog and ferret populations and 

hinder ferret recovery (USFWS 2013a, 

pp. 33, 100). Other factors that reduce 

prairie dog numbers and fitness (e.g., 

shooting, poisoning, and drought) 

increase the flea-to-individual host 

ratio, and thus may contribute to plague 

epizootic events (Biggins and Eads 2019, 

p. 7). 

The first confirmation of plague in 

Gunnison’s prairie dogs in Arizona 

occurred in 1932, but we have limited 

historical data on the extent of its effects 

(Wagner and Drickamer 2003, p. 5). In 

2003, Wagner et al. (2006, p. 337) 

reported that in the previous 7 to 15 

years, there had been a large reduction 

in the number of active Gunnison’s 

prairie dog colonies in Arizona, 

primarily due to outbreaks of plague, 

which they said was the dominant 

negative effect on Arizona prairie dog 

populations. Prairie dogs in northern 

Arizona will likely continue to 

experience effects from enzootic plague 

and epizootic plague outbreaks (Biggins 

and Eads 2019, pp. 6–8; Wagner et al. 

2006, p. 337). 

Other Impediments to Recovery 

To recover ferrets, purposeful 

management of prairie dog populations 

is needed to provide habitat of sufficient 

quality and in a stable spatial 

configuration suitable to support and 

maintain new populations of 

reintroduced ferrets. Unfortunately, 

current management efforts for the 

species are failing to meet these 

conservation objectives, rangewide 

(USFWS 2013a, pp. 46, 58, table 6; 

USFWS 2020 p. 5). The keys to 

correcting current management 

inadequacies are active plague 

management and ongoing widespread 

partner involvement (USFWS 2013a, pp. 

46–48) to facilitate establishment of new 

ferret reintroduction sites and 

appropriately manage the quality and 

configuration of ferret habitat and 

potential ferret habitat within the 

species’ range. 

In addition, consideration of other 

factors that may act alone or in concert 

with threats is necessary when planning 

and implementing recovery efforts. For 

example, canine distemper, a disease 

endemic to the United States, posed a 

challenge to early ferret reintroduction 

efforts (Wimsatt et al. 2006, pp. 249– 

250). Today, however, the use of 

commercial vaccines deployed in 

captive and wild ferret populations has 

minimized the threat of catastrophic 

population losses due to canine 

distemper (USFWS 2013a, pp. 29–30). 

As discussed in the Black-Footed Ferret 

Recovery Plan and Species Status 

Assessment Report (USFWS 2013a, pp. 

53–55; USFWS 2019, pp. 25, 68), we 

anticipate that climate change will alter 

and reduce prairie dog habitat and 

influence plague outbreaks. We also 

discuss prairie dog shooting and Federal 

and non-Federal actions and activities 

in ‘‘Actions and Activities that May 

Affect the Introduced Population’’ 

below. 

Recovery, Captive Breeding, and 

Reintroduction Efforts to Date 

Recovery Strategy and Criteria 

The goal of the Black-footed Ferret 

Recovery Plan (Recovery Plan) is to 

recover the ferret to the point at which 

it can be reclassified to threatened status 

(downlisted) and ultimately removed 

(delisted) from the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife (USFWS 

2013a, pp. 5, 59). The strategy of the 

Recovery Plan is to involve many 

partners across the historical range of 

the species in order to establish 

multiple, widely spaced populations, 

within the range of all three prairie dog 

species. Such distribution will 

safeguard the ferret, as a whole, from the 

widespread chronic effects of plague as 

well as other periodic or random 

disturbances that may result in the loss 

of a population in one or more given 

areas. Partner involvement is critical for 

the development of new reintroduction 

sites and their long-term management 

because not only the USFWS, but also 

our partners, have the authority to 

manage prairie dogs and prairie dog 

habitat on respective State, Tribal, 

Federal, or privately owned lands. 

Although ferret habitat is substantially 

decreased relative to historical times, if 

potential habitat is appropriately 

managed to support ferret 

reintroductions, a sufficient amount of 

habitat remains to support ferret 

recovery (USFWS 2013a, p. 5). The 

Recovery Plan provides objective, 

measurable criteria to achieve 

downlisting and delisting of the ferret. 

Recovery Plan downlisting and 

delisting criteria include managing a 

captive-breeding population of at least 

280 adults as a source population to 

establish and supplement free-ranging 

populations and repopulate sites in the 

event of local extirpations. Downlisting 

criteria include establishing at least 

1,500 free-ranging breeding adults in 10 

or more populations, in at least 6 of 12 

States in the species’ historical range, 

with no fewer than 30 breeding adult 

ferrets in any population, and at least 3 

populations in colonies of Gunnison’s 

and white-tailed prairie dogs. Delisting 

criteria include at least 3,000 freeranging breeding adults in 30 or more 

populations, in at least 9 of 12 States in 

the species’ historical range. There 

should be no fewer than 30 breeding 

adults in any population, and at least 10 

populations with 100 or more breeding 

adults, and at least 5 populations in 

Gunnison’s and white-tailed prairie dog 

colonies. We must meet these 

population objectives for at least 3 years 

prior to downlisting or delisting. 

Habitat-related recovery criteria include 

maintaining 247,000 ac (100,000 ha) of 

prairie dog colonies at reintroduction 

sites for downlisting, and 494,000 ac 

(200,000 ha) for delisting (USFWS 

2013a, pp. 61–62). 

Additionally, for each State in the 

historical range of the species, the 

Recovery Plan includes State-level 

recovery guidelines proportional to the 

amount of prairie dog habitat 

historically present to equitably help 

support and achieve the overall 

recovery strategy and criteria (USFWS 

2013a, p. 69). Guidelines for Arizona’s 

contribution to downlisting are 74 freeranging breeding adult ferrets on 17,000 

ac (6,880 ha) of Gunnison’s prairie dog 

occupied habitat; delisting guidelines 

are 148 breeding adults on 34,000 ac 

(13,760 ha) (USFWS 2013a, table 8). The 

guidelines for New Mexico and Utah are 

220 and 25 breeding adult ferrets for 

downlisting, respectively, and 440 and 

50 breeding adults for delisting; most of 

these individuals would occur in blacktailed or white-tailed prairie dog habitat. 

Captive Breeding 

The USFWS and partners established 

the ferret captive-breeding program from 

18 ferrets captured from the last known 

wild population at Meeteetse, Wyoming, 

from 1985 to 1987 (Lockhart et al. 2006, 

pp. 11–12). Of those 18 ferrets, 15 

individuals, representing the genetic 

equivalent of 7 distinct founders 

(original genetic contributor, or 

ancestor), produced a captive 

population that is the foundation of 

present recovery efforts (Garelle et al. 

2006, p. 4). All extant reintroduced 

ferrets descended from those seven 

founders. The purpose of the captivebreeding program is to maintain a 

secure and stable ferret population with 

maximum genetic diversity, to provide 

a sustainable source of ferrets for 

reintroduction to achieve recovery of 

the species (USFWS 2013a, pp. 6, 81). 

The captive-breeding population of 

ferrets is the primary repository of 

genetic diversity for the species. There 

are currently six captive-breeding 

facilities maintained by the USFWS and 

its partners: the USFWS National Blackfooted Ferret Conservation Center near 

Wellington, Colorado; the Cheyenne 

Mountain Zoological Park, Colorado 

Springs, Colorado; the Louisville 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
69050 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

Zoological Garden, Louisville, 

Kentucky; the Smithsonian’s National 

Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute, 

Virginia; the Phoenix Zoo, Phoenix, 

Arizona; and the Toronto Zoo, Toronto, 

Ontario, Canada. The combined 

population of all 6 facilities is currently 

about 300 ferrets (USFWS 2020, p. 2). 

The USFWS and our partners manage 

the demography and genetics of the 

captive population consistent with 

guidance from the Association of Zoos 

and Aquariums (AZA) Black-footed 

Ferret Species Survival Plan (SSP®). 

This includes maintaining a stable 

breeding population of at least 280 

animals with a high level of genetic 

diversity and providing a sustainable 

source of ferrets for reintroduction. The 

captive-breeding facilities produce 

about 250 juvenile ferrets annually and 

have produced about 9,300 ferrets in 

total (Graves et al. 2018, p. 3; Santymire 

and Graves 2020, p. 12). The 

distribution of ferrets across six 

widespread facilities protects the 

captive population from catastrophic 

events. Currently, we retain about 80 

juveniles annually in AZA SSP®

facilities for continued captive-breeding 

purposes. We consider the remaining 

juveniles genetically redundant and 

excess to the AZA SSP®, and available 

for reintroductions (USFWS 2013a, p. 

81). 

Each year the USFWS solicits 

proposals for allocations of ferrets to 

establish new reintroduction sites or 

augment existing sites, or for 

educational or scientific purposes (e.g., 

plague vaccine research). The limited 

number of ferrets available for release 

each year requires that we efficiently 

allocate ferrets to the highest priority 

sites first (see ‘‘Ferret Allocations’’ 

below for allocation and prioritization 

protocols). A ranking procedure 

developed by Jachowski and Lockhart 

(2009, pp. 59–60) with recent 

modifications to the factors evaluated 

and application of weighted values 

(Black-footed Ferret Recovery 

Implementation Team 2014, Table 1) is 

used by the USFWS to guide allocation 

of ferrets to reintroduction sites. 

Ranking criteria include project 

background and justification, involved 

agencies/parties, habitat conditions, 

ferret population information, predator 

management, disease monitoring and 

management, contingency plans, 

potential for preconditioning of released 

ferrets, veterinary and husbandry 

support, and research contributions. 

Members of the Black-footed Ferret 

Recovery Implementation Team review 

the proposals and the USFWS’s 

rankings of the proposals (USFWS 

2013a, pp. 87–88). 

Each year, the USFWS allocates 150 

to 220 ferrets for reintroduction into the 

wild from the captive-breeding 

population; from 1994 to August 2022, 

we allocated 5,533 ferrets for release 

rangewide (J. Hughes, USFWS, pers. 

comm., August 4, 2022). The number of 

ferrets we allocate to a site depends on 

site size and prey density (USFWS 

2016a, pp. 1, 21). It also depends on 

purpose and needs; for example, 

whether the purpose is to initiate 

establishment of a population or 

augment a site, which may entail 

multiple releases in a year. Although a 

release can involve a single ferret, for 

initial releases, the USFWS typically 

recommends releasing up to 20 to 30 

individuals (P. Gober, USFWS, pers. 

comm., March 4, 2018). 

Rangewide Reintroduction Efforts to 

Date 

To date, the USFWS and partners 

have reintroduced ferrets at 31 sites in 

the western United States, Canada, and 

Mexico. In the United States, we have 

conducted 11 ferret reintroductions 

through experimental population 

designations under section 10(j) of the 

ESA, 17 under section 10(a)(1)(A), and 

1 under section 7 of the ESA (J. Hughes, 

USFWS, pers. comm., December 13, 

2021). Additionally, there has been one 

reintroduction each in Chihuahua, 

Mexico, and Saskatchewan, Canada. In 

our Species Status Assessment Report 

for the Black-footed Ferret (Mustela 

nigripes) (USFWS 2019, table 11; SSA), 

we evaluated the current condition of 29 

reintroduction sites (2 sites were 

initiated after we began the SSA). We 

estimated a wild population of about 

340 individuals in those sites, of which 

254 occurred on 4 sites (USFWS 2019, 

table 3). The USFWS determined 2 of 

the reintroduction sites were in high 

condition (high resiliency) and 8 were 

in moderate condition (moderate 

resiliency) (USFWS 2019, table 11). We 

estimated 240,173 ac (97,197 ha) of 

occupied prairie dog habitat on all sites 

combined (USFWS 2019, p. 45). 

Currently, 18 sites are considered active; 

the other 13 sites are considered 

extirpated, primarily due to plague (J. 

Hughes, USFWS, pers. comm., 

December 13, 2021; USFWS 2019, p. 

43). 

Arizona-Specific Reintroduction Efforts 

to Date 

The USFWS and our partners have 

carried out multiple ferret 

reintroductions and augmentations in 

northern Arizona. In 1996, we 

reintroduced ferrets to the AVEPA in 

cooperation with the Arizona Game and 

Fish Department (AZGFD), the Hualapai 

Tribe, and the Navajo Nation (61 FR 

11320, March 20, 1996). The AVEPA 

was the fifth ferret reintroduction site in 

the United States and the first 

reintroduction site in a Gunnison’s 

prairie dog population (USFWS 2013a, 

figure 1). In 2012, ferrets were observed 

outside of the AVEPA, including on the 

adjacent Double O Ranch, presumably 

dispersing from the AVEPA. We now 

consider the AVEPA and the Double O 

Ranch one reintroduction site. In 2012, 

the number of breeding adults at the 

Aubrey Valley/Double O Ranch site was 

123. Both the number of ferrets at the 

site and the amount of occupied prairie 

dog habitat (about 65,500 ac [26,500 ha] 

in 2018) exceeded the numbers in the 

Recovery Plan recommended 

downlisting guidelines for Arizona 

(USFWS 2013a, table 2, table 8). Since 

then, substantially fewer ferrets have 

been documented over several years 

(AZGFD 2016, p. 3; USFWS 2019, p. 

45). The USFWS suspects that enzootic 

plague may have caused this decline; 

however, we do not know if the 

observed trend is cyclical, meaning 

plague reoccurs from time to time, or 

linear, meaning that plague is constant 

through time. Despite lower numbers, 

we consider the Aubrey Valley/Double 

O Ranch population to be persistent (J. 

Hughes, USFWS, pers. comm., 

December 13, 2021). 

In 2007, the USFWS established the 

Espee Ranch (a.k.a. Allotment) 

reintroduction site in Arizona under a 

section 10(a)(1)(A) research and 

recovery permit in cooperation with 

Babbitt Ranches, LLC, the U.S. 

Geological Survey, and AZGFD. The 

status of the Espee Ranch population is 

currently unknown but likely extirpated 

due to plague (AZGFD, unpub. data). 

The extirpation of the Espee Ranch 

population and the decline of the 

Aubrey Valley/Double O Ranch 

population emphasize the need for 

additional ferret reintroduction sites in 

Arizona to guard against stochastic or 

catastrophic events at any given site. 

The Babbitt Ranches, LLC, for the 

Espee Allotment (the existing Espee 

Ranch reintroduction site), and Seibert 

Land Company LLC, for the Double O 

Ranch, enrolled in the programmatic 

ferret SHA with the USFWS in 2014 and 

2016, respectively. The figure at the end 

of this rule identifies these SHA lands 

in the SWEPA. The Aubrey Valley/ 

Double O Ranch reintroduction site 

contains the only known ferrets 

currently occurring in the SWEPA. 

Plague Mitigation Efforts 

Researchers continue making 

advances to address plague, even as it 

remains the most substantial challenge 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 69051 

to ferret recovery. Rocke et al. (2006, 

entire) developed a vaccine (F1–V) to 

prevent plague in ferrets; all ferrets 

provided for reintroduction receive the 

vaccine (Abbott and Rocke 2012, p. 54). 

Another vaccine developed is the 

sylvatic plague vaccine (SPV), which is 

delivered via treated baits to wild 

prairie dogs. SPV has been effective in 

a laboratory setting (Rocke et al. 2010, 

entire; Abbott and Rocke 2012, pp. 54– 

55), and a broad-scale experiment to test 

efficacy in the field found it prevented 

prairie dog colony collapse where 

plague epizootics were documented 

(Rocke et al. 2017, p. 443). A recent 

study, however, found SPV applied in 

the field might not provide sufficient 

protection for prairie dog populations to 

support a ferret population (Matchett et 

al. 2021, entire). In addition to vaccines, 

the powder form of the insecticide 

deltamethrin is applied at prairie dog 

burrows to control fleas and manage 

both enzootic and epizootic plague 

(Seery et al. 2003, entire; Seery 2006, 

entire; Matchett et al. 2010, pp. 31–33; 

USFWS 2013a, p. 101). However, the 

application of insecticidal dust is costly 

and labor-intensive, and there are 

concerns about the development of 

deltamethrin resistance in fleas. 

Therefore, the USFWS continues to 

work with our partners to improve the 

application and efficacy of the 

insecticide deltamethrin and to research 

other pesticides, such as fipronil, a 

systemic pulicide (insecticide effective 

on fleas) that is incorporated into grain 

baits for prairie dog consumption 

(Poche ́ et al. 2017, entire; Eads et al. 

2019, entire; Eads et al. 2021, entire). 

Summary 

Ferret recovery is a dynamic process, 

requiring long-term active management 

(e.g., plague control) and involving 

reintroduced populations rangewide in 

various stages of suitability and 

sustainability—with some populations 

undergoing extirpation concurrently as 

others are established or reestablished 

after extirpation. The AVEPA 

population illustrates the dynamic 

nature of ferret recovery and 

conservation, which at one point 

exhibited ferrets dispersing outside of 

the experimental population area but 

subsequently experienced a substantial 

population decline, presumably due to 

plague, in 2013. Therefore, ferret 

recovery is dependent on the 

establishment of additional, spatially 

distributed populations of reintroduced 

ferrets in Arizona to contribute to 

species recovery, which establishment 

of the SWEPA will help to achieve. 

Experimental Population 

We revise and replace the existing 

nonessential experimental population 

designation for black-footed ferrets in 

Arizona (the AVEPA) with the SWEPA, 

under section 10(j) of the ESA. We base 

the boundaries of the 40,905,350-ac 

(16,554,170-ha) SWEPA on the 

historical range of Gunnison’s and 

black-tailed prairie dogs, which 

coincides with the presumed historical 

range of ferrets in Arizona. The only 

ferrets currently occurring within the 

SWEPA are within the AVEPA and 

adjacent areas and constitute a single 

population. Therefore, the SWEPA, 

which will encompass the AVEPA, will 

be wholly geographically separate from 

other populations (see ‘‘Actual or 

Anticipated Movements’’ below). 

Currently, scattered throughout the 

SWEPA there are approximately 

358,000 ac (144,880 ha) of prairie dog 

colonies (H. Hicks, AZGFD, pers. 

comm., January 26, 2018; Johnson et al., 

2010, p. iv) inhabiting about 0.875 

percent of the area. The SWEPA 

encompasses all potential ferret habitat 

within the boundaries of the State of 

Arizona, including the Hopi Reservation 

(excluding Hopi Villages within District 

6), the Hualapai Reservation, and the 

Navajo Nation in its entirety, which 

includes the Navajo Nation’s contiguous 

areas in New Mexico and Utah (see the 

figure entitled ‘‘Southwest Nonessential 

Experimental Population Area (SWEPA) 

for the black-footed ferret’’ below). Land 

ownership within the SWEPA includes 

Federal, private, State, and Tribal lands. 

Potential Release Sites 

We consider all potential habitat 

within the SWEPA as possible 

experimental population reintroduction 

locations, as we currently lack 

information about the distribution of 

habitat to appropriately identify all 

prospective reintroduction sites. Some 

portions of the SWEPA may become 

suitable for ferrets in the future with 

appropriate management, and ferrets 

may disperse from successful 

reintroduction sites as observed 

previously with the AVEPA. By 

including all potential habitat within 

the SWEPA where ferrets may be 

reintroduced or may disperse, this 

experimental population designation 

will extend regulatory flexibility across 

all areas in which ferrets might occur. 

Because potential ferret habitat is, by 

definition, not yet suitable for ferrets, 

and the USFWS is not solely 

responsible for the management of 

wildlife outside of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, we rely on partnerships 

with landowners or those responsible 

for wildlife management on their 

respective lands or based on their legal 

authorities to contribute to conservation 

necessary for ferret reintroduction and 

recovery. As the primary management 

agency for wildlife in Arizona, 

excluding Tribal lands, AZGFD’s efforts 

and commitment to prairie dog 

conservation and management are key 

in identifying potential ferret 

reintroduction sites in Arizona. AZGFD 

developed an Interagency Management 

Plan for Gunnison’s Prairie Dogs in 

Arizona, with the purpose of identifying 

and implementing management 

strategies to conserve Gunnison’s prairie 

dogs (Underwood 2007, p. 24), and a 

Management Plan for the Black-footed 

Ferret in Arizona (AZGFD 2016, entire; 

Management Plan) to further their 

commitment to meeting the USFWS 

Recovery Plan guidelines for Arizona 

(USFWS 2013a, table 2, table 8). The 

USFWS reviewed and commented on 

the AZGFD Management Plan, ensuring 

that it complements the USFWS Blackfooted Ferret Recovery Plan by 

incorporating current research and 

techniques that the USFWS uses to 

guide ferret recovery rangewide. 

Within the SWEPA, the USFWS 

anticipates the need for at least five 

ferret reintroduction sites to buffer 

against plague or other stochastic or 

catastrophic events and to reliably meet 

Recovery Plan guidelines for Arizona in 

support of the rangewide recovery 

criteria (USFWS 2022a, n.p.). Currently 

six areas are considered to be 

established or potential reintroduction 

sites. The active Aubrey Valley/Double 

O Ranch and inactive Espee Ranch, 

which is being actively managed for 

prairie dogs, are established 

reintroduction sites in which future 

releases may occur. Four potential 

reintroduction sites have also been 

identified (see AZGFD 2016 pp. 8–10) 

and occur on: (1) Kaibab National 

Forest, Williams/Tusayan Ranger 

Districts; (2) CO Bar Ranch; (3) Petrified 

Forest National Park; and (4) Lyman 

Lake (see ‘‘Identifying the Location and 

Boundaries of the SWEPA’’ below for 

more information on these sites). These 

potential reintroduction sites currently 

lack sufficient prairie dog occupied 

acreage and require management to 

improve prairie dog populations before 

they can support ferrets. The USFWS is 

working with partners to encourage and 

implement purposeful prairie dog 

management and to identify additional 

potential reintroduction sites within the 

SWEPA. 

Ferret Allocations 

The USFWS approves sites for ferret 

reintroductions and allocates ferrets to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
69052 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

those sites through an annual process 

(see ‘‘Captive Breeding’’ above), giving 

greater consideration to sites that have 

plague management and monitoring 

plans (USFWS 2022b, p. 2). To qualify 

for the annual application and ranking 

process, States, Tribes, and/or other 

land managers develop annual sitespecific reintroduction plans and 

submit them to the USFWS by midMarch for consideration. Site-specific 

reintroduction plans may require 

implementation of plague management 

(e.g., applying Delta Dust®

[deltamethrin]) at the proposed 

reintroduction site, as determined by 

the USFWS and partners. 

The USFWS allocates ferrets to 

proposed reintroduction sites that 

contain sufficient prairie dog occupied 

habitat. The USFWS estimates sufficient 

prairie dog occupied habitat for 

Gunnison’s prairie dogs as typically 

equating to 7,415 ac (3,000 ha), and for 

black-tailed prairie dogs, typically 4,450 

ac (1,800 ha); (USFWS 2013a, pp. 73– 

74; USFWS 2019, p. 10). Our estimates, 

based in part on data from the Conata 

Basin/Badlands site in South Dakota, 

are likely on the high end of ferrets’ 

actual habitat needs (USFWS 2013a, pp. 

73–74). The actual amount of prairie 

dog occupied habitat needed varies 

across the ferret’s range, depending on 

site conditions such as the density of 

prairie dogs. In Arizona, available 

research and prairie dog density data 

from Aubrey Valley suggests that a 

minimum of 5,540 ac (2,242 ha) of 

Gunnison’s prairie dog occupied habitat 

is needed to consider a site potentially 

suitable for a ferret reintroduction 

(AZGFD 2016, pp. 6–7, 15). We may 

adjust our area estimates in the future, 

if further monitoring suggests that 

ferrets require a smaller area of habitat 

than our conservative estimates suggest 

(USFWS 2013a, p. 74). For more 

information about allocations, see 

‘‘Possible Adverse Effects on Wild and 

Captive-Breeding Populations’’ below. 

Release Procedures 

The USFWS and partners release 

ferrets according to the guidance on 

release techniques in the Black-footed 

Ferret Field Operations Manual 

(USFWS 2016a, entire; Operations 

Manual), allowing for adjustments to the 

techniques according to USFWSapproved management plans. All 

captive-reared ferrets receive adequate 

preconditioning in outdoor pens at the 

National Black-footed Ferret 

Conservation Center, or other USFWSapproved facility, prior to release. 

Ferrets exposed to preconditioning 

exhibit higher post-release survival rates 

than non-preconditioned ferrets (Biggins 

et al. 1998, pp. 651–652; Vargas et al. 

1998, p. 77). Captive ferrets receive 

vaccines for canine distemper and 

plague, and passive integrated 

transponder (PIT) tag implants for later 

identification, prior to release. Ferrets 

are released from August to November, 

which is when young-of-the-year ferrets 

disperse in the wild (USFWS 2016a, p. 

16). Typically, the USFWS transports 

the ferrets to the site and releases them 

directly into suitable habitat without 

protection from predators, known as a 

‘‘hard release.’’ 

Reintroduction Site Management 

The USFWS is involved in the 

planning and decision-making 

processes, implementation of 

reintroductions, and management and 

monitoring of all reintroduction sites. 

Our partners contribute their 

commitment, resources, and legal 

authorities as wildlife managers to the 

management of reintroduction sites. The 

USFWS will partner with AZGFD on 

Federal, State, and private land 

reintroduction sites within the SWEPA, 

or the appropriate Tribal wildlife 

authority on Tribal lands, for 

reintroduction site management. The 

USFWS currently partners with AZGFD 

on two established reintroduction sites 

in Arizona. AZGFD has demonstrated 

their commitment to the partnership 

and to ferret recovery through 26 years 

of experience with ferret reintroductions 

in Arizona, development of Arizonaspecific management plans for ferrets 

and prairie dogs (AZGFD 2016, entire; 

Underwood 2007, entire), and 

contribution of permanent and annual 

field staff to accomplish necessary field 

activities. 

On non-Tribal lands in Arizona, the 

USFWS Operations Manual and 

Arizona’s Management Plan guide the 

management of ferret reintroduction 

sites. On Tribal lands, the USFWS 

Operations Manual and any appropriate 

Tribal ferret management plan and other 

site-specific plans and procedures guide 

management of reintroduction sites. 

Partners, in conjunction with the 

USFWS and landowner or manager, 

develop a site-specific management 

plan, which includes monitoring and 

adaptive management. All involved 

parties follow all applicable laws 

regulating the protection of ferrets (see 

‘‘Management Restrictions, Protective 

Measures, and Other Special 

Management’’ below). 

How will the experimental population 

(SWEPA) further the conservation of 

the species? 

As cited above, under 50 CFR 

17.81(b), before authorizing the release 

as an experimental population, the 

USFWS must find by regulation that 

such release will further the 

conservation of the species. We explain 

our rationale for making our finding 

below. In making such a finding, we 

must consider effects on donor 

populations, the likelihood of 

establishment and survival of the 

experimental population, the effects that 

establishment of the experimental 

population will have on recovery of the 

species, and the extent to which the 

experimental population will be 

affected by Federal, State, or private 

activities. 

Possible Adverse Effects on Wild and 

Captive-Breeding Populations 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 17.81 

require that we consider any possible 

adverse effects on extant populations of 

a species as a result of removal of 

individuals, eggs, or propagules for 

introduction elsewhere. We know of no 

naturally occurring wild populations of 

ferrets throughout the historical range of 

the species (see ‘‘Historical Range’’ 

above). The USFWS considers the ferret 

extirpated in the wild except for 

reintroduced populations (i.e., all ferrets 

in the wild are the result of 

reintroductions). We consider all ferrets 

used to establish populations at 

reintroduction sites that come from the 

captive-bred population or, 

occasionally, from self-sustaining 

reintroduced populations as surplus, 

meaning they are genetically redundant 

within the source population and their 

removal from the source population will 

not affect the source population’s 

persistence. If animals are translocated 

from other reintroduction sites, only 

wild-born kits from self-sustaining 

reintroduced populations are 

considered for translocation into new or 

non-self-sustaining reintroduction sites 

(Lockhart, 2000–2007, as cited in 

USFWS 2013a, p. 27, P. Gober, USFWS, 

pers. comm., August 5, 2022). 

The USFWS uses ferrets from the 

captive-bred population or a selfsustaining wild population to establish 

populations at reintroduction sites. In 

conformance with the USFWS 

allocation process, after we approve a 

reintroduction site for ferret allocations, 

the USFWS recommends the release of 

up to 20 to 30 captive-raised or wildtranslocated ferrets during the first year 

of the reintroduction. Subsequent 

annual supplemental releases are 

expected until the population at a given 

reintroduction site becomes selfsustaining. 

We anticipate no adverse effects on 

existing populations of ferrets, whether 

captive or wild, due to the removal of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 69053 

individuals from those populations for 

the purpose of reintroducing and 

establishing new populations in the 

SWEPA. We base this conclusion on the 

purpose for and the management of the 

captive-bred population (see ‘‘Captive 

Breeding’’ above), the management of 

other sites to achieve and maintain selfsustaining status for recovery purposes, 

and the USFWS’s allocation process, 

which prioritizes reintroducing the 

limited number of surplus ferrets to 

sites with high chances of success. In 

summary, ferrets released at 

reintroduction sites will be genetically 

redundant individuals from populations 

that will remain self-sustaining despite 

the removal of those individuals. 

Likelihood of Population Establishment 

and Survival 

In our findings for designation of an 

experimental population, we must 

consider if the reintroduced population 

will become established and survive in 

the foreseeable future. The term 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ appears in the ESA 

in the statutory definition of 

‘‘threatened species.’’ However, the ESA 

does not define the term ‘‘foreseeable 

future.’’ Similarly, our implementing 

regulations governing the establishment 

of experimental populations under 

section 10(j) of the ESA use the term 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ (50 CFR 

17.81(b)(2)) but do not define the term. 

Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.11(d), regarding factors for listing, 

delisting, or reclassifying species, set 

forth a framework for evaluating the 

foreseeable future on a case-by-case 

basis. The term foreseeable future 

extends only so far into the future as we 

can reasonably determine that both the 

future threats and the species’ responses 

to those threats are likely. In other 

words, the foreseeable future is the 

period of time in which we can make 

reliable predictions as it relates to life 

history of the species and its response 

to threats. While we use the term 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ here in a different 

context (to determine the likelihood of 

experimental population establishment 

and to establish boundaries for 

identification of the experimental 

population), we apply a similar 

conceptual framework. Our analysis of 

the foreseeable future uses the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

and considers the timeframes applicable 

to the relevant effects of release and 

management of the species and to the 

species’ likely responses in view of its 

life-history characteristics. 

In considering the likelihood of 

establishment and survival of 

populations of ferrets reintroduced in 

the SWEPA, we consider whether 

causes of the species’ extirpation have 

been addressed. We also consider 

availability of suitable habitat and our 

previous experience with reintroduction 

efforts to inform our assessment of the 

likelihood of success of reintroductions 

in the SWEPA. 

Addressing Causes of Extirpation 

Within the Experimental Population 

Area 

Understanding the causes of the 

extirpation of ferret populations is 

necessary to sufficiently address threats 

to the species in the SWEPA so that 

reintroduction efforts are likely to be 

successful. Ferrets depend on prairie 

dog populations for food, shelter, and 

reproduction. Historical ferret declines 

resulted from: (1) widespread prairie 

dog poisoning; (2) adverse effects of 

plague on prairie dogs and ferrets; and 

(3) major conversion of habitat (see 

‘‘Threats/Causes of Decline’’ above). 

Widespread Poisoning of Prairie Dogs 

Poisoning of prairie dogs no longer 

occurs to the extent and intensity that 

it did historically; the current use of 

poison to control prairie dogs occurs in 

limited and selective ways. Although 

land-use and ownership patterns in 

Arizona have not changed much since 

past poisoning campaigns, poisoning 

became less common in the 1970s 

because prairie dog populations had 

been reduced by over 90 percent and 

use of rodenticides became more closely 

regulated than it had been historically 

(USFWS 2013a, pp. 49–51). State and 

Federal agencies have limited 

involvement in control of prairie dogs 

on private lands unless they pose a 

threat to human safety or health (e.g., 

plague transmission in an urban 

setting). Where State and Federal 

agencies have involvement, control 

methods have largely shifted to 

nonlethal techniques. For example, 

translocation as a method of prairie dog 

control is becoming more common, 

while lethal control seems to be 

declining (Seglund et al. 2006, p. 49). In 

addition, landowners and managers 

have expressed interest in managing 

prairie dogs specifically for ferret 

reintroductions, as evidenced by the 

number of current and potential 

reintroduction sites (see ‘‘Identified 

Reintroduction Sites’’ below). 

Landowners and managers have used 

zinc phosphide as a registered 

rodenticide for prairie dog control since 

the 1940s (Erickson and Urban 2004, p. 

12). In the early 2000s, manufacturers 

started promoting use of the 

anticoagulant rodenticides 

chlorophacinone (Rozol®) and 

diphacinone (Kaput®). These chemicals 

pose a much greater risk than zinc 

phosphide of secondary poisoning to 

nontarget wildlife that prey upon prairie 

dogs, such as ferrets (Erickson and 

Urban 2004, p. 85). In 2009, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

authorized use of Rozol® throughout 

much of black-tailed prairie dog range 

via a Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act section 3 registration. 

However, the EPA labeled Rozol® and 

Kaput-D® only for the control of blacktailed prairie dogs, not Gunnison’s, and 

the labels do not allow use in Arizona 

or the taking of ‘‘endangered species.’’ 

The EPA has also established additional 

restrictions through the Endangered 

Species Protection Bulletins that ban the 

use of Rozol® in ferret recovery sites. 

These bulletins are an extension of the 

pesticide label, and it is a violation of 

Federal and State law to use a pesticide 

in a manner inconsistent with the label. 

In Arizona, the use of poison to 

control prairie dogs may occur on State, 

Federal, and private lands with the 

appropriate permit. Products registered 

for prairie dog control by the EPA 

require a pesticide applicators license, 

which an applicator can obtain only 

through a formal process with the 

Arizona Department of Agriculture 

(Underwood 2007, pp. 23–24). The 

extent of poisoning in Arizona is 

extremely limited in area compared to 

historical poisoning. For example, from 

2013 through 2018, the Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service’s 

(APHIS) Wildlife Services treated 

prairie dogs with zinc phosphide at 

three private properties totaling 56 ac 

(23 ha) of colonies, for livestock and 

property protection on pasture and 

farmland near rural communities (C. 

Carrillo, pers. comm., APHIS, October 

23, 2019). None of these treatments 

occurred in or near current or proposed 

reintroduction areas. Given the limited 

use of prairie dog poisons in Arizona, 

and partnerships with landowners and 

managers willing to manage prairie dogs 

for ferrets, poisoning should not affect 

the establishment or success of 

reintroduced populations of ferrets. 

Adverse Effects of Plague 

As previously noted, plague can 

adversely affect ferrets directly via 

infection and subsequent fatality, and 

indirectly by decimating prairie dog 

populations, the ferret’s prey. 

Management to reduce plague has 

improved, including dusting prairie dog 

burrows with insecticide to control fleas 

and vaccinating ferrets. The 

development of fipronil baits to control 

fleas in prairie dogs is also underway. 

In Colorado, black-tailed prairie dog 

survival improved when researchers 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
69054 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

applied the insecticide deltamethrin as 

a prophylactic treatment to control fleas 

in prairie dog burrows (Seery et al. 

2003, p. 443; Seery 2006, entire). Based 

on management implementation at 

various reintroduction sites through the 

efforts of our partners, we expect the 

threat from plague to be managed by 

monitoring, dusting, vaccinating, and 

maintaining more and widely spaced 

reintroduction sites (USFWS 2013a, p. 

78). 

In Arizona, plague management 

includes best management practices and 

adaptive management to respond to 

changing conditions and incorporating 

new techniques as researchers develop 

them (AZGFD 2016, p. 19, appendices E 

and F). In addition, AZGFD, the 

USFWS, and the U.S. Geological Survey 

are conducting an intensive plague 

study in the AVEPA to determine 

whether plague is present at an enzootic 

level that current plague surveillance is 

not detecting (H. Hicks, AZGFD, pers. 

comm., February 5, 2022). Plague will 

be an ongoing challenge to ferret 

recovery, but with current management 

tools, promising new treatments, the 

commitments of our partners, and the 

benefit of being able to establish widely 

spaced populations across the SWEPA, 

we will manage this threat sufficiently 

to support the conservation of the ferret 

at a landscape level. 

Conversion of Habitat 

Currently, rangewide conversion of 

prairie dog habitat is not significant 

relative to historical levels, although it 

may affect some prairie dog populations 

locally (USFWS 2013a, pp. 24–25). We 

do not expect agricultural land 

conversion and urbanization to have a 

measurable effect on the current 

condition of ferrets at the species level, 

because sufficient rangeland, including 

federally managed land, persists 

rangewide (USFWS 2019, pp. 27, 35). In 

Arizona, cropland currently covers 

almost 1.3 million ac (526,000 ha), or 

about one to two percent of the 

landscape (USDA 2019, p. 7), 

predominantly in central and southern 

Arizona, outside of the range of the 

Gunnison’s prairie dog. Within the 

range of Gunnison’s prairie dog in 

Arizona, agricultural development 

affects 31,449 ac (12,727 ha), and urban 

development affects 78,673 ac (31,838 

ha), both of which, combined, constitute 

less than one percent of the range of the 

Gunnison’s prairie dog (Seglund 2006, 

p. 15). There are about 22 million ac 

(8,900,000 ha) of agricultural activity in 

Arizona in the form of pastures for 

livestock grazing (USDA 2019, p. 19). 

These non-cultivated agricultural lands 

may represent habitat for the prairie dog 

and ferret in Arizona (Ernst et al. 2006, 

p. 91). Routine livestock grazing and 

ranching activities are largely 

compatible with maintaining occupied 

prairie dog habitat capable of supporting 

ferrets (USFWS 2013b, p. 20) (see 

discussion about grazing in ‘‘Actions 

and Activities that May Affect the 

Introduced Population’’ below). 

Reintroduction Expertise 

The USFWS and its partners have 

considerable experience establishing 

reintroduced ferret populations. Since 

1991, we have initiated ferret 

reintroductions at 31 sites, including 2 

in Arizona (J. Hughes, USFWS, pers. 

comm., December 13, 2021). These sites 

have had varying degrees of success, but 

they have all contributed to our 

understanding of the species’ needs and 

effective management toward 

establishing reintroduced populations. 

The USFWS and our partners 

continually apply adaptive management 

principles through monitoring and 

research to ensure that the best available 

scientific information is used to develop 

new tools (e.g., fipronil baits), update 

strategies and protocols, and identify 

new reintroduction sites, to progress 

towards recovery (USFWS 2016a, entire; 

AZGFD 2016, p. 19). 

The USFWS and our partners have 

developed and refined reintroduction 

techniques. These include 

advancements and improvements in 

management and oversight of the 

captive-breeding program, veterinary 

care and animal husbandry (USFWS 

2016a, entire), the preconditioning 

program (Biggins et al. 1998, entire; 

USFWS 2016a, pp. 34–37), release 

techniques, and disease and plague 

management, including ferret 

vaccination programs at individual 

reintroduction sites. With respect to 

disease management, vector control (i.e., 

dusting and/or fipronil grain baits) and 

vaccination use in concert with vigilant 

plague epizootic monitoring may be the 

most effective way to reduce the 

rangewide effects of plague (Abbott and 

Rocke 2012, pp. 54–55; Tripp et al. 

2017, entire). However, plague remains 

an ongoing issue (Scott et al. 2010, 

entire; Rohlf et al. 2014, entire) 

requiring ongoing management to 

maintain both the captive and 

reintroduced populations (USFWS 

2019, p. 65). 

In Arizona, the USFWS and our 

partners refine management strategies 

and field techniques through adaptive 

management practices to enhance 

reintroduction efforts. For example, 

when ferrets did not appear to be 

breeding at Aubrey Valley after 5 years 

of releases, release strategies were 

modified to incorporate pen breeding 

and springtime releases, and wild-born 

kits were documented the following 

year (AZGFD 2016, p. 5). The USFWS 

also continually adapts and refines 

recommended plague monitoring and 

management. At Espee Ranch, for 

example, we learned that plague was 

present only after we released ferrets 

despite the use of pre-release plague 

surveillance and management protocols. 

Subsequently, AZGFD incorporated the 

latest disease monitoring protocols and 

adaptive management into its 

Management Plan (AZGFD 2016, p. 19, 

appendices E and F). In addition, at 

Espee Ranch, the USFWS and AZGFD 

participated in trials of the experimental 

SPV, the results of which have 

contributed to both the national effort to 

investigate SPV as a management tool as 

well as our understanding of local 

plague conditions. Given the USFWS’s 

31 years of experience reintroducing 

ferrets across their historical range, and 

the USFWS’s and AZGFD’s 26 years of 

experience in Arizona, developing and 

refining reintroduction and management 

techniques, we are likely to be 

successful in establishing and managing 

new populations of ferrets in the 

SWEPA. 

Habitat Suitability 

The likelihood of establishing ferret 

populations largely depends on 

adequate habitat. Although there was a 

significant decline of prairie dog 

occupied habitat on non-Tribal lands in 

Arizona historically, there has been a 

10-fold increase in occupied habitat 

since 1961 (Seglund 2006, p. 16). 

Outside of Navajo and Hopi lands, 

Arizona currently has more than 

108,000 ac (43,707 ha) of occupied 

prairie dog habitat (H. Hicks, AZGFD, 

pers. comm., January 26, 2018), a 

portion of which is located on lands of 

the Hualapai Tribe. Lands of the Navajo 

Nation and the Hopi Tribe collectively 

may contain about 250,000 ac (101,174 

ha) of occupied prairie dog habitat 

(Johnson et al., 2010, p. iv). With 

purposeful management, this amount 

and distribution of prairie dog occupied 

habitat would be capable of supporting 

multiple ferret reintroduction sites. 

In addition to the amount of habitat 

available in the SWEPA, individual 

reintroduction sites need to be of 

sufficient size to support reintroduced 

ferrets. Two sites in Arizona currently 

exceed or have exceeded the USFWS’s 

and AZGFD’s estimated Gunnison’s 

prairie dog occupied acreage (7,415 ac 

[3,000 ha] and 5,540 ac [2,242 ha], 

respectively) to reintroduce ferrets: 

Aubrey Valley/Double O Ranch and 

Espee Ranch (AZGFD 2016, p. 6). In 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 69055 

2018, Aubrey Valley/Double O Ranch 

contained about 65,500 ac (26,500 ha) of 

occupied prairie dog habitat and 

264,000 ac (106,850 ha) of potential 

acreage (USFWS 2019, table 3). In 2007, 

prior to ferret reintroduction, Espee 

Ranch contained approximately 29,000 

ac (11,736 ha) of occupied prairie dog 

habitat. Ferret monitoring and prairie 

dog management and monitoring 

continue to occur at Aubrey Valley/ 

Double O Ranch, and prairie dog 

management and monitoring continue 

to occur at Espee Ranch. In addition to 

these two established reintroduction 

sites, four potential reintroduction sites 

have been identified (AZGFD 2016, 

entire). AZGFD has a management plan 

to conserve and maintain viable prairie 

dog populations and the ecosystems 

they inhabit statewide (Underwood 

2007, entire). The acreage area criteria, 

along with implementation of 

management plans for viable prairie dog 

populations and ferrets and their 

habitats, will ensure that any sites 

selected for reintroduction have 

sufficient quantity and quality of habitat 

to support establishment of ferret 

populations. 

Additional occupied prairie dog 

habitat is necessary before ferrets are 

released at additional sites within the 

SWEPA. Ferret reintroduction sites are 

relatively large, and their management 

requires coordination with multiple 

partners. AZGFD and other partners are 

currently implementing activities to 

monitor and manage prairie dog habitat 

in potential reintroduction sites in 

support of future ferret reintroductions. 

This 10(j) rule will facilitate new 

partnerships with private landowners 

and encourage voluntary management of 

prairie dog habitat in anticipation of 

future ferret reintroductions by 

providing regulatory flexibility 

regarding incidental take associated 

with activities deemed compatible with 

ferret recovery (50 CFR 17.84(g)). The 

10(j) rule will also allow for regulatory 

consistency across different land 

management agencies or authorities. For 

these reasons, we consider the SWEPA 

an important step toward increasing the 

number of ferret reintroduction sites 

and our contribution toward ferret 

recovery. 

Increased Prey Stability 

Prairie dog populations in Arizona 

have increased from historical lows in 

the 1960’s, and the State is managing 

them for long-term viability. The 

potential for continued expansion of 

occupied prairie dog habitat across 

Arizona through prairie dog 

conservation and disease management, 

coupled with past success of ferret 

reintroductions in Arizona and across 

the species’ range, suggests that ferretoccupied areas can expand through 

additional reintroductions and 

dispersal. Reintroduction of ferrets in 

the larger SWEPA will contribute to 

achieving the USFWS ferret Recovery 

Plan guidelines for Arizona and 

contribute to ferret recovery across the 

species’ range (USFWS 2013a, p. 77). 

Summary 

The USFWS and our partners have 

considerable experience reintroducing 

ferrets rangewide and in Arizona. We 

have guidelines for selecting suitable 

reintroduction sites (USFWS 2013a, 

entire. pp. 73–74; USFWS 2016a, pp. 1– 

10; AZGFD 2016, p. 7) and developed 

protocols and management plans for 

those sites (USFWS 2016a, entire; 

AZGFD 2016, appendices). The SWEPA 

contains a sufficient quantity and 

distribution of habitat to support 

reintroductions at additional sites with 

continued and additional prairie dog 

management. Additionally, the causes 

of extirpation of ferrets in Arizona have 

been or are being addressed; the 

widespread poisoning of prairie dogs is 

no longer occurring, the USFWS and 

partners continue to develop plague 

management techniques, and the 

conversion of habitat into cropland is 

not occurring at a significant scale. 

Lastly, the demonstrated success of 

existing reintroduced ferret populations 

in Arizona indicates that additional 

reintroduction efforts in the SWEPA 

will be successful in establishing and 

sustaining additional ferret populations, 

required for species recovery. 

Effects of the SWEPA on Recovery 

Efforts for the Species 

The USFWS’s recovery strategy for 

the ferret range-wide requires 

establishment of numerous, spatially 

dispersed populations of ferrets within 

the range of all three prairie dog species 

to reduce the risk of stochastic events 

affecting multiple populations (e.g., 

plague), increase management options, 

and maintain genetic diversity (USFWS 

2013a, table 7) (see ‘‘Recovery, Captive 

Breeding and Reintroduction Efforts to 

Date’’ above). Delisting criteria for the 

species include 30 populations in 9 of 

12 States within the species’ historical 

range and distributed among the ranges 

of 3 prairie dog species (USFWS 2013a, 

p. 6). To implement this recovery 

strategy and achieve recovery criteria, 

additional successful reintroductions of 

ferrets are necessary (USFWS 2013a, p. 

7). We will accomplish this by 

encouraging new partnerships with 

landowners and managers and the 

voluntary purposeful prairie dog 

management needed to support ferret 

populations via regulatory flexibilities. 

Participation by numerous partners is 

critical to achieve the ferret’s delisting 

criteria of multiple spatially dispersed 

populations and support the species 

redundancy, representation, and 

resiliency necessary for recovery. To 

achieve this strategy, the Recovery Plan 

suggests recovery guidelines for each 

State within the historical range of the 

species for the number of ferrets and 

prairie dog habitat acreages 

(proportional to the historical amount of 

prairie dog habitat) to contribute to 

meeting recovery criteria (USFWS 

2013a, p. 69). These recovery guidelines 

by State are intended to improve risk 

management and ensure equity of 

recovery responsibilities across State 

boundaries (USFWS 2013a, table 8). The 

USFWS collaborated with AZGFD, the 

Navajo Nation, the Hualapai Tribe, and 

private landowners to initiate one of the 

early ferret reintroduction sites and the 

first in a Gunnison’s prairie dog 

population. 

The USFWS’s Recovery Plan 

downlisting and delisting criteria 

guidelines for Arizona are 74 freeranging breeding adult ferrets on 17,000 

ac (6,880 ha) of Gunnison’s prairie dog 

occupied habitat, and 148 breeding 

adults on 34,000 ac (13,760 ha), 

respectively. The guidelines for New 

Mexico and Utah are 220 and 25 

breeding adult ferrets for downlisting, 

respectively, and 440 and 50 breeding 

adults for delisting (USFWS 2013a, table 

8). Delisting criteria for the entire range 

include five ferret populations in 

colonies of both Gunnison’s and whitetailed prairie dogs (USFWS 2013a, p. 6). 

About 27 percent of the Gunnison’s 

prairie dog range occurs in Arizona 

(Seglund et al. 2006, p. 70), so 

establishing additional ferret 

populations in Gunnison’s prairie dog 

habitat within the SWEPA will 

contribute to meeting this criterion. 

Currently, there are two established 

ferret reintroduction sites in Arizona. As 

of 2013, we considered the Aubrey 

Valley/Double O Ranch site one of the 

four most successful reintroduced 

populations throughout the species’ 

range; it had a population that exceeded 

the recommended downlisting criteria 

for Arizona and we considered it selfsustaining (USFWS 2013a, pp. 5, 22, 

77). However, the population declined 

appreciably, for which we suspect that 

plague may be the cause. Although 

plague has likely extirpated ferrets at 

the other established reintroduction site, 

Espee Ranch, efforts to control plague 

and restore habitat for ferrets continue. 

The SWEPA will include all potential 

ferret habitat in Arizona and on 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
69056 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

participating Tribal lands, including 

Hualapai Tribal lands, a portion of Hopi 

Tribal lands, and Navajo Nation lands in 

Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah (see 

‘‘Experimental Population’’ above). 

Establishing additional populations 

within the SWEPA will reduce the 

vulnerability of extirpation of the 

species. Additionally, the widely 

distributed reintroduction sites 

identified, and the potential for other 

reintroduction sites (e.g., on the Navajo 

Nation) will reduce the effects of 

localized or stochastic events on overall 

recovery efforts, by reducing the 

likelihood that all individuals or all 

populations would be affected by the 

same event. Reintroducing viable ferret 

populations in the New Mexico and 

Utah portions of the Navajo Nation 

would not only aid in recovery of the 

species but also in meeting the Recovery 

Plan’s recovery guidelines for those 

States (USFWS 2013a, p. 77). 

The significant threat of plague to 

ferret populations emphasizes the need 

for several spatially dispersed 

reintroduction sites across the widest 

possible distribution of the species’ 

historical range (USFWS 2013a, p. 70), 

supporting the value of a statewide 

approach to reintroductions. 

Establishment of the SWEPA will 

facilitate ferret reintroductions across a 

large geographic area and will result in 

establishment of several populations 

that will persist over time, thus, 

contributing to recovery of the species. 

Actions and Activities That May Affect 

the Introduced Population 

Classes of Federal, State, Tribal, and 

private actions and activities that may 

currently affect ferret viability, directly 

or indirectly, across the species’ range 

are urbanization, energy development, 

agricultural land conversion, range 

management, and recreational shooting 

and poisoning of prairie dogs (USFWS 

2019, p. 13). Actions and activities that 

affect prairie dogs may also indirectly 

affect ferrets, given the ferret’s 

dependency on prairie dogs as a food 

source and their burrows for shelter. 

In Arizona, land ownership within 

the range of Gunnison’s prairie dog is 

approximately as follows: Tribal—49.05 

percent; private—21.62 percent; 

Federal—16.80 percent; State—12.53 

percent; city/county—0.01 percent 

(Seglund 2006, table 3). 

Although urbanization may adversely 

affect local prairie dog colonies, effects 

across the range of the species in 

Arizona are not substantial due to the 

small amount of urban land, and the 

rural settings of the ferret reintroduction 

sites. Similarly, oil and gas and other 

types of mineral exploration and 

extraction development cover less than 

one percent of the prairie dog range in 

Arizona (Underwood 2007, p. 10), and 

this development is not associated with 

established or potential ferret 

reintroduction sites. Solar and wind 

energy development has expanded in 

recent years but also comprises a very 

small part of the landscape. In Arizona, 

most solar power facilities are located in 

the southern and far western part of the 

State, outside of the range of Gunnison’s 

prairie dog (U.S. Energy Information 

Administration 2022, n.p.). To date, 

there have been a number of wind 

projects in the range of Gunnison’s 

prairie dog, but none currently 

constructed within established or 

potential reintroduction sites, and the 

existing infrastructure of wind projects 

occupies less than 0.005 percent of the 

ferret’s potential range (USFWS 2019, p. 

40). As discussed above, agricultural 

development affects less than one third 

of one percent of the range of 

Gunnison’s prairie dog (Seglund 2006, 

p. 16). We do not expect agricultural 

land conversion to have a measurable 

effect on the future condition of the 

ferret in Arizona based on a 20-year 

analysis (USFWS 2019, p. 56). 

There are about 22 million ac 

(8,900,000 ha) of rangeland, used 

predominantly for grazing, in Arizona 

across Tribal, private, Federal, and State 

lands (USDA 2019, p. 19), and these 

lands represent potential habitat for 

both the prairie dog and ferret (Ernst et 

al. 2006, p. 91). Livestock grazing 

became a prominent activity on the 

Arizona landscape in the 1880s and 

peaked in intensity around the late 

1890s and early 1900s (Milchunas 2006, 

p. 7). Grazing in arid and semiarid areas 

can alter species composition of plant 

communities, disrupt ecosystem 

functions, and alter ecosystem structure 

(Fleischner 1994, p. 631). Available 

literature reveals a wide range of 

potential effects of livestock grazing on 

ecosystems that vary with site-specific 

characteristics, including habitat type, 

grazing intensity, and history of grazing 

(Jones 2000, entire; Milchunas and 

Lauenroth 1993, entire; Milchunas 2006, 

entire). 

Few studies have examined the effects 

of grazing on prairie dogs. Cheng and 

Ritchie (2006, p. 550) observed lower 

growth rates in Utah prairie dogs (C. 

parvidens) in plots treated to simulate 

grazing in a sagebrush steppe habitat. 

Conversely, forage in simulated grazed 

plots had higher nutrition and greater 

digestibility, and the prairie dogs 

showed preference for those patches 

(Cheng and Ritchie 2006, pp. 549–550). 

Ponce-Guevara et al. (2016, pp. 5, 7) 

found that black-tailed prairie dog 

populations increased in areas of a 

desert grassland where cattle grazing 

reduced woody encroachment. The 

potential for competitive effects of large 

grazing herbivores on prairie dog 

populations likely depends on sitespecific factors, such as habitat 

productivity and herbivore densities 

(Cheng and Ritchie 2006, p. 554). 

Despite the potential for competition, 

prairie dogs remained prominent on 

rangelands in Arizona during the period 

of heaviest livestock grazing and did not 

begin declining until the time of 

systematic prairie dog eradication 

programs (Oakes 2000, pp. 169–171). 

This long history of prairie dog 

persistence with livestock grazing in 

Arizona and the persistence of ferrets at 

the AVEPA lead us to conclude that 

livestock grazing and ranching activities 

can be compatible with maintaining 

occupied prairie dog habitat capable of 

supporting ferrets. 

Depending on intensity, recreational 

shooting of prairie dogs can negatively 

affect local prairie dog populations 

through direct fatality of individuals 

(Vosburgh and Irby 1998, entire; Keffer 

et al. 2001, entire; Knowles 2002, pp. 

14–15). The resulting decrease in prey 

base negatively affects ferrets, and it is 

likely this activity could occur on ferret 

reintroduction sites (Reeve and 

Vosburgh 2006, entire). Recreational 

shooting reduces the number of prairie 

dogs in a colony, thereby decreasing 

prairie dog density (Knowles 1988, p. 

54), occupied acreage (Knowles and 

Vosburgh 2001, p. 12), and reproduction 

(Stockrahm and Seabloom 1979, entire). 

Recreational shooting could also cause 

direct fatality to prairie dog-associated 

species such as ferrets (Knowles and 

Vosburgh 2001, p. 14; Reeve and 

Vosburgh 2006, pp. 120–121). Although 

we do not have documentation of 

incidental take of ferrets by prairie dog 

shooters, direct ferret fatality due to 

accidental shooting is possible. Lastly, 

recreational shooting of prairie dogs also 

contributes to the environmental issue 

of lead accumulation in wildlife food 

chains (Knowles and Vosburgh 2001, p. 

15; Pauli and Buskirk 2007, entire). 

Killing large numbers of animals with 

lead bullets and not removing carcasses 

from the field may present potentially 

dangerous amounts of lead to 

scavengers and predators of prairie 

dogs, such as ferrets. We have not 

documented ferret ingestion of lead to 

date (USFWS 2013a, p. 28). To address 

these recreational shooting conservation 

issues, AZGFD implements prairie dog 

annual shooting closures on public 

lands from April 1 to June 30 to reduce 

potential effects on prairie dog 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 69057 

reproduction (USFWS 2019, p. 29). In 

addition, in the event of prairie dog 

population declines in an established 

reintroduction site for any reason, the 

AZGFD Commission may close prairie 

dog shooting until the population 

recovers (AZGFD 2016, p. 15). 

Poisoning of prairie dogs has the 

potential to occur within both 

Gunnison’s and black-tailed prairie dog 

habitat and can affect ferrets through 

loss of prey and inadvertent secondary 

poisoning for some poisons. In recent 

years, the extent of prairie dog 

poisoning has been closely regulated, 

limited in area, and confined to specific 

needs compared to historical poisoning. 

From 2013 through 2019 in Arizona, 

APHIS treated prairie dogs with zinc 

phosphide at three private properties, 

totaling 56 ac (23 ha) of colonies, for 

livestock and property protection on 

pasture and farmland near rural 

communities (C. Carrillo, pers. comm., 

APHIS, October 23, 2019). None of these 

treatments were in or near current or 

proposed ferret reintroduction areas. 

Certain activities associated with 

prairie dog recreational shooting and 

poisoning have the potential to result in 

incidental ferret fatality. For example, 

use and establishment of roads within 

prairie dog and ferret habitat may result 

in ferret road kills and increase human 

access for prairie dog shooting (Gordon 

et al. 2003, p. 12). However, we have no 

information to suggest that incidental 

fatalities have a significant effect on 

ferret population viability. 

When the USFWS established the 

AVEPA, we determined existing and 

foreseeable land use practices within 

the AVEPA to be compatible with 

sustaining ferret viability (61 FR 11320, 

March 20, 1996). These practices 

include grazing and related activities 

(including existing and foreseeable 

levels of prairie dog control), big game 

hunting, prairie dog shooting, and the 

trapping of furbearers and predators. 

Other land uses include transportation 

and rights-of-way (e.g., for utilities). Our 

success in reintroducing ferrets in the 

AVEPA over 26 years supports that 

finding. Similarly, in the USFWS’s 

establishment of the statewide 

nonessential experimental population of 

ferrets in Wyoming, we found that land 

use activities currently occurring across 

that State, primarily livestock grazing 

and associated ranch management 

practices, recreation, residential 

development, and mineral and energy 

development, are compatible with ferret 

recovery and that there is no 

information to suggest that foreseeable 

similar future activities would be 

incompatible with ferret recovery (80 FR 

66821, October 30, 2015). Based on 

previous successes with other 

experimental ferret populations in areas 

influenced by similar land use activities 

and actions, including the AVEPA 

within Arizona, we conclude that the 

effects of Federal, State, Tribal, and 

private actions and activities will not 

pose a substantial threat to ferret 

establishment and persistence within 

the SWEPA and that SWEPA 

establishment will benefit the 

conservation of ferrets. 

Experimental Population Regulation 

Requirements 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 17.81(c) 

include a list of what the USFWS 

provides in regulations designating 

experimental populations under section 

10(j) of the ESA. We explain what our 

regulations include and provide our 

rationale for those regulations below. 

Means To Identify the Experimental 

Population 

Our regulations require that we 

provide appropriate means to identify 

the experimental population, which 

may include geographic locations, 

number of individuals to be released, 

anticipated movements, and other 

information or criteria. 

Identifying the Location and Boundaries 

of the SWEPA 

The 40,905,350-ac SWEPA occurs in 

the State of Arizona and on sovereign 

lands of the Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, 

and the Navajo Nation, including 

Navajo Nation lands in New Mexico, 

and Utah (see ‘‘Experimental 

Population’’ above); we delineate the 

boundaries below in the figure titled 

‘‘Southwest Nonessential Experimental 

Population Area (SWEPA) for the 

ferret.’’ These boundaries are based on 

various grasslands and parts of biotic 

communities in which grasslands are 

interspersed, with which prairie dogs 

are associated, including Plains and 

Great Basin Grassland, Great Basin 

Conifer Woodland, Great Basin 

Desertscrub, and Petrane Montane 

Conifer Forest biotic communities 

(AZGFD 2016, pp. 8–10) (Brown et al. 

1979, entire), and represent a 184-fold 

increase in area from the AVEPA 

(USFWS 2021, p. 7, figure 2). State 

political subdivisions include portions 

of Apache, Cochise, Coconino, Gila, 

Graham, Mohave, Navajo, Pima, Pinal, 

Santa Cruz, and Yavapai Counties of 

Arizona; Cibola, McKinley, Rio Arriba, 

Sandoval, and San Juan Counties of 

New Mexico; and San Juan County, 

Utah. 

The SWEPA consists of two separate 

areas: (1) northeast and northcentral 

Arizona, the southeast corner of Utah, 

and northwest New Mexico on the 

Navajo Nation, and (2) southeastern 

Arizona. 

The SWEPA will encompass and 

replace the AVEPA. In addition, two 

areas enrolled in the programmatic SHA 

under certificates of inclusion, the 

Espee Allotment and Double O Ranch, 

are within the SWEPA. Although this 

experimental population designation 

can overlay SHAs, we contacted 

enrollees to assess interest in replacing 

their certificates of inclusion with the 

provisions of this 10(j) rule. We propose 

phasing out the SHA certificates of 

inclusion in the future for interested 

landowners. As a result, the USFWS 

would conduct future reintroductions of 

ferrets within the SWEPA under the 

experimental population designation 

regulation. 

Number of Anticipated Ferret Releases 

The number of ferrets released at a 

given reintroduction site depends on 

multiple variables and can vary 

extensively between sites. In the 

AVEPA, for example, the USFWS and 

AZGFD released 35 ferrets over 5 years 

without documenting wild 

reproduction, which is necessary for a 

site to become self-sustaining. We 

continued releasing ferrets until the 

population appeared to be selfsustaining. After 4 years, the population 

appeared to be faltering, and we 

resumed ferret releases. Over a span of 

11 years, from 1996 to 2006, we released 

354 ferrets at the AVEPA. After 2011, 

we released an additional 112 excess 

kits from breeding facilities into the 

AVEPA. We added 41 ferrets at the 

Double O Ranch over 4 years (2016– 

2019) for research purposes after ferrets 

from AVEPA naturally dispersed there. 

We released 99 ferrets at Espee Ranch 

over a span of 3 years (2007 to 2009). 

The USFWS recommends initially 

releasing up to 20 to 30 ferrets at new 

reintroduction sites in the SWEPA, with 

the total number of ferrets released 

across multiple years at new 

reintroduction sites likely similar to the 

established reintroduction sites in 

Arizona. 

Actual or Anticipated Movements 

Understanding ferret movement 

patterns and distances will ensure 

accurate identification of ferrets 

associated with the SWEPA. 

Researchers have documented newly 

released captive-born ferrets dispersing 

up to 30 miles (49 km) from the release 

site (Biggins et al. 1999, p. 125), and 

wild-born ferrets more than 12 miles (20 

km) (USFWS 2019, p. 7). AZGFD 

documented ferrets up to 15 miles 

outside the AVEPA starting in 2012, 16 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
69058 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

years after initial releases (J. Cordova, 

AZGFD, pers. comm., November 22, 

2022). 

While dispersal of ferrets depends on 

variables such as competition within a 

given population and the availability of 

adjacent habitat and prey, we would 

expect a pattern of ferret dispersal from 

new reintroduction sites in the SWEPA 

to be similar to those observed in the 

AVEPA. Outside of the SWEPA, the 

closest current reintroduced population 

of ferrets is Coyote Basin, Utah, which 

is about 200 mi (320 km) away, 

substantially greater than documented 

ferret dispersal distances. Therefore, we 

will consider any ferret found in the 

wild within the boundaries of the 

SWEPA to be part of the experimental 

population. 

Reintroduction Sites 

The USFWS recommends the 

establishment of at least five ferret 

reintroduction sites in the SWEPA to 

buffer against stochastic or catastrophic 

events and reliably meet Recovery Plan 

recovery guidelines (USFWS 2022a). 

Federal and State public lands in 

Arizona and Tribal and private lands 

currently support large expanses of 

grasslands with varying sizes of 

Gunnison’s prairie dog colonies 

(AZGFD 2016, figure 1). Reintroduction 

sites may include those discussed below 

or additional sites where there are 

willing landowners and managers, and 

suitable prairie dog habitat exists. 

Established Reintroduction Sites Within 

the SWEPA 

(1) Aubrey Valley/Double O Ranch— 

The AVEPA encompasses 221,894 ac 

(89,800 ha) of private, Tribal, State, and 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

managed lands and is located about 5 

miles northwest of Seligman in 

Coconino, Yavapai, and Mohave 

Counties. The adjacent Double O Ranch 

encompasses 236,792 ac (95,828 ha) of 

private, State, and USFS managed lands 

south of the AVEPA. Together, these 

sites contain 264,016 ac (106,846 ha) of 

grasslands. AZGFD mapped an average 

of 52,455 ac (21,228 ha) of Gunnison’s 

prairie dog colonies in the AVEPA 

between 2007 and 2016 (AZGFD 2016, 

p. 8) (H. Hicks, AZGFD, pers. comm., 

January 26, 2018). In 2014 and 2016, 

respectively, Gunnison’s prairie dogs 

occupied 7,074 and 6,313 known ac 

(2,863 and 2,555 ha) on Double O Ranch 

(AZGFD 2016, p. 7; H. Hicks, AZGFD, 

pers. comm., January 26, 2018). Plague 

is likely present in the AVEPA. 

(2) Espee Ranch—The Espee 

Allotment encompasses 145,644 ac 

(58,941 ha) of private and State lands 

about 17 miles northeast of Seligman, in 

Coconino County, Arizona. There are 

139,255 ac (56,356 ha) of grasslands 

(AZGFD 2016, pp. 8–9). In 2007, prior 

to release of ferrets, approximately 

29,000 ac (11,736 ha) of occupied 

prairie dog habitat was mapped (AZGFD 

2007, p. 1). Since then, the number of 

prairie dog occupied acres has 

fluctuated greatly, with 3,228 occupied 

ac (1,306 ha) in 2014 and 21,771 

occupied ac (8,811 ha) in 2018 (J. 

Cordova, AZGFD, pers. comm., August 

18, 2022). Plague is present on the Espee 

Ranch and is the suspected reason for 

the lack of recent ferret observations 

despite multiple releases. 

Potential Reintroduction Sites Within 

the SWEPA 

The four areas described below do not 

currently meet the minimum necessary 

Gunnison’s prairie dog occupied acreage 

to support ferrets. However, active 

management, such as translocations of 

prairie dogs, and dusting for plague or 

administration of a plague vaccine, 

along with annual monitoring of prairie 

dog populations, may provide for the 

needed acreage of occupied prairie dog 

habitat in these areas (AZGFD 2016, p. 

9). 

(1) Kaibab National Forest, Williams/ 

Tusayan Ranger Districts––These areas 

cover over 613,000 ac (248,078 ha) of 

USFS, Department of Defense, private, 

and State managed lands surrounding 

the city of Williams in Coconino and 

Yavapai Counties. There were 96,954 ac 

(39,237 ha) of grasslands with 4,984 ac 

(2,017 ha) of known Gunnison’s prairie 

dog occupied area in 2015 (AZGFD 

2016, p. 9). 

(2) CO Bar Ranch—This ranch 

encompasses 263,758 ac (106,741 ha) of 

private, State, BLM, and Tribal lands 

and is located about 24 miles north of 

Flagstaff in Coconino County. There 

were 184,815 ac (74,794 ha) of 

grasslands with 870 ac (352 ha) of 

known Gunnison’s prairie dog occupied 

area in 2015 (AZGFD 2016, p. 9). 

(3) Petrified Forest National Park— 

This area encompasses 223,027 ac 

(90,258 ha) of NPS, State, Tribal, BLM, 

and privately managed lands east of 

Holbrook in Navajo and Apache 

Counties. There were 214,135 ac (86,659 

ha) of grasslands with 87 ac (35 ha) of 

known Gunnison’s prairie dog occupied 

area in 2015 (AZGFD 2016, p. 10). 

(4) Lyman Lake—This area 

encompasses 316,958 ac (128,271 ha) of 

private, State, AZGFD, BLM, and USFS 

lands south of St. Johns in Apache 

County. There were 273,227 ac (110,573 

ha) of grasslands with 2,045 ac (828 ha) 

of known Gunnison’s prairie dog 

occupied area in 2015 (AZGFD 2016, p. 

10). 

Black-tailed prairie dog habitat exists 

in southeastern Arizona (Cockrum 1960, 

p. 76; figure 1). In 2008, the AZGFD 

reintroduced this species into a small 

portion of its historical range via 

translocations from wild populations in 

New Mexico (W. Van Pelt, AZGFD, pers. 

comm, July 6, 2022). This new blacktailed prairie dog population occurs on 

the BLM-administered Las Cienegas 

National Conservation Area. Surveys in 

2021 estimated that a minimum of 210 

black-tailed prairie dogs occupied 28 ac 

(11.3 ha) (J. Presler, AZGFD, pers. 

comm., February 7, 2022). It would 

likely take many years to reach enough 

black-tailed prairie dog occupied 

acreage with a stable population to 

support a reintroduction of ferrets. 

However, efforts to expand black-tailed 

prairie dog colony acreage would offer 

opportunities to re-create habitat for 

ferrets (USFWS 2013a, p. 51). 

We will consider reintroduction sites 

on Tribal Lands if Tribes are interested 

and where suitable prairie dog habitat 

exists. Forty-nine percent of the land 

within the range of Gunnison’s prairie 

dog in Arizona is under Tribal 

ownership (Seglund et al. 2006, table 3). 

The Navajo Nation is the largest owner 

of Gunnison’s prairie dog habitat 

(Johnson et al. 2010, p. 6). Working with 

the Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, and 

Navajo Nation, we may be able to 

identify other potential sites for ferret 

reintroduction on their Tribal sovereign 

lands. All three Tribes have expressed 

interest in working with the USFWS in 

ferret recovery (J. Nystedt, USFWS, pers. 

comm., March 23, 2022; Navajo Nation 

2017, entire; D. Clarke, Hualapai Tribe, 

pers. comm., March 26, 2018; Hopi 

Tribe 2021, entire). The Hualapai and 

Hopi reservations and Hopi-owned 

ranches coincide entirely with Arizona 

(i.e., their lands are wholly within the 

borders of the State), whereas the 

Navajo Nation also coincides with parts 

of the States of New Mexico and Utah, 

within which the Navajo Nation has 

sovereign authority to manage wildlife. 

Surveys of prairie dog populations on 

Tribal lands, in addition to other 

information such as incidence of plague, 

are needed as part of the process of 

considering these lands for ferret 

reintroduction. The Navajo Nation and 

Hopi Tribe, in collaboration with 

Natural Heritage New Mexico, 

conducted a remote survey of 

Gunnison’s prairie dogs on the lands of 

both Tribes in 2010. The technique 

used, involving standard photointerpretation to identify disturbance in 

potential habitat on digital orthophoto 

quarter quads, estimated the total area of 

occupied Gunnison’s prairie dog habitat 

on the Navajo Nation and Reservation of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 69059 

the Hopi Tribe at 253,562 ac (102,615 

ha) (Johnson et al. 2010, pp. iv, 18). 

The Navajo Nation recently received a 

USFWS Tribal Wildlife Grant to 

investigate areas for future ferret 

reintroductions, including prairie dog 

habitat mapping, disease monitoring, 

and development of a ferret 

reintroduction plan for the Navajo 

Nation. As mentioned previously, we 

originally included some lands of the 

Hualapai Tribe and deeded lands owned 

by the Navajo Nation when we 

designated the AVEPA, and the Tribes 

have worked cooperatively with the 

USFWS and AZGFD on ferret recovery. 

The Hopi Tribe has expressed interest in 

ferret recovery activities on a portion of 

their lands, including ranches and part 

of their Reservation. They requested 

excluding District 6 of their Reservation, 

so we have excluded that area from the 

SWEPA. 

Is the experimental population 

essential or nonessential? 

When we establish experimental 

populations under section 10(j) of the 

ESA, we must determine whether such 

a population is essential to the 

continued existence of the species in the 

wild. This determination is based solely 

on the best scientific and commercial 

data available. Our regulations state that 

an experimental population is 

considered essential if its loss would be 

likely to appreciably reduce the 

likelihood of survival of that species in 

the wild (50 CFR 17.80(b)). All other 

populations are considered 

nonessential. 

The ESA states that, prior to any 

release ‘‘the Secretary must find by 

regulation that such release will further 

the conservation of the species’’ (49 FR 

33893, August 27, 1984). 

Reintroductions are, by their nature, 

experiments, the fate of which is 

uncertain. However, it is always our 

goal for reintroductions to be successful 

and contribute to recovery. The 

importance of reintroductions to 

recovery does not necessarily mean 

these populations are ‘‘essential’’ under 

section 10(j) of the ESA. In fact, 

Congress’ expectation was that ‘‘in most 

cases, experimental populations will not 

be essential’’ (H.R. Conference Report 

No. 835 supra at 34; 49 FR 33888, 

August 27, 1984). The preamble to our 

1984 publication of ESA 10(j) 

implementing regulations reflects this 

understanding, stating that an essential 

population will be a special case, and 

not the general rule (49 FR 33888, 

August 27, 1984). 

In our final rule establishing the 

nonessential experimental population in 

Aubrey Valley, the USFWS found the 

AVEPA to be ‘‘nonessential’’ because 

the captive-breeding population is both 

the secure source for all reintroductions, 

and the primary repository of genetic 

diversity for the species (61 FR 11320, 

March 20, 1996). We considered all 

reintroduced ferrets to be in excess to 

the captive population, and we could 

replace any deceased reintroduced 

animals through captive breeding (61 FR 

11323, March 20, 1996). 

The USFWS did not anticipate 

changing the nonessential designation 

for the AVEPA unless the experiment 

failed or until the ferret recovered (61 

FR 11323, March 20, 1996). However, 

because this final rule will replace the 

AVEPA through incorporation into the 

SWEPA, an evaluation as to whether the 

new SWEPA experimental population is 

essential to the continued existence of 

the species in the wild is appropriate. 

As discussed above, we expect the 

SWEPA to further the conservation of 

the species by contributing to the 

establishment of multiple, widespread 

populations that will persist over time 

and contribute to achieving recovery 

goals for the species. However, we 

consider the SWEPA nonessential 

because there are now a number of 

reintroduced ferret populations in the 

wild, across the range of the species. 

There are 18 active reintroduction sites 

across the ferret’s historical range (J. 

Hughes, USFWS, pers. comm., 

December 13, 2021), consisting of a 

minimum of 340 ferrets in 2018, with a 

minimum of 254 at the 4 most 

successful reintroduction sites (Rocky 

Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife 

Refuge, Colorado; Conata Basin/ 

Badlands, South Dakota; and Shirley 

Basin and Meeteetse, Wyoming) 

(USFWS 2019, table 3). In the blackfooted ferret SSA (USFWS 2019, pp. 43– 

83), we used the conservation biology 

principles of resiliency, redundancy, 

and representation (Shaffer and Stein 

2000, entire) to assess how the 

populations at the active sites contribute 

to the current and future species 

condition to address the ferret’s viability 

in the wild across its range. 

Resiliency indicates a population’s 

ability to withstand environmental and 

demographic stochasticity. We assessed 

the resiliency of each ferret population 

across the species’ range based on the 5- 

year mean number of breeding adults, 

habitat suitability, annual plague 

management, annual ferret vaccinations, 

ferret population persistence, and level 

of prairie dog conservation. Of the 14 

sites active at the time of our 

assessment, we considered 2 in highresiliency condition and 8 in moderateresiliency condition (USFWS 2019, 

table 11). We estimated that in 20 years, 

if management and threats remain at 

current levels, the two high-resiliency 

populations will remain in that 

condition, seven of the eight moderateresiliency populations will remain in 

that condition, and one of the moderateresiliency populations will become lowresiliency. 

Redundancy is the ability of a species 

to withstand catastrophic events, via the 

number and distribution of populations. 

Representation, or ecological or genetic 

diversity across a species’ range, enables 

a species to better respond to changes in 

the environment. Current and future 

high- and moderate-resiliency 

populations occur in the wild across six 

States, including Wyoming, South 

Dakota, Kansas, Colorado, Utah, and 

Arizona. This broad distribution of 

ferret populations across the Western 

United States protects against 

catastrophic events affecting all wild 

ferret populations simultaneously, and 

it allows for a variety of physical and 

biological conditions in which the 

species may express adaptive capacity 

going forward. Additionally, captivebreeding efforts continue to support the 

establishment of more populations 

throughout the species’ range. Loss of 

the SWEPA would not affect these 

remaining populations of ferrets in the 

wild. 

The current ferret population in 

Arizona, while contributing 

incrementally to conservation in concert 

with other sites, is a relatively small 

portion of the total number and 

distribution of ferret populations 

needed for species recovery. The 

Recovery Plan’s delisting criteria for 

ferrets calls for 30 or more populations, 

with at least 1 population in each of at 

least 9 of 12 States within the historical 

range of the species, and at least 5 

populations within colonies of 

Gunnison’s and white-tailed prairie 

dogs. About 27 percent of Gunnison’s 

prairie dog range occurs in Arizona. 

This equates to about 9 to 14 percent of 

all prairie dog occupied habitat (i.e., the 

range of all 3 prairie dog species) 

(USFWS 2013a, p. 24). In Arizona, the 

relative recommended contribution of 

habitat to ferret delisting is about seven 

percent (USFWS 2013a, table 8, p. 77). 

The SWEPA will further the recovery 

of the ferret by allowing us to establish 

multiple wild populations within the 

species’ historical range. We conclude 

that the loss of all reintroduced ferrets 

within the SWEPA is not likely to 

appreciably reduce the likelihood of 

survival of the species in the wild due 

to maintenance of the captive 

population for additional 

reintroductions into the wild, the 

number of reintroduction sites and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
69060 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

established populations rangewide, and 

the expected incremental contribution 

of Arizona to the recovery of the ferret. 

Furthermore, the SWEPA covers a 

relatively small portion of potential 

ferret habitat rangewide: about seven 

percent; thus, the potential size of the 

experimental population within the 

SWEPA will be small relative to the 

potential number of ferrets rangewide. 

Therefore, as required by 50 CFR 

17.81(c)(2), we determine the SWEPA 

experimental population is not essential 

to the continued existence of the species 

in the wild, and we designate the 

SWEPA experimental population as 

nonessential. 

Management Restrictions, Protective 

Measures, and Other Special 

Management 

We are applying the experimental 

population designation and regulations 

to the entire SWEPA; thus, a single set 

of statutes and regulations and a single 

management framework will apply to all 

non-Federal and Federal lands 

containing potential ferret habitat 

within the designated SWEPA 

boundary. This approach will extend 

regulatory assurances to all areas where 

ferrets could potentially establish, 

including the current properties covered 

by the SHA. There are no significant 

differences between the terms and 

conditions of the SHA and 10(j) 

regulations in terms of how landowners 

operate their ranches with respect to 

ferret recovery. 

The USFWS will undertake SWEPA 

reintroductions in cooperation with 

current and future partners. Existing 

management plans or those that wildlife 

managers develop in cooperation with 

us and other partners and stakeholders 

will guide management of ferret 

populations in the SWEPA (e.g., USFWS 

2016a, AZGFD 2016). 

As discussed in the ‘‘Actions and 

Activities that May Affect the 

Introduced Population,’’ Federal, State, 

Tribal, and private actions will not pose 

a substantial threat to ferret 

establishment and persistence in the 

SWEPA because land management 

activities, such as agricultural land 

conversion, recreational shooting of 

prairie dogs, poisoning of prairie dogs, 

urbanization, and energy development, 

currently occurring or anticipated to 

occur at prospective reintroduction sites 

in Arizona are very limited in scope. In 

addition, as discussed in ‘‘Addressing 

Causes of Extirpation within the 

Experimental Population Area’’ above, 

due to the low demand for and 

regulatory restrictions on prairie dog 

poisoning, we do not anticipate any 

change in prairie dog control efforts that 

would reduce prairie dog occupied 

habitat to the extent that they would 

compromise the viability of any 

potential ferret population. The best 

available information indicates that 

future range and ranching activities will 

remain compatible with ferret recovery 

because they do not limit essential ferret 

behavior such as feeding, breeding, or 

sheltering. We base this assessment on 

26 years of ferret reintroductions and 

management at the AVEPA and Espee 

and Double O Ranches in Arizona, and 

at other reintroduction sites throughout 

the range of the species (80 FR 66826, 

October 30, 2015). 

The AZGFD, BLM, USFS, NPS, 

Tribes, and private landowners manage 

sites with high potential for ferret 

establishment, and these areas receive 

protection through the following legal 

mechanisms: 

Legal Mechanisms 

(1) Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA; 43 

U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)—The BLM’s 

mission is set forth under the FLPMA, 

which mandates that the BLM manage 

public land resources for a variety of 

uses, such as energy development, 

livestock grazing, recreation, and timber 

harvesting, while protecting the natural, 

cultural, and historical resources on 

those lands. The BLM manages listed 

and sensitive species under guidance 

provided in the BLM Manual Section 

6840—Special Status Species 

Management. The Manual directs the 

BLM to conserve ESA-listed species and 

the ecosystems upon which they 

depend, ensure that all actions 

authorized or carried out by the BLM 

comply with the ESA, and cooperate 

with the recovery planning and recovery 

of listed species. The BLM has 

experience in managing the ferret at four 

reintroduction sites in four States that 

occur at least in part on BLM lands. 

Therefore, we anticipate appropriate 

management by the BLM on future ferret 

reintroduction sites that include BLM 

lands. 

(2) National Forest Management Act 

of 1976, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1600 et 

seq.)—This law instructs the USFS to 

strive to provide for a diversity of plant 

and animal communities when 

managing USFS lands. The USFS 

identifies species listed as endangered 

or threatened under the ESA, including 

the ferret, a Category 1 species at risk 

based on rangewide and national 

imperilment. The USFS has experience 

managing the ferret on one 

reintroduction site that occurs at least in 

part on USFS lands. Therefore, we 

anticipate appropriate management by 

the USFS on future ferret reintroduction 

sites that include USFS lands. 

(3) Organic Act of 1916, as amended 

(16 U.S.C. 1–4)—This law requires the 

NPS to conserve National Park 

resources, consistent with the 

established values and purposes for 

each park. In addition, the Organic Act 

instructs the NPS ‘‘to conserve the 

scenery and the natural and historical 

objects and the wildlife therein and to 

provide for the enjoyment of the same 

in such manner and by such means as 

will leave them unimpaired for the 

enjoyment of future generations.’’ NPS 

management policies require them to 

conserve ESA-listed species and to 

prevent detrimental effects on these 

species. The NPS has experience 

managing the ferret at two National 

Parks in South Dakota, where the NPS 

protects ferrets and their habitats from 

large-scale loss or degradation, per their 

mandate. Management of these 

reintroduction sites would need to 

continue regardless of the species’ 

listing status. Therefore, we anticipate 

appropriate management by the NPS on 

any future ferret reintroduction sites 

that include NPS lands. 

(4) Navajo Nation Law—Navajo 

Nation Code (NNC), title 17, chapter 3, 

subchapter 21, provides protections for 

ferrets. Title 17 NNC section 507 makes 

it unlawful for any person to take 

wildlife on either of the following lists, 

as quoted from the code: 

(a) ‘‘The list of wildlife indigenous to 

the Navajo Nation that they determine 

to be endangered by regulation of the 

Resources Committee of the Navajo 

Nation Council.’’ The Navajo Nation 

added the ferret to this list pursuant to 

Resources Committee Resolution RCF– 

014–91. 

(b) The U.S. lists of endangered native 

and foreign fish and wildlife, as set forth 

in section 4 of the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 as endangered or threatened 

species, to the extent that the Resources 

Committee adopts these lists. Navajo 

Nation Code (17 NNC section 504) also 

makes it unlawful for any person to take 

or possess a fur-bearing animal, which 

includes ferrets by definition (17 NNC 

section 500), except as permitted by the 

Director, Navajo Nation Department of 

Fish and Wildlife. 

(5) Hopi Tribal Law—Tribal 

Ordinance 48 (Wildlife) documents the 

Tribe’s exclusive jurisdiction to regulate 

and adjudicate all matters pertaining to 

wildlife found on the Hopi Reservation. 

All wildlife found on the Reservation, 

whether resident or migratory, native or 

introduced, is the property of the Hopi 

Tribe, and Tribal Law provides the 

times and manner of allowable take. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 69061 

(6) Arizona State Law—General 

provisions of Arizona Revised Statutes, 

title 17, protects all of Arizona’s native 

wildlife, including federally listed 

threatened and endangered species. 

(7) Endangered Species Act—The ESA 

will continue to provide protection to 

ferrets in the SWEPA through section 10 

by requiring certain management 

entities to obtain an enhancement of 

survival permit from the USFWS under 

section 10(a)(1)(A) for any intentional 

taking of a ferret that is prohibited by 

section 9 of the ESA and not exempted 

through this rule. The authorities of 

section 6 of the ESA and 50 CFR 17.21, 

17.31, and 17.84(g) cover AZGFD’s 

management activities. Section 7(a)(1) of 

the ESA also requires all Federal 

agencies to use their authorities to 

further the purposes of the ESA. 

Other Protections and Management 

Restrictions 

Other protections and management 

restrictions and measures in the SWEPA 

include: 

(1) Incidental take: ESA 10(j) 

experimental population rules contain 

specific prohibitions and exceptions 

regarding take of individual animals. 

These rules are compatible with most 

routine human activities in the expected 

reestablishment area. Section 3(19) of 

the ESA defines ‘‘take’’ as ‘‘to harass, 

harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, 

trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to 

engage in any such conduct.’’ Under 50 

CFR 17.3, ‘‘harass’’ means an intentional 

or negligent act or omission that creates 

the likelihood of injury to wildlife by 

annoying it to such an extent as to 

significantly disrupt normal behavioral 

patterns that include, but are not limited 

to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. And 

‘‘harm’’ means an act that actually kills 

or injures wildlife, including significant 

habitat modification that actually kills 

or injures wildlife by significantly 

impairing essential behavioral patterns, 

including breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering. The regulations further 

define ‘‘incidental take’’ as take that is 

incidental to, and not the purpose of, 

the carrying out of an otherwise lawful 

activity. This nonessential experimental 

population designation rule will allow 

most incidental take of ferrets in the 

experimental population area, provided 

the take is unintentional and not due to 

negligent conduct. However, if there 

was evidence of intentional take, we 

would refer the matter to the 

appropriate law enforcement entities for 

investigation. This is consistent with 

regulations for areas currently enrolled 

in the SHA and in the AVEPA where we 

do not allow intentional take. 

(2) Special handling: In accordance 

with 50 CFR 17.21(c)(3), any employee 

or agent of the USFWS or of a State 

wildlife agency may, in the course of 

their official duties, handle ferrets to aid 

sick or injured ferrets, salvage dead 

ferrets, and conduct other activities 

consistent with 50 CFR 17.84(g), their 

section 6 work plan, and 50 CFR 17.31. 

Employees or agents of other agencies 

would need to acquire the necessary 

permits from the USFWS for these 

activities. 

(3) Arizona promulgation of 

regulations and other management for 

the conservation of the ferret as well as 

other species that, in turn, would 

benefit ferret recovery: For example, the 

AZGFD includes the ferret on the 

Species of Greatest Conservation Need 

Tier 1A (AZGFD 2012, p. 216). The list 

provides policy guidance on 

management priorities only, not legal or 

regulatory protection. The State also 

implements annual prairie dog shooting 

closures on public lands from April 1 to 

June 30. 

(4) Coordination with landowners and 

managers: We discussed this rule with 

potentially affected State and Federal 

agencies, Tribes, local governments, 

private landowners, and other 

stakeholders in the SWEPA. These 

agencies and landowners and managers 

have indicated either support for, or no 

opposition to, this revision to the 

AVEPA. In advance of our developing 

the original rule for AVEPA, the AZGFD 

determined that designation of a 

nonessential experimental population 

was necessary to achieve landowner 

support to make a ferret reintroduction 

project viable (AZGFD 2016, p. 2; 61 FR 

11325, March 20, 1996). To receive the 

same public support for their 

Management Plan, the AZGFD 

recommended expanding the AVEPA 

(AZGFD 2016, p. 2). Following 

consideration of their recommendation, 

we coordinated with AZGFD and the 

Navajo, Hopi, and Hualapai Tribes to 

develop the SWEPA. 

(5) Public awareness and cooperation: 

We informed the public of the 

importance of the SWEPA for the 

recovery of the ferret through the 

proposed rule and requested public 

comment. The replacement of the 

AVEPA to establish the SWEPA under 

section 10(j) of the ESA as a 

nonessential experimental population 

increases reintroduction opportunities 

and provides greater flexibility in the 

management of the reintroduced ferret. 

The nonessential experimental 

population designation will facilitate 

cooperation of the State, Tribes, private 

landowners, and other interests in the 

affected area. 

(6) Potential effects to other species 

listed under the ESA: There are four 

federally listed species with 

distributions that overlap the SWEPA 

and with habitat requirements that 

could overlap the grassland habitats that 

support prairie dogs (table 1). However, 

we have not documented any of these 

species in current or potential ferret 

reintroduction sites and/or these species 

are unlikely to occur or compete with 

ferrets for resources. We do not expect 

ferret reintroduction efforts to result in 

adverse effects to these species. 

TABLE 1—FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES

IN THE SWEPA 

Species 

Current status in 

Arizona under 

the ESA 

Mexican wolf (Canis lupus 

baileyi).

Nonessential experimental. 

California condor 

(Gymnogyps 

californianus).

Nonessential experimental, Endangered. 

Northern aplomado falcon 

(Falco femoralis 

septentrionalis).

Nonessential experimental. 

Pima pineapple cactus 

(Coryphantha scheeri 

var. robustispina).

Endangered. 

Measures To Isolate or Contain the 

Experimental Population From 

Nonexperimental Populations 

There are no naturally occurring wild 

populations of ferrets. Outside of 

reintroduced populations, the ferret is 

extirpated throughout its historical 

range, including in Arizona, New 

Mexico, and Utah (USFWS 2017, entire) 

(see ‘‘Historical Range’’ above). 

Therefore, we do not need any measures 

to isolate or contain reintroduced ferrets 

in the SWEPA from other populations of 

black-footed ferret. 

Review and Evaluation of the Success 

or Failure of the SWEPA 

Monitoring is a required element of 

all ferret reintroduction projects. 

Reintroduction projects will conduct the 

three following types of monitoring: 

(1) Reintroduction Effectiveness 

Monitoring: Reintroduction partners 

will monitor ferret population 

demographics and potential sources of 

fatality, including plague, annually for 5 

years following the last release using 

spotlight surveys, snow tracking, other 

visual survey techniques, or possibly 

radiotelemetry of some individuals 

following AZGFD’s Management Plan 

and the USFWS’s Operations Manual 

(USFWS 2016a, pp. 25–59) or similar 

procedures identified in a management 

plan developed for a specific 

reintroduction site. Thereafter, partners 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
69062 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

will complete demographic surveys 

periodically to track population status. 

Surveys will incorporate methods to 

monitor breeding success and long-term 

survival rates, as appropriate. The 

USFWS anticipates that AZGFD, Tribes, 

and/or other participating partners will 

conduct monitoring, and they will 

include monitoring results in their 

annual reports. 

(2) Donor Population Monitoring: We 

will acquire ferrets from the captivebreeding population or from another 

viable reintroduction site. The USFWS 

and our partners manage ferrets in the 

captive-breeding population in 

accordance with the AZA SSP® (Graves 

et al. 2018, entire). The AZA SSP®

Husbandry Manual provides up-to-date 

protocols for the care, propagation, 

preconditioning, and transportation of 

captive ferrets, and all participating 

captive-breeding facilities use it. 

The USFWS may translocate ferrets 

from other reintroduction sites, 

provided their removal will not 

negatively affect the extant population, 

and appropriate permits are issued in 

accordance with current regulations (50 

CFR 17.22) prior to their removal. 

Population monitoring, following any 

removals for translocation, will occur 

under guidance of the USFWS-approved 

management plan for the donor site. 

(3) Monitoring Effects to Other Listed 

Species and Critical Habitat: We do not 

expect adverse effects to other federally 

listed species or critical habitat (see 

‘‘Other Protections and Management 

Restrictions’’ number 6, above). 

Findings 

Based on the above information and 

using the best scientific and commercial 

data available (in accordance with 50 

CFR 17.81), we find that releasing 

ferrets into the SWEPA will further the 

conservation of the species and that 

these reintroduced populations are not 

essential to the continued existence of 

the species in the wild. 

Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Rule 

Below, we highlight some of the 

changes made in the preamble to this 

final rule as a result of comments and 

additional analysis: 

• Added information that suggests 

that reductions in prairie dog numbers 

and fitness may contribute to plague 

epizootics (see ‘‘Threats/Causes of 

Decline’’ above). 

• Added the number of new 

reintroduction sites we intend to 

establish in the SWEPA (see 

‘‘Experimental Population’’ above). 

• Edited and added information in 

our discussion about the effects of 

grazing on prairie dogs to emphasize the 

complexity of the interactions and the 

site-specific variation of effects (see 

‘‘How Will the Experimental Population 

(SWEPA) Further the Conservation of 

the Species?’’ above). 

• Added information about the 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation of the ferret from the SSA 

to further support our experimental 

population designation of nonessential 

(see ‘‘How Will the Experimental 

Population (SWEPA) Further the 

Conservation of the Species?’’ above). 

• Clarified language associated with 

the minimum occupied prairie-dog 

acreage for Gunnison’s prairie dogs 

related to ferret reintroductions (see 

‘‘Experimental Populations’’ above). 

This final rule also incorporates 

minor, non-substantive clarifying edits 

(e.g., citation clarification, resolution of 

numerical or other inconsistencies, etc.) 

and the incorporation of additional 

information based on the public and 

peer review comments we received. 

However, the information we received 

during the comment period for the 

proposed rule did not change our 

findings or the species-specific 

regulations that apply to this 

experimental population of ferrets. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

In the proposed rule published on 

June 25, 2021 (86 FR 33613), we 

requested that all interested parties 

submit written comments on the 

proposal by August 24, 2021. In 

addition, in accordance with our joint 

policy on peer review published in the 

Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), and updated guidance issued on 

August 22, 2016 (USFWS 2016b, entire), 

we solicited peer review of our 

proposed rule from six knowledgeable 

individuals with scientific expertise in 

ferret ecology and management. We 

received responses from four peer 

reviewers. We also contacted 

appropriate Federal and State agencies, 

Tribes, scientific experts and 

organizations, and other interested 

parties and invited them to comment on 

the proposal. 

We reviewed all comments received 

from the public, States, Tribes, and peer 

reviewers for substantive issues and 

new information regarding the revision 

of an experimental population of ferrets 

in Arizona. Substantive comments are 

addressed in the following summary 

and have been incorporated into the 

final rule as appropriate. 

Summary of Comments 

Comment: One peer reviewer 

commented that we should include 

literature suggesting that other factors 

that reduce prairie dog numbers and 

fitness (e.g., grazing, shooting, 

poisoning, and drought) may contribute 

to triggering a plague epizootic. 

Response: We added text and cited 

additional literature accordingly (see 

‘‘Threats/Causes of Decline’’ above). 

Comment: Two peer reviewers 

suggested that we update the text to 

incorporate recent research on SPV. 

Response: We added text and cited an 

additional study accordingly (see 

‘‘Recovery, Captive Breeding, and 

Reintroduction Efforts to Date’’ above). 

Comment: One peer reviewer and 

several commenters asked us to 

elaborate as to why we consider the 

reintroduction in the AVEPA successful, 

considering the recent decline in ferret 

numbers. Three commenters specifically 

expressed concerns that current land 

use practices and drought may have 

influenced the recent declines in the 

AVEPA. 

Response: The population in the 

AVEPA increased to a minimum of 123 

ferrets in 2012, and the population 

continues to persist following the 

subsequent decline. Because land 

management activities have been 

relatively consistent in the AVEPA since 

the first reintroduction in 1996, we 

conclude that those activities are 

unlikely to have caused the declines we 

observed in the AVEPA after 2012. 

Based on positive tests for plague in the 

area, plague is the most probable cause 

for the declines. Plague remains the 

most significant challenge to ferret 

population resiliency rangewide, and 

we will continue to require multiple 

management tools to lessen its effects on 

ferret populations. Accordingly, we 

expect the number of ferrets in each 

population to fluctuate over time, 

decreasing during plague outbreaks and 

increasing when plague is effectively 

controlled at a site. This scenario 

emphasizes the importance of having 

multiple, widely spaced populations to 

safeguard the species from the 

widespread chronic effects of plague as 

well as other periodic or random 

disturbances that may result in 

decreased population size or the loss of 

a population in one or more given areas. 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested that we expand the 

experimental population area to include 

all of New Mexico, because potential 

habitat occurs there. Another 

commenter inquired about our inclusion 

of a portion of New Mexico. 

Response: The proposed 10(j) rule 

included only portions of New Mexico 

that coincide with Navajo Nation lands. 

We have clarified this point in the final 

rule text. We developed the proposed 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 69063 

boundary of the SWEPA in close 

coordination with our partners in 

Arizona—AZGFD, the Navajo Nation, 

the Hualapai Tribe, and the Hopi 

Tribe—to include the areas for which 

they would manage the field operations 

of a reintroduced ferret population. We 

acknowledge that there are other areas 

in New Mexico, and throughout the 

ferret’s historical range, that may 

provide new reintroduction 

opportunities. Legal mechanisms are 

available to support ferret 

reintroductions at these sites, including, 

for example, the 2013 rangewide 

programmatic SHA and proposal of 

additional experimental populations 

under section 10(j). We will identify and 

apply the appropriate mechanism to 

reintroduce ferrets on a site-specific 

basis after close coordination with 

partners in those areas. 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

that the expansion of the experimental 

population over such a large area is 

unnecessary, because that larger area is 

not needed to meet the guidelines for 

Arizona specified in the ferret Recovery 

Plan. One commenter stated that the 

successful reintroduction at Aubrey 

Valley resulted in a ferret population in 

2012 that exceeded the number of 

ferrets in the recovery guidelines for 

Arizona. The other commenter stated 

that the amount of prairie dog habitat in 

the AVEPA currently exceeds the 

amount of habitat in the recovery 

guidelines for Arizona. 

Response: We provided State-specific 

guidelines in the rangewide Recovery 

Plan to assist planning needs and 

encourage broader recovery support 

across the ferret’s historical range. The 

Recovery Plan states that the 

downlisting or delisting criteria may be 

fulfilled if they are met by some 

configuration other than that in the 

State-specific guidelines. Moreover, 

while we have acknowledged the 

success in Aubrey Valley, the recent 

decline in the ferret population at that 

site emphasizes the importance of 

having multiple, widely distributed 

populations to safeguard the species 

from the widespread chronic effects of 

plague as well as other periodic or 

random disturbances that may result in 

the loss of a population in one or more 

given areas. Establishing additional 

ferret populations in Arizona will help 

to ensure Arizona’s contribution to the 

species’ recovery over the long term. 

Comment: One commenter was 

concerned that, by not explicitly 

identifying any specific suitable areas in 

the proposed rule, the proposed SWEPA 

is likely including more acreage than 

necessary for reintroduction. 

Response: The SWEPA includes 

habitats associated with prairie dogs; 

that is, various grasslands and biotic 

communities in which grasslands are 

interspersed. We acknowledge that the 

entire SWEPA does not consist entirely 

of habitat suitable for ferrets, and we 

will reintroduce ferrets only into areas 

that meet the criteria for 

reintroductions. In addition to the two 

active reintroduction areas in the 

SWEPA, there are four potential 

reintroduction areas, which will require 

active management before they can 

support a ferret population. In addition 

to these sites, we may identify other 

reintroduction sites in the SWEPA in 

the future. Furthermore, the SWEPA 

includes areas into which ferrets could 

potentially disperse from a 

reintroduction site; inclusion of these 

areas provides regulatory certainty to 

the landowners and managers in those 

potential dispersal areas. 

Comment: One commenter was 

concerned that the large area of the 

proposed SWEPA will mean that ferrets 

may be introduced anywhere in that 

area but will not receive actual 

protections of the ESA. 

Response: We have determined that 

establishing the proposed SWEPA is 

necessary to achieve widespread 

landowner support for viable ferret 

reintroduction projects in Arizona. The 

biggest hurdle to securing support of 

ferret reintroductions is overcoming 

partner fear of liability associated with 

section 9 prohibitions on take under the 

ESA. Relaxing section 9 incidental take 

prohibitions through the flexibilities 

afforded via section 10(j) of the ESA will 

facilitate ferret reintroductions 

throughout the species’ range in 

Arizona. Based on ferret reintroductions 

at Aubrey Valley/Double O Ranch, 

existing land use practices can be 

compatible with ferret recovery. Section 

9 prohibitions of the ESA will still 

apply to intentional or negligent 

conduct that results in take. 

Comment: Four commenters 

discussed the effects of ferret 

reintroductions on cattle grazing. Two 

commenters expressed concern that 

managing landscapes for ferrets, 

specifically prairie dog habitat, in other 

areas has resulted in poorly managed, 

less resilient ecosystems and are 

concerned about this happening in the 

SWEPA, especially in conjunction with 

drought as an additional stressor. One 

commenter extended this concern to 

grazing wildlife in addition to livestock. 

Response: Prairie dogs, an important 

component of grassland ecosystems, are 

native to the area included within the 

proposed SWEPA. Managing for prairie 

dog colonies within the SWEPA will 

potentially restore beneficial ecosystem 

functions in managed areas. Prairie dogs 

positively affect ecosystem processes, 

resulting in increased soil mixing and 

nitrogen levels, for example, and affect 

vegetation composition, resulting in 

increased habitat heterogeneity on the 

landscape (Kotliar 1999, p. 178). 

Research has associated increases in 

plant nutritional levels and digestibility 

with prairie dog colonies (Detling and 

Whicker 1987, pp. 24–25). Livestock 

grazing occurs in and adjacent to the 

two established reintroduction sites in 

Arizona and has been compatible with 

ferret recovery. Future reintroduction 

sites will be selected based on their 

potential to support ferret 

reintroductions. Landowner and 

manager participation in activities 

directed at improving or maintaining 

habitat capable of supporting a ferret 

population is strictly voluntary. Prior to 

a ferret reintroduction, we will work 

with our partners to conduct outreach to 

landowners and affected stakeholders. 

AZGFD has a history of developing good 

working relationships with the livestock 

industry, notably landowners of the 

Aubrey Valley/Double O and Espee 

Ranch reintroduction sites, to initiate 

ferret reintroductions and conduct 

ongoing monitoring and maintenance at 

those sites. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that, although agricultural 

crops do not represent a significant 

portion of the proposed SWEPA, 

management for prairie dog colonies 

could have negative effects on lands 

used for growing crops. 

Response: We, in collaboration with 

our partners, identify potential 

reintroduction sites where there is 

landowner interest, and where current 

or desired land use practices are 

compatible with ferrets. Participation is 

voluntary. If reintroduced ferrets 

disperse from a reintroduction site, the 

10(j) designation will allow for 

incidental take of ferrets (e.g., take that 

could happen from livestock grazing, 

farming, prairie dog control) in those 

additional areas in the SWEPA. We, in 

collaboration with our partners, would 

coordinate with landowners and 

managers affected by dispersing ferrets 

about available options, including 

voluntary participation in ferret 

recovery or potential removal of the 

ferrets from their land. 

Comment: One commenter thought it 

seemed unwarranted to include the area 

in southeastern Arizona in the SWEPA 

at this time, because the population of 

prairie dogs in that area is not native, 

and it will take many years to establish 

a stable prairie dog population large 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
69064 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

enough to support the reintroduction of 

ferrets in this area. 

Response: According to Hoffmeister 

(1986, p. 194), black-tailed prairie dogs 

are native to southeastern Arizona and 

occurred there until approximately 

1938. We added this reference to the 

text within the rule (see ‘‘Biological 

Information’’ above). AZGFD 

reintroduced black-tailed prairie dogs in 

southeastern Arizona and manages 

those reintroductions. Though these 

prairie dog populations are currently too 

small to support a ferret population, we 

included the black-tailed prairie dog 

historical range in southeastern Arizona 

in the proposed SWEPA to increase 

opportunities for potential future ferret 

reintroductions. 

Comment: One commenter pointed 

out that we state the total number of 

reintroduction sites as both 29 and 30 in 

different places in the proposed rule. 

Response: We currently consider the 

Conata Basin/Badlands as 1 site; thus, 

we referenced 29 reintroduction sites in 

the proposed rule. In another place in 

the proposed rule, we inadvertently 

counted the Conata Basin/Badlands site 

as two sites. We initiated two additional 

reintroduction sites in 2021 that we had 

not included in the proposed rule. We 

thus modified the text in this final rule 

to state the number of currently active 

sites as 31. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

our determination that enzootic plague 

caused the ferret declines in the AVEPA 

is not wholly accurate and asked us to 

remove the reference to plague as the 

cause of the decline until we have 

information that is more conclusive. 

Response: The ferret population in the 

AVEPA was increasing through 2012 

when 123 breeding adults were 

documented. However, following 2012, 

the population has declined, despite 

consistent site management practices. 

Because of this and the recent detection 

of plague in coyotes and badgers in the 

Aubrey Valley, plague is the most likely 

cause of ferret decline in the AVEPA. 

Comment: AZGFD requested that we 

include that the primary purpose of 

some of the ferrets released in Aubrey 

Valley was to place excess kits from 

propagation facilities, and the primary 

purpose for the ferrets we released at 

Double O Ranch was for research 

purposes. Response: We adjusted the 

text accordingly in this final rule (see 

‘‘Experimental Population Regulation 

Requirements’’ above). 

Comment: One commenter asked 

about benefits to landowners that 

participate in ferret reintroductions and 

specifically asked about financial 

compensation. Another commenter 

expressed that financial compensation 

to participating landowners would 

improve the ferret reintroduction 

program. 

Response: While the 10(j) rule does 

not describe a specific plan to 

compensate participating landowners, 

governmental and nongovernmental 

organizations have provided incentives 

to Tribes and private landowners 

associated with some ferret 

reintroductions in the past. Site-specific 

management plans will include details 

of any applicable compensation 

programs. 

Comment: Three commenters 

expressed concerns that the large area of 

the SWEPA would expand the 

regulatory area and put more regulatory 

burden and potential penalties under 

the ESA on landowners. One 

commenter specifically expressed 

concern that a landowner without an 

SHA would experience increased 

regulatory burden if a ferret dispersed 

onto their property from an adjacent 

reintroduction site. 

Response: The AVEPA reduced 

regulatory requirements by allowing 

most incidental take of ferrets. Applying 

the 10(j) rule to the SWEPA benefits the 

landowners within the entire SWEPA by 

providing them the same regulatory 

certainty and flexibilities of the existing 

programmatic SHA but without having 

individually to enroll their land in the 

SHA. If reintroduced ferrets disperse 

from a reintroduction site, the 10(j) 

designation will allow for incidental 

take of ferrets (e.g., take that could 

happen from livestock grazing, farming, 

prairie dog control) in those additional 

areas in the SWEPA. We, in 

collaboration with our partners, would 

also coordinate with landowners 

affected by dispersal about available 

options, including voluntary 

participation in ferret recovery or 

potential removal of the ferrets from 

their land. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that we retain the option 

for private landowners to enter into 

SHAs if they chose to assist in ferret 

recovery efforts. 

Response: SHAs are compatible with 

10(j) populations. Private landowners 

are not required to terminate an existing 

SHA, and new certificates of inclusion 

for the current programmatic SHA are 

not prohibited. SHAs remain an option 

for participating landowners; however, 

there are no significant differences 

between the terms and conditions of the 

SHA and 10(j) regulations related to 

how landowners operate their lands 

with respect to ferret recovery. 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

that we should reintroduce ferrets to a 

site only after consent of all affected 

landowners, including landowners 

adjacent to and in the ferret dispersal 

range of a reintroduction site. 

Response: Reintroduction sites are 

selected based on their potential to 

support ferret reintroductions and 

where there are willing landowners and 

managers. Prior to a ferret 

reintroduction, we will work with our 

partners to conduct outreach to 

landowners and affected stakeholders. 

The SWEPA includes areas into which 

ferrets could potentially disperse from a 

reintroduction site. We, in collaboration 

with our partners, will coordinate with 

landowners and managers affected by 

dispersing ferrets about available 

options, including voluntary 

participation in ferret recovery or 

potential removal of the ferrets from 

their land. 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

that management for prairie dogs or 

ferret reintroductions on Federal land 

should occur only with the consent of 

grazing permittees using those lands. 

One commenter suggested that we set 

limits to livestock grazing on public 

lands. 

Response: We will coordinate with 

other Federal agencies to support ferret 

reintroductions in ways that are 

compatible with their missions. Federal 

land management agencies have their 

own laws, policies, and regulations 

outlining how they manage lands under 

their authorities. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the proposed rule clearly identifies and 

considers prairie dog control methods in 

Arizona, but fails to do so for New 

Mexico and Utah, and is concerned that 

establishing the 10(j) rule will 

ultimately lead to new and challenging 

conflicts between Federal and State 

authorities. 

Response: The area of the proposed 

SWEPA that extends into New Mexico 

and Utah is entirely within the Navajo 

Nation. The Navajo Nation manages 

wildlife resources within their 

boundaries independent of the States. 

We did not propose to include any land 

in New Mexico or Utah outside of the 

Navajo Nation. 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concern about negative effects 

of livestock grazing to prairie dog 

populations. One commenter 

specifically requested that the final EA 

include additional information about 

the effects of livestock grazing on prairie 

dog colonies and ferret reintroductions. 

Response: We have considered the 

effects that livestock grazing, and other 

activities may have on establishing an 

experimental population of ferrets. 

Livestock grazing became a significant 

feature on the Arizona landscape in the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 69065 

1880s and peaked in intensity around 

the late 1890s and early 1900s 

(Milchunas 2006, p. 7). Grazing in arid 

and semiarid areas can alter species 

composition and communities, disrupt 

ecosystem functions, and alter 

ecosystem structure (Fleischner 1994, p. 

631). Despite these effects, prairie dogs 

remained prominent on rangelands in 

Arizona during the period of heaviest 

grazing and did not begin declining 

until the time of systematic prairie dog 

eradication programs (Oakes 2000, pp. 

169–171). Available literature reveals a 

wide range of potential effects of 

livestock grazing on ecosystems and 

considers some negative and some 

beneficial (Milchunas 2006, entire; 

Jones 2000, entire). Effects vary with 

site-specific characteristics and 

management, including habitat type, 

grazing intensity, and history of grazing 

(Milchunas 2006, entire; Jones 2000, 

entire; Milchunas and Lauenroth 1993, 

entire). The long history of prairie dog 

persistence with livestock grazing in 

Arizona and persistence of ferrets at the 

AVEPA lead us to conclude that 

livestock grazing and ranching activities 

can be compatible with maintaining 

occupied prairie dog habitat capable of 

supporting ferrets. We added text in this 

final rule to support this conclusion (see 

‘‘How Will the Experimental Population 

(SWEPA) Further the Conservation of 

the Species?’’ above). We do not 

evaluate effects of livestock grazing 

outside of the context of ferret 

reintroductions, because that 

consideration is beyond the scope of the 

evaluation necessary to establish an 

experimental population. In the draft 

EA, we do not evaluate the effects of 

livestock grazing on the affected 

environment, because the NEPA process 

requires us to consider the 

consequences of our proposed action. 

Livestock grazing currently occurs in 

the proposed SWEPA and is not part of 

our proposed action. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

we did not define ‘‘well-managed 

grazing’’ in the proposed rule or 

elsewhere and noted that some of the 

references we cited described ‘‘an 

overgrazed condition.’’ The commenters 

asked that we clarify what we consider 

‘‘well-managed grazing.’’ 

Response: The terminology ‘‘wellmanaged grazing’’ and ‘‘overgrazing’’ 

that we used and cited in the proposed 

rule was qualitative and relative. We 

have edited the text in this final rule not 

to rely on terms describing relative 

grazing intensity. The effects of 

livestock grazing on prairie dog 

populations and their habitat are 

complicated and depend on the habitat 

quality and quantity and other 

conditions at each specific site. Based 

on the persistence of ferrets at Aubrey 

Valley/Double O Ranch, rangelands 

managed for livestock grazing can 

support prairie dog populations. Prior to 

introducing ferrets in the SWEPA, we 

will assess prairie dog populations to 

determine if the site will support a ferret 

population. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

we should not require the removal of 

ferrets that leave the experimental 

population area, because such dispersal 

would further species recovery. 

Response: The SWEPA includes all 

potential ferret habitat within Arizona 

and the Navajo Nation, excluding the 

Hopi Villages in District 6. All currently 

identified potential reintroduction sites 

within the SWEPA are far from the 

borders of the SWEPA. Thus, we expect 

ferret dispersal outside of the SWEPA to 

be unlikely. In the unlikely event that a 

ferret occurs outside of the SWEPA, 

regardless of origin, we will work 

closely with affected landowners and 

managers to ensure that we develop 

applicable conservation measures 

cooperatively and to the benefit of 

landowners, managers, and ferrets. The 

rule allows for, but does not require, 

removal of ferrets outside of the 

SWEPA. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

reintroduction efforts should be 

primarily focused on how best to 

manage plague in prairie dog 

populations, not only regarding the 

effects on ferret reintroduction, but also 

to other species in the area and local 

communities. Another commenter 

stated that the rule should include 

proactive measures to bring potential 

reintroduction sites into the condition 

necessary to host ferret populations of 

sufficient size and resilience to 

contribute towards recovery. This 

commenter further stated that the 

rangewide decline in the ferret 

population since about 2007 ‘‘appears to 

be that reintroduction sites are generally 

too small to support ferret populations 

through plague outbreaks.’’ 

Response: Plague management is 

currently, and will continue to be, a 

management focus at existing and 

potential future ferret reintroduction 

sites, which will also benefit other 

species and local communities. The 

factors responsible for the eruption of 

epizootics and the maintenance of 

enzootic plague are currently not fully 

understood; research has identified 

multiple influential factors (USFWS 

2019, p. 17). Because plague may persist 

in an enzootic state at several existing 

and potential reintroduction sites, and 

the social nature of prairie dogs 

facilitates plague transmission, larger 

colony size is not a safeguard against the 

spread of plague. A more effective 

strategy now is having multiple, widely 

spaced populations to buffer plague 

transmission. 

Comment: One commenter seemed to 

interpret the purpose of ferret 

reintroduction as a form of prairie dog 

control. 

Response: Our responsibility under 

the ESA is to conserve threatened and 

endangered species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. Our purpose 

in establishing the SWEPA is to promote 

the recovery of the ferret by establishing 

viable ferret populations. Viable ferret 

populations depend on persistent 

prairie dog populations. We are willing 

to work with landowners and managers 

amenable to maintaining prairie dog 

populations on their property to support 

a reintroduced ferret population. 

Outside of reintroduction areas, we, in 

collaboration with our partners, will 

work with landowners to avoid or 

minimize any adverse effects to ferrets 

that could occur from prairie dog 

control. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the proposed rule understated the 

effects of current prairie dog poisoning. 

The commenter specifically pointed out 

that we list prairie dog poisoning as a 

concern in the Recovery Plan and 

recommended more protective 

regulations to improve opportunities for 

ferret reintroductions. 

Response: The Recovery Plan 

describes the historical effect of poisons 

on the decline of prairie dogs and ferrets 

and assesses the effects of prairie dog 

poisoning to ferrets rangewide. The 

current use of poison to control prairie 

dogs is much reduced from historical 

use, and the current level of threat 

varies across the ferret’s range. In the 

proposed rule, we considered the threat 

of prairie dog poisoning to ferrets in 

Arizona and concluded that prairie dog 

poisoning within the State is relatively 

minimal compared to historical use. For 

example, black-tailed prairie dogs were 

extirpated from southeastern Arizona by 

the late 1930’s due to widespread 

indiscriminate poisoning for all small 

burrowing mammals (Hoffmeister 1986, 

p. 196). Comparatively, from 2013 

through 2019, the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service’s (APHIS) 

Wildlife Services treated prairie dogs 

with zinc phosphide at three private 

properties totaling 56 ac (23 ha) of 

prairie dog colonies (C. Carrillo, pers. 

comm., APHIS, October 23, 2019). In 

addition, the poisons that pose the 

greatest risk to ferrets, anticoagulants, 

are banned in Arizona. Other poisons 

have the potential to affect ferrets by 

affecting prairie dog populations. In past 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
69066 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

ferret reintroductions in Arizona, we 

worked with partners to identify 

landowners and managers willing to 

manage prairie dogs on their properties 

for ferrets. We will take a similar 

approach for future ferret 

reintroductions. 

Comment: Three commenters 

expressed concerns about the effects of 

shooting on prairie dog populations at 

ferret reintroduction sites. Two 

commenters thought that we had not 

adequately considered the effects of 

prairie dog shooting. One commenter 

mentioned specific research about the 

effects of shooting on prairie dog 

populations and requested that the EA 

incorporate that research. All three 

commenters asked for increased 

restrictions on prairie dog shooting to 

support ferret reintroductions. One 

commenter additionally expressed 

concern about potential lead poisoning 

from shooting prairie dogs. 

Response: We considered the 

potential for effects of prairie dog 

shooting on ferret reintroductions in the 

SWEPA in this 10(j) rule. We referenced 

relevant studies about effects of 

shooting on prairie dog populations (see 

‘‘Actions and Activities that May Affect 

the Introduced Population’’). These 

effects vary across sites and with 

intensity of shooting. Based on current 

prairie dog monitoring data, we do not 

think that shooting is having substantial 

population-level effects on prairie dogs 

in established reintroduction sites in the 

SWEPA or in the potential 

reintroduction sites that are being 

monitored. Prairie dog monitoring will 

inform the suitability of a potential 

ferret reintroduction site and indicate 

whether additional management is 

needed to maintain prairie dog 

populations in support of ferrets. 

AZGFD regulates prairie dog hunting in 

most of Arizona, and as described in 

their Management Plan, they may close 

areas to prairie dog hunting at ferret 

reintroduction sites if monitoring shows 

a greater than 15 percent decline in 

prairie dog occupied acreage over a 3- 

year period. Tribes regulate prairie dog 

hunting on their respective lands. To 

the extent requested, we will assist any 

Tribe interested in reintroducing ferrets 

to address prairie dog management at 

potential reintroduction sites. 

We did not evaluate the effects of 

prairie dog shooting on ferrets in the 

EA, because that type of a consideration 

is outside of the scope of an EA (40 CFR 

1501.5). In the EA we are required to 

evaluate how the proposed action will 

affect the condition of the proposed 

SWEPA. In our evaluation of the social 

and economic conditions, we 

considered the effects of the proposed 

action to natural resource-based 

recreation, including prairie dog 

shooting. 

While lead contamination is a 

potential threat resulting from prairie 

dog shooting, we have not documented 

any lead poisoning of ferrets. This 

species may be less susceptible to 

chronic lead poisoning than are longer 

lived predators (Pain et al. 2009, p. 107). 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

our discussion of environmental 

consequences in the EA should include 

Tribal prairie dog shooting regulations 

in addition to the State regulations we 

included. 

Response: As sovereign nations, each 

Tribe has the authority to regulate 

hunting on their lands. When 

reintroduction sites contain Tribal land, 

we do and will work with Tribes to 

ensure that measures to manage prairie 

dogs are compatible with ferret 

reintroductions. 

Comment: One commenter asked 

about the extent to which ferret prey 

bases are being sustained by 

supplemental feeding, a strategy listed 

in AZGFD’s Management Plan. 

Response: AZGFD lists prairie dog 

supplemental feeding as a potential 

management strategy for specific 

circumstances; it is not a long-term 

strategy (AZGFD 2016, p. 15). We will 

reintroduce ferrets only at sites that 

have demonstrated persistent prairie 

dog populations at levels necessary to 

support ferrets. 

Comment: One commenter asked that 

we address the potential threat of feral 

dogs to ferrets. 

Response: Prior to a ferret 

reintroduction, we will assess potential 

site-specific threats. We expect feral 

dogs to pose a similar threat at ferret 

reintroduction sites as do coyotes. 

Coyote predation was a concern at early 

ferret reintroduction sites. Increased 

preconditioning of captive-born ferrets 

through outdoor pen rearing in recent 

years facilitates learning of important 

natural predator-avoidance behaviors 

and has led to increased survival rates 

following ferret releases into the wild 

(Biggins et al. 1998, pp. 647–648). In 

addition, like coyotes, feral dogs are a 

potential carrier of disease. We 

vaccinate all ferrets for canine 

distemper before reintroductions, 

continue disease management at all 

reintroduction sites, and expect that our 

current practices would minimize the 

potential threat that feral dogs, like 

coyotes, may pose at a reintroduction 

site. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we need to assess the effects of land 

management activities (e.g., livestock 

grazing, off-highway vehicle use, and 

other recreational activities) at blacktailed prairie dog sites. 

Response: Currently, the SWEPA does 

not contain enough occupied blacktailed prairie dog habitat to support a 

ferret reintroduction. Management may 

increase black-tailed prairie dogs in the 

future. When a black-tailed prairie dog 

population becomes large enough to 

support a ferret reintroduction, we will 

assess the threats to a ferret population 

and address those threats in a sitespecific management plan. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern about effects of human-wildlife 

interactions on ferrets and pointed out 

the lack of data informing appropriate 

distances between ferret populations 

and human residential areas. 

Response: We are not aware of effects 

of a reintroduction site’s proximity to a 

human residential area on ferrets. 

Reintroduction sites are typically 

relatively remote and distant from large 

residential developments. The potential 

reintroduction sites identified in the 

proposed SWEPA are not within or 

adjacent to areas with high human 

densities. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the 10(j) rule should commit to 

proactive management measures to 

bring potential reintroduction sites into 

the condition necessary to support ferret 

populations of sufficient size and 

resilience to contribute towards 

recovery. 

Response: The establishment of the 

SWEPA to support future 

reintroductions promotes ferret 

recovery. Existing management plans or 

plans we develop in cooperation with 

our partners and stakeholders will guide 

management of ferret populations at 

individual reintroduction sites in the 

SWEPA. We remain committed to 

working with partners to encourage and 

implement proactive prairie dog 

management at current and potential 

reintroduction sites within the SWEPA. 

Comment: One commenter, in 

response to a statement about the 

negative consequences of fragmented 

prairie dog colonies in the preamble of 

the proposed rule under ‘‘Ecology/ 

Habitat Use/Movement’’, stated: ‘‘An 

argument could be made that blackfooted ferret populations that are 

associated with Gunnison’s prairie dogs, 

which are extremely fragmented and 

less dense than black-tailed prairie dogs, 

could be more resilient to stochastic 

events than what is inferred.’’ 

Response: The less dense spatial 

distribution of Gunnison’s prairie dogs 

could increase resiliency by buffering 

the population against the spread of 

plague and other stochastic events. 

However, prairie dog colonies that exist 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 69067 

in smaller, isolated configurations are 

likely to have reduced resiliency 

because the smaller populations are 

more vulnerable to extirpation, and the 

isolation limits immigration and genetic 

exchange. We changed the wording in 

this final rule to clarify our description 

of the spatial distribution of prairie dog 

habitat (see ‘‘Threats/Causes of Decline’’ 

above). 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we add ‘‘availability of prey’’ as a 

factor influencing ferret dispersal in our 

discussion of ‘‘Actual or Anticipated 

Movements.’’ 

Response: We edited the text 

accordingly in this final rule. We 

previously incorporated prey into our 

consideration of habitat in the proposed 

rule, however, we agree that explicitly 

identifying it in our discussion of actual 

or anticipated movements improves 

clarity. 

Comment: One commenter asked 

what the estimated sustained 

population level is for the ferret. 

Response: The Recovery Plan 

identifies the number of populations 

necessary rangewide to downlist the 

ferret from endangered to threatened 

and to remove the ferret from listing 

under the ESA: at least 10 and at least 

30 populations, respectively. The 

Recovery Plan criteria indicate that each 

of those populations consist of at least 

30 breeding adults, and it details our 

methodology for establishing these 

criteria. We expect the number of ferrets 

in each population to fluctuate over 

time, decreasing during plague 

outbreaks and increasing when plague is 

effectively controlled at a site. This 

assumption emphasizes the importance 

of having multiple, widely spaced 

populations to safeguard the species 

from the widespread chronic effects of 

plague as well as other periodic or 

random disturbances that may result in 

the loss of a population in one or more 

given areas. 

Comment: Two commenters noted the 

discrepancy between the acreage of 

Gunnison’s prairie dog habitat 

identified by the USFWS and AZGFD 

needed to support a ferret population: 

7,415 and 5,540 ac (3,000 and 2,242 ha), 

respectively. One commenter expressed 

concern that this discrepancy has 

implications for reducing the success of 

reintroductions. 

Response: The two different numbers 

identified by us and AZGFD represent 

two different estimates, not 

requirements, of the amount of 

Gunnison’s prairie dog habitat needed 

to support a ferret population. The 

USFWS acknowledges in this final rule 

that the actual amount of prairie dog 

habitat needed will vary across the 

ferret’s range. We allocate ferrets for 

reintroductions based on the best 

information available about the 

proposed site. While this information 

includes the total acreage of prairie dog 

habitat, we also consider other sitespecific factors to assess a site’s overall 

ability to support a ferret population. 

We have edited the text in this final rule 

to clarify that these numbers are 

estimates, and not requirements, to 

guide ferret reintroduction site selection 

(see ‘‘Experimental Population’’ above). 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the USFWS cannot make an essentiality 

determination for a proposed 10(j) 

population if there is no specific 

proposed reintroduction. The 

commenter further stated that, even if 

making a determination were 

appropriate, the proposed rule failed to 

justify a nonessential designation for the 

SWEPA, because we did not adequately 

address the species’ viability in the wild 

or consider the status of other ferret 

populations in the wild. 

Response: When we authorize the 

reintroduction of an endangered species 

outside of its current range as an 

experimental population, we are 

required to make a finding, based solely 

on the best scientific and commercial 

data available, and the supporting 

factual basis, on whether the 

experimental population is, or is not, 

essential to the continued existence of 

the species in the wild. We are not 

required by either the ESA or applicable 

regulations to postpone making this 

determination until we have made a 

decision regarding a ‘‘specific proposed 

reintroduction.’’ We have made the 

essentiality determination in this rule in 

accordance with the ESA and applicable 

regulations. We have addressed species’ 

viability in the wild across its range to 

make an essentiality determination for 

the proposed SWEPA. We used the 

conservation biology principles of 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation to assess current and 

future species viability (Shaffer and 

Stein 2000, entire) in our SSA (USFWS 

2019, pp. 43–83); we summarize that 

assessment in the ‘‘Is the Experimental 

Population Essential or Nonessential?’’ 

portion of the preamble to the proposed 

rule. 

Given the current and anticipated 

future numbers of ferret populations 

and their distribution in the wild, there 

is no indication that populations 

established in the SWEPA could be 

described as those ‘‘whose loss would 

be likely to appreciably reduce the 

likelihood of survival of the species in 

the wild.’’ Loss of the SWEPA would 

not affect the remaining populations of 

ferrets in the wild. For these reasons, a 

nonessential determination for the 

SWEPA is valid. Additionally, captivebreeding efforts continue to support the 

establishment of more populations 

throughout the species’ range. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the draft EA fails to disclose that all the 

reintroduced ferret populations are 

listed as 10(j) nonessential and that the 

USFWS cannot rely on other 

‘‘nonessential’’ populations to designate 

the SWEPA population as nonessential. 

Response: Not all the ferret 

populations in the wild are nonessential 

experimental populations; we have used 

a variety of other regulatory 

mechanisms, including section 

10(a)(1)(A) permits and SHAs, to 

reintroduce ferrets. Of the 18 currently 

active ferret reintroduction sites, 5 are 

nonessential experimental populations. 

The remainder occur under section 

10(a)(1)(A) permits and SHAs. In 2019, 

active reintroduction sites were 

evaluated in the SSA; two were 

considered to be in high-resiliency 

condition and eight to be in moderateresiliency condition (USFWS 2020, pp. 

63–64). All the aforementioned 

regulatory mechanisms remain available 

to facilitate future ferret reintroductions 

across the species’ range. Subpart H, 

part 17, of title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations does not limit consideration 

of any population of a species when 

making an essentiality determination 

and requires an evaluation of the 

species as a whole, including all 

populations captive and wild. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that we made our essentiality 

determination out of convenience to 

landowners and managers. The 

commenter specifically cited text in the 

proposed rule: We prefer applying the 

experimental population designation 

and regulations to the entire proposed 

SWEPA, because a single set of statutes 

and regulations and a single 

management framework would then 

apply to all lands, non-Federal and 

Federal, containing potential ferret 

habitat within the designated SWEPA 

boundary. 

Response: The cited text is from the 

portion of the preamble pertaining to 

management restrictions, protective 

measures, and other special 

management and not from the portion 

pertaining to whether the proposed 

experimental population is essential or 

nonessential. We did not consider the 

cited text within the context of our 

essentiality determination. Rather, the 

cited text refers to the use of a single 

regulatory mechanism, the 10(j) rule, 

rather than multiple regulatory or 

permitting mechanisms, within the 

SWEPA. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
69068 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that ‘‘a broad nonessential 

designation divests Federal land 

managers of important tools to protect 

the species, including the obligation to 

formally consult to prevent jeopardy 

under ESA section 7(a)(2), and the 

ability to designate critical habitat.’’ The 

commenter expressed concern that there 

would never be an obligation to evaluate 

the potential for cumulative 

management actions to result in 

jeopardy. 

Response: Under 50 CFR 17.83(a), for 

the purposes of section 7 of the ESA, we 

treat a nonessential experimental 

population as if it were a threatened 

species when located in a National 

Wildlife Refuge or unit of the National 

Park Service (NPS), and Federal 

agencies follow conservation and 

consultation requirements per sections 

7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the ESA, 

respectively. We treat nonessential 

experimental populations outside of a 

National Wildlife Refuge or NPS unit as 

species proposed for listing, and Federal 

agencies follow the provisions of 

sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(4) of the ESA. 

Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies 

to confer with us on actions that are 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a species proposed to be 

listed. Because the nonessential 

experimental population is, by 

definition, not essential to the 

continued existence of the species in the 

wild, the effects of proposed actions on 

the population will generally not rise to 

the level of ‘‘jeopardy.’’ Nonetheless, 

some Federal agencies voluntarily 

confer with us on actions that may affect 

a species proposed for listing. Ferrets 

were listed under the ESA prior to the 

1978 critical habitat amendments; 

therefore, designation of critical habitat 

for this species even outside of 

nonessential experimental population 

areas is at the discretion of the Secretary 

(50 CFR 424.12(e); USFWS 2013a, p 13). 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the EA should consider additional 

action alternatives, including an 

alternative that exempts federally 

managed lands from the SWEPA and an 

alternative that does not extend 

nonessential status to federally managed 

lands in the SWEPA. One commenter 

noted that, while the EA addresses the 

need of a 10(j) rule to garner support 

from private landowners on private 

lands, it does not specifically analyze 

the viability of ferret reintroductions on 

federally managed lands where there are 

regulatory mandates to further the 

conservation of imperiled species. 

Response: In the EA, we evaluated the 

alternatives that we think are reasonable 

and feasible. Future reintroduced ferret 

populations will likely cross boundaries 

of land ownership. The potential sites 

identified in the rule contain private, 

Federal, State, and Tribal lands. Having 

a single regulatory mechanism for the 

entire experimental population will 

simplify management of the population. 

We did not consider an alternative that 

does not extend nonessential status to 

federally managed land, because land 

ownership is not a consideration of an 

essentiality determination. 

Comment: One commenter stated that, 

rather than addressing management in 

the SWEPA, we deferred to the plan that 

AZGFD developed specifically for the 

AVEPA, not the SWEPA. 

Response: AZGFD developed their 

Management Plan for the Black-footed 

Ferret in Arizona based on the best 

available science, including information 

in USFWS documents, such as the 

Recovery Plan and the Operations 

Manual, to guide ferret management 

statewide. We reviewed and commented 

on the AZGFD’s Management Plan in its 

development, and it complements the 

USFWS Recovery Plan and the 

Operations Manual. For potential 

reintroduction sites on Tribal lands, we 

will offer our cooperation and assistance 

in the development of applicable 

management plans. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

the draft EA and proposed rule do not 

set timeframes or other commitments for 

reintroductions and provide only vague 

plans for ferret reintroduction in the 

SWEPA. The commenter further stated 

that the 10(j) rule must commit to 

management efforts to ensure successful 

reintroductions. 

Response: Neither section 10(j) of the 

ESA nor the 10(j) regulations found at 

50 CFR 17.81 require the USFWS to set 

timeframes or other commitments for 

reintroductions. In the proposed rule, 

we included the information necessary 

to identify the experimental population, 

as required by regulation. The potential 

reintroduction sites require additional 

management before site conditions 

could support a ferret population. We 

will work with our partners to develop 

site-specific management plans that 

include specific details regarding 

reintroductions, when site conditions 

can support ferret populations. 

Identifying these details in the future 

will allow us to take advantage of future 

opportunities as they arise. Our 

regulations require us to consider the 

likelihood that the experimental 

population will become established and 

survive in the foreseeable future but do 

not require commitment to specific 

management actions. In the proposed 

rule, we considered the potential for 

appropriate management for the ferret 

and its habitat in Arizona. Given the 

AZGFD’s past commitment to ferret 

reintroduction and its development of a 

Management Plan for ferret 

reintroduction throughout its range in 

Arizona, and interest from the Hopi 

Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, and the Navajo 

Nation in reintroductions of and 

management for ferrets on their Tribal 

lands, we have a high level of 

confidence in implementation of 

management to support ferret 

populations in the SWEPA. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the proposed rule lacks concrete, 

enforceable mechanisms to prevent 

unsustainable levels of take. 

Response: Neither the ESA nor the 

10(j) regulations found at 50 CFR 17.81 

require concrete, enforceable 

mechanisms to prevent unsustainable 

levels of take. In accordance with 50 

CFR 17.82, we have identified special 

rules for ferret nonessential 

experimental populations in 50 CFR 

17.84(g). These allow most forms of 

incidental take of ferrets in the 

experimental population area, if the take 

is unintentional and not due to 

negligent conduct. Intentional and 

negligent take within the experimental 

population area is still prohibited and 

unlawful pursuant to section 9 of the 

ESA. The persistence of ferrets in the 

AVEPA/Double O Ranch has 

demonstrated that these same take 

provisions for the AVEPA/Double O 

Ranch have not meaningfully affected 

that population. We will work with our 

partners and stakeholders to apply 

existing management plans or develop 

site-specific management plans for 

future reintroduction sites. We 

addressed the sustainability of the ferret 

population in the ‘‘Likelihood of 

Population Establishment and Survival’’ 

portion of the preamble to the proposed 

rule. 

Comment: One commenter was 

concerned that the USFWS is abdicating 

Federal authority of the reintroduction 

program to AZGFD. The commenter 

further stated that the rule should make 

clear that the USFWS holds primary 

responsibility for ferret recovery, has the 

authority to conduct and manage 

reintroductions even when parties such 

as permittees and State agencies oppose 

such efforts, and that the USFWS and 

other Federal agencies are under a 

constant duty pursuant to ESA section 

7(a)(1) to utilize their authority in 

furtherance of ferret conservation. 

Response: The USFWS has in no way 

abdicated its Federal authority regarding 

the ferret reintroduction program to 

AZGFD. Our final 10(j) rule revising the 

current nonessential experimental 

population of the black-footed ferrets is 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 69069 

a responsible use of our authority under 

the ESA. Section 6 of the Act 

specifically states that, in carrying out 

the programs authorized by the ESA, the 

Secretary shall cooperate to the 

maximum extent practicable with the 

States and that the Secretary may enter 

into agreements with any State for the 

administration and management of any 

area established for the conservation of 

endangered species or threatened 

species. The USFWS is active in the 

management of all current and future 

potential ferret reintroduction sites. 

Additionally, we are responsible for 

allocating captive-bred ferrets and 

ensuring that reintroduction sites are 

suitable for supporting ferret 

populations. Our regulations in 50 CFR 

17.81(d) require us to consult with 

AZGFD in developing and 

implementing this 10(j) rule, which we 

have done. This rule, to the maximum 

extent practicable, represents an 

agreement between the USFWS, affected 

Tribes, State and Federal agencies, and 

persons holding any interest in land that 

the establishment of an experimental 

population may affect. The mission of 

the USFWS directs us to work with 

others to conserve, protect, and enhance 

wildlife and their habitats. The USFWS 

Recovery Plan for the Black-footed 

Ferret additionally states that the 

development of partnerships with 

private landowners and Tribes is 

essential to recovery of the species. 

The AZGFD has demonstrated its 

commitment to ferret conservation 

through their long-term active 

involvement in ferret conservation, 

including the development of the 

Management Plan for the Black-footed 

Ferret in Arizona. AZGFD has also 

demonstrated a commitment to our 

scientific understanding of ferret 

ecology and husbandry techniques and 

to developing relationships with private 

landowners essential for ferret 

conservation. The feasibility of future 

reintroductions will depend on such 

relationships with private landowners. 

Given these factors, we partner with 

AZGFD on ferret reintroductions on 

non-Tribal lands in Arizona. 

In addition to private lands, all four 

future potential reintroduction sites 

identified in the proposed rule include 

Federal lands. We will coordinate with 

our Federal partners to use their 

authorities to further ferret recovery. We 

will also offer our cooperation and 

assistance to Tribes in the development 

of applicable management plans on 

Tribal lands. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 

14094) 

Executive Order 14094 reaffirms the 

principles of E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 

and states that regulatory analysis 

should facilitate agency efforts to 

develop regulations that serve the 

public interest, advance statutory 

objectives, and are consistent with E.O. 

12866, E.O. 13563, and the Presidential 

Memorandum of January 20, 2021 

(Modernizing Regulatory Review). 

Regulatory analysis, as practicable and 

appropriate, shall recognize distributive 

impacts and equity, to the extent 

permitted by law. E.O. 13563 

emphasizes further that regulations 

must be based on the best available 

science and that the rulemaking process 

must allow for public participation and 

an open exchange of ideas. We have 

developed this final rule in a manner 

consistent with these requirements. 

E.O. 12866, as reaffirmed by E.O. 

13563 and E.O. 14094, provides that the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) will 

review all significant rules. OIRA has 

determined that this rule is not 

significant. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 

whenever a Federal agency is required 

to publish a notice of rulemaking for 

any proposed or final rule or revision to 

a rule, it must prepare, and make 

available for public comment, a 

regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effect of the action on 

small entities (small businesses, small 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions). However, these acts 

require no regulatory flexibility analysis 

if the head of an agency certifies that the 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The SBREFA 

amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

to require Federal agencies to provide a 

statement of the factual basis for 

certifying that an action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. We 

are certifying that this final rule will not 

have a significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The following discussion explains our 

rationale. 

The affected area includes release 

sites in Arizona, Tribal lands that 

coincide with Arizona, lands of the 

Navajo Nation that coincide with 

Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah, and 

adjacent areas into which ferrets may 

disperse, which over time could include 

significant portions of the SWEPA. 

Because of the regulatory flexibility for 

Federal agency actions provided by the 

nonessential experimental designation 

and the exemption for incidental take in 

the special rule, this rule is not expected 

to have significant effects on any 

activities on Federal, State, Tribal, or 

private lands in the revised area. 

Concerning section 7(a)(2), we treat the 

population as proposed for listing 

outside of NPS and USFWS-managed 

National Wildlife Refuge lands, and we 

do not require Federal action agencies 

other than NPS and USFWS National 

Wildlife Refuges to consult with us on 

their activities. Section 7(a)(4) requires 

other Federal agencies to confer (rather 

than consult) with the USFWS on 

actions that are likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of a species 

proposed for listing. However, because 

a nonessential experimental population 

is, by definition, not essential to the 

survival of the species, we will likely 

never require a conference for the ferret 

populations in the SWEPA. 

Furthermore, the results of a conference 

are advisory in nature and do not 

restrict Federal agencies from carrying 

out, funding, or authorizing activities. In 

addition, section 7(a)(1) requires Federal 

agencies to use their authorities to carry 

out programs to further the conservation 

of listed species, which will apply on 

any lands in the revised area. As a 

result, and in accordance with these 

regulations, some modifications to 

proposed Federal actions in the SWEPA 

may occur to benefit the ferret, but we 

do not expect implementation of these 

regulations to halt or substantially 

modify proposed projects. 

This revision includes the same 

authorizations provided in the AVEPA 

for incidental take of the ferret but over 

a larger landscape, the SWEPA. The 

regulations implementing the ESA 

define ‘‘incidental take’’ as take that is 

incidental to, and not the purpose of, 

the carrying out of an otherwise lawful 

activity such as agricultural activities 

and other rural development, camping, 

hiking, hunting, vehicle use of roads 

and highways, and other activities that 

are in accordance with Federal, Tribal, 

State, and local laws and regulations. 

This rule does not authorize intentional 

take of ferrets for purposes other than 

authorized data collection or recovery 

purposes. Intentional take for research 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
69070 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

or recovery purposes would require a 

section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permit 

under the ESA. 

The principal activities on private 

property in or near the revised 

nonessential experimental population 

area are livestock grazing and associated 

ranch management practices (e.g., 

fencing, weed treatments, water 

developments, and maintenance). Ferret 

presence will not affect these land uses 

because there will be no new or 

additional economic or regulatory 

restrictions imposed upon States, nonFederal entities, or members of the 

public due to the presence of the ferret, 

and Federal agencies will have to 

comply with sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(4) 

of the ESA only in these areas. 

Therefore, we do not expect this 

rulemaking to have any significant 

adverse impacts to activities on private 

lands in the SWEPA. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with this act: 

(1) This rule will not ‘‘significantly or 

uniquely’’ affect small governments 

because it will not place additional 

requirements on any city, county, or 

other local municipalities. The USFWS 

determined that this rule will not 

impose a cost of $100 million or more 

in any given year on local or State 

governments or private entities. 

Therefore, this rule does not require a 

small government agency plan. 

(2) This rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under this act; it will 

not produce a Federal mandate of $100 

million or more in any year. The revised 

nonessential experimental population 

area for the ferret will not impose any 

additional management or protection 

requirements on the States or other 

entities. 

Takings (E.O. 12630) 

In accordance with E.O. 12630, this 

rule does not have significant takings 

implications. It allows for the take, as 

defined in the ESA, of reintroduced 

ferrets when such take is incidental to 

an otherwise legal activity, such as 

livestock grazing, agriculture, recreation 

(e.g., off-highway vehicle use), and other 

activities that are in accordance with 

law and regulation. Therefore, the 

revision of the AVEPA to encompass a 

larger area, the SWEPA, will not conflict 

with existing or proposed human 

activities or hinder public land use. 

This order does not require a takings 

implication assessment because this 

rule: (1) will not effectively compel a 

property owner to suffer a physical 

invasion of property, and (2) will not 

deny economically beneficial or 

productive use of the land. The rule 

substantially advances a legitimate 

government interest (conservation and 

recovery of a listed species) and does 

not present a barrier to reasonable and 

expected beneficial use of private 

property. 

Federalism (E.O. 13132) 

In accordance with E.O. 13132, we 

have considered whether this rule has 

significant federalism effects and 

determined we do not need to conduct 

a federalism assessment. It does not 

have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. In keeping with 

Department of the Interior policy, we 

requested information from and 

coordinated development of this rule 

with the affected resource agencies. 

Achieving the recovery goals for this 

species would contribute to the eventual 

delisting of the ferret and its return to 

State management. We do not expect 

any intrusion on State administration or 

policy, change in roles or 

responsibilities of Federal or State 

governments, or substantial direct effect 

on fiscal capacity. The rule operates to 

maintain the existing relationship 

between the State and the Federal 

Government, and we will implement it 

in coordination with the State of 

Arizona. Therefore, this rule does not 

have significant federalism effects or 

implications to warrant preparation of a 

federalism assessment under the 

provisions of E.O. 13132. 

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) 

In accordance with E.O. 12988, the 

Office of the Solicitor has determined 

that this rule will not unduly burden the 

judicial system and will meet the 

requirements of sections (3)(a) and 

(3)(b)(2) of the Order. 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.) 

This rule does not contain any new 

collection of information that requires 

approval by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). OMB has previously approved 

the information collection requirements 

associated with reporting the taking of 

experimental populations (50 CFR 

17.84) and assigned control number 

1018–0095 (expires 09/30/2023, and in 

accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10, an 

agency may continue to conduct or 

sponsor this collection of information 

while the submission is pending at 

OMB). The USFWS may not collect or 

sponsor and may not require response to 

a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

In compliance with all provisions of 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (NEPA), we have analyzed the 

impact of this final rule. In cooperation 

with the AZGFD, the Hopi Tribe, 

Hualapai Tribe, and the Navajo Nation, 

we have prepared an environmental 

assessment and a FONSI for this action 

and have made them available for 

public inspection (see ADDRESSES). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationships With Tribes 

In accordance with the Executive 

Memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951, May 4, 

1994), E.O. 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), and the Department 

of the Interior Manual Chapter 512 DM 

2, we have considered possible effects of 

this rule revision on federally 

recognized Indian Tribes. We 

determined that the SWEPA overlaps or 

is adjacent to Tribal lands. Potential 

reintroduction sites identified in this 

revision, the CO Bar Ranch and Petrified 

Forest National Park, are near or 

adjacent to Tribal lands, as is the 

existing AVEPA where a reintroduced 

ferret population exists. We offered 

government-to-government consultation 

to nine Tribes: the Havasupai, Hopi, 

Hualapai, San Carlos Apache, San JuanSouthern Paiute, White Mountain 

Apache, and Yavapai-Prescott Tribes, 

Navajo Nation, and the Pueblo of Zuni. 

We met with the Hualapai, Hopi, and 

White Mountain Apache Tribes and the 

Navajo Nation about the proposed 

revision. Participation in ferret recovery 

is voluntary. If suitable habitat for ferret 

recovery is available on their lands, 

Tribes may choose either not to 

participate, or to participate through 

authorities under section 10(j), section 

10(a)(1)(A), or the SHA (USFWS 2013b, 

entire). If we introduce ferrets onto nonTribal lands adjacent to Tribal lands and 

any ferrets disperse onto Tribal lands, 

the aforementioned authorities will 

provide more regulatory flexibility 

under the ESA through allowances for 

incidental take. 

Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (E.O. 13211) 

E.O. 13211 requires agencies to 

prepare statements of energy effects 

when undertaking certain actions. We 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 69071 

do not expect this rule to have a 

significant effect on energy supplies, 

distribution, and use. Because this 

action is not a significant energy action, 

this order does not require a statement 

of energy effects. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this final rule is available online at 

https://www.regulations.gov at Docket 

Number FWS–R2–ES–2020–0123, or 

upon request from the Arizona 

Ecological Services Field Office (see 

ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this rule are 

staff members of the USFWS Arizona 

Ecological Services Field Office (see 

ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and 

record keeping requirements, 

Transportation, Wildlife. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 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. 

■ 2. In § 17.11 in paragraph (h), amend 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife under ‘‘MAMMALS’’ by 

revising the entries for ‘‘Ferret, blackfooted’’ and adding seven new entries 

for the ‘‘Ferret, black-footed’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and 

applicable rules 

MAMMALS

* * * * * * * 

Ferret, black-footed ............ Mustela nigripes ................ Wherever found, except where listed as 

an experimental population.

E 32 FR 4001, 3/11/1967; 

35 FR 16047, 10/13/1970. 

Ferret, black-footed ............ Mustela nigripes ................ U.S.A. (parts of WY (Shirley Basin/Medicine Bow Management Area); see 

§ 17.84(g)(9)(i)).

XN 56 FR 41473, 8/21/1991; 

50 CFR 17.84(g).10j

Ferret, black-footed ............ Mustela nigripes ................ U.S.A. (parts of SD (Conata Basin/Badlands Reintroduction Area); see 

§ 17.84(g)(9)(ii)).

XN 59 FR 42682, 8/18/1994; 

50 CFR 17.84(g).10j

Ferret, black-footed ............ Mustela nigripes ................ U.S.A. (parts of MT (Northcentral Montana Reintroduction Area); see 

§ 17.84(g)(9)(iii)).

XN 59 FR 42696, 8/18/1994; 

50 CFR 17.84(g).10j

Ferret, black-footed ............ Mustela nigripes ................ U.S.A. (parts of AZ, NM, UT (Southwest 

Experimental Population Area), see 

§ 17.84(g)(9)(iv)).

XN 61 FR 11320, 3/20/1996; 

88 FR [INSERT Federal 

Register page where 

the document begins], 

10/5/2023; 50 CFR 

17.84(g).10j

Ferret, black-footed ............ Mustela nigripes ................ U.S.A. (parts of CO, UT (Northwestern 

Colorado/Northeastern Utah Experimental Population Area), see 

§ 17.84(g)(9)(v)).

XN 63 FR 52824, 10/1/1998; 

50 CFR 17.84(g).10j

Ferret, black-footed ............ Mustela nigripes ................ U.S.A. (parts of SD (Cheyenne River 

Sioux Tribe Reintroduction Area), see 

§ 17.84(g)(9)(vi)).

XN 65 FR 60879, 10/13/2000; 

50 CFR 17.84(g).10j

Ferret, black-footed ............ Mustela nigripes ................ U.S.A. (parts of SD (Rosebud Sioux 

Reservation Experimental Population 

Area), see § 17.84(g)(9)(vii)).

XN 68 FR 26498, 5/16/2003; 

50 CFR 17.84(g).10j

Ferret, black-footed ............ Mustela nigripes ................ U.S.A. (most of WY (Wyoming Experimental Population Area), see 

§ 17.84(g)(9)(viii)).

XN 80 FR 66821, 10/30/2015; 

50 CFR 17.84(g).10j

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 17.84 by revising 

paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(6)(iv), and 

(g)(9)(iv), and removing the fourth map 

(depicting the Aubrey Valley 

Experimental Population Area) and 

adding in its place Map 4 to paragraph 

(g) to read as follows: 

§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
69072 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

Wildlife Service, Phoenix, Arizona 

(telephone: 602–242–0210). 

* * * * * 

(9) * * * 

(iv) We consider the Southwest 

Experimental Population Area (SWEPA) 

to be the area shown on a map following 

paragraph (g)(12) of this section. The 

SWEPA includes the core recovery areas 

for this species in Arizona. The 

boundary of the northern section of the 

SWEPA is those parts of Apache, 

Coconino, Gila, Mohave, Navajo, and 

Yavapai Counties, Arizona, that include 

the northern area as delineated on the 

map, excluding Hopi District 6. The 

northern section also includes portions 

of Cibola, McKinley, Rio Arriba, 

Sandoval, and San Juan Counties, New 

Mexico, and San Juan County, Utah, 

that coincide with Navajo Nation lands. 

The boundary of the southern section of 

the SWEPA is those parts of Cochise, 

Pima, Pinal, Graham, and Santa Cruz 

Counties, Arizona, that include the 

southern area as delineated on the map. 

After the first breeding season following 

the first year of black-footed ferret 

release, we will consider any blackfooted ferret found in the SWEPA as 

part of the nonessential experimental 

population. We would not consider a 

black-footed ferret occurring outside of 

the Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah 

portions of the SWEPA a member of the 

nonessential experimental population, 

and we may capture it for genetic 

testing. We may dispose of the captured 

animal in the following ways: 

(A) If an animal is genetically 

determined to have originated from the 

experimental population, we may return 

it to the reintroduction area or to a 

captive-breeding facility. 

(B) If an animal is determined to be 

genetically unrelated to the 

experimental population, we will place 

it in captivity under an existing 

contingency plan. 

* * * * * 

Map 4 to paragraph (g)—Southwest 

Nonessential Experimental 

Population Area (SWEPA) for the 

black-footed ferret 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 69073 

* * * * * 

Martha Williams, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–21978 Filed 10–4–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1ER05OC23.062</GPH>

Southwest Nonessential Experimental Population Area (SWEPA) for the black-footed ferret 

Nevada 

~ 0 30 60 

0 30 60 

l'nljedion: 

UlM 121'1 

Dalln: 

NKl83 

-T 

New Mexico 

USFWS gives no -,anty, ex:pr......i orimplied, as lo Ile aa:uracy, rell&biily, or mmpleleness orlhese dBi&. 

ln-n,lheUSFWS ollal not be llekl - llrim111DJl"f orinconedt1seoflhedala_an_m_ed 

herein. Gnphical--providedbylheuseoflhis-donotrepresentlegalbouooairyd~. 

Rea lo lihe te.lual d~ as publislled in lhe Federal Register. 

~ SW Nonessential Experimental Popmation Area (SWEPA} 

- Double O Ranch SHA 

90 120 - &pee Ranch SHA 

Mi Hopi DiSbid 6 (excluded) 

Km 

90 120