Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19263 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted for 

the western pond turtle (Actinemys 

marmorata) based on Factor A. 

Thus, for the western pond turtle, the 

Service requests information on the five 

listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of 

the Act, including the factor identified 

in this finding (see Request for 

Information, above). 

Evaluation of a Petition To List Yellowcedar as an Endangered or Threatened 

Species Under the Act 

Additional information regarding our 

review of this petition can be found as 

an appendix at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R7–ES–2015–0025 under the 

Supporting Documents section. 

Species and Range 

YellowYellow-cedar (Callitropsis 

nootkatensis); Alaska, California, 

Oregon, Washington, U.S.A.; Canada 

Petition History 

On June 24, 2014, we received a 

petition dated June 24, 2014, from 

Center for Biological Diversity, The Boat 

Company, Greater Southeast Alaska 

Conservation Community, and 

Greenpeace, requesting that yellowcedar be listed as a endangered or 

threatenedspecies under the Act. The 

petition clearly identified itself as such 

and included the requisite identification 

information for the petitioner, required 

at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding 

addresses the petition. 

Finding 

Based on our review of the petition 

and sources cited in the petition, we 

find that the petition presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted for 

yellow-cedar (Callitropsis nootkatensis) 

based on Factors A, B, and E. 

Thus, for yellow-cedar, the Service 

requests information on the five listing 

factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, 

including the factors identified in this 

finding (see Request for Information, 

above). 

Conclusion 

On the basis of our evaluation of the 

information presented under section 

4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we have 

determined that the petitions 

summarized above for Clear Lake hitch, 

Egyptian tortoise, golden conure, longtailed chinchilla, Mojave shoulderband 

snail, northern spotted owl, relict dace, 

San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving 

fly, western pond turtle, and yellowcedar present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the requested actions may be warranted. 

Because we have found that the 

petitions present substantial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned actions may be warranted, we 

are initiating status reviews to 

determine whether these actions under 

the Act are warranted. At the conclusion 

of the status reviews, we will issue a 12- 

month finding in accordance with 

section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, as to 

whether or not the Service believes 

listing, reclassification, or delisting, as 

appropriate, is warranted. 

It is important to note that the 

‘‘substantial information’’ standard for a 

90-day finding as to whether the 

petitioned action may be warranted 

differs from the Act’s ‘‘best scientific 

and commercial data’’ standard that 

applies to the Service’s determination in 

a 12-month finding as to whether a 

petitioned action is in fact warranted. A 

90-day finding is not based on a status 

review. In a 12-month finding, we will 

determine whether a petitioned action is 

warranted after we have completed a 

thorough status review of the species, 

which is conducted following a 

substantial 90-day finding. Because the 

Act’s standards for 90-day and 12- 

month findings are different, as 

described above, a substantial 90-day 

finding does not mean that the 12- 

month finding will result in a warranted 

finding. 

5-Year Review 

The status reviews of golden conure 

and northern spotted owl will also serve 

as the 5-year reviews for thesetheses 

species. Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act 

requires that we conduct a review of 

listed species at least once every 5 years. 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.21 

require that we publish a notice in the 

Federal Register announcing those 

species under active review. For 

additional information about 5-year 

reviews, go to http://www.fws.gov/

endangered/what-we-do/recoveryoverview.html, scroll down to ‘‘Learn 

More about 5-Year Reviews,’’ and click 

on our factsheet. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov and upon request 

from the appropriate lead field offices 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are the staff members of the Branch of 

Foreign Species, Ecological Services 

Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Authority 

The authority for these actions is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: March 30, 2015. 

Robert Dreher, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–07837 Filed 4–9–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2015–0013; 

FXES11130900000C6–145–FF09E42000] 

RIN 1018–BA42 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Establishment of a 

Nonessential Experimental Population 

of Black-Footed Ferrets in Wyoming 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of 

availability. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), in 

coordination with the State of Wyoming 

and other partners, propose to 

reestablish additional populations of the 

black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes), a 

federally listed endangered mammal, 

into occupied prairie dog (Cynomys 

spp.) habitat in Wyoming. We propose 

to reestablish the black-footed ferret 

under section 10(j) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), 

and to classify any reestablished 

population as a nonessential 

experimental population (NEP). This 

approach would provide relaxed 

management rules to facilitate 

reintroductions. We are seeking 

comments on this proposal and on our 

draft environmental assessment, 

prepared pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended (NEPA), which analyzes the 

potential environmental impacts 

associated with the proposed 

reintroduction. 

We are also notifying the public that 

we are amending the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife (List) to reflect 

the scientifically accepted historical 

range of the black-footed ferret. The 

revised historical range description 

includes Mexico. The historical range 

information in the List is informational, 

not regulatory. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19264 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

June 9, 2015. Please note that if you are 

using the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

(see ADDRESSES), the deadline for 

submitting an electronic comment is 

11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on this date. 

ADDRESSES: Written Comments: You 

may submit comments by one of the 

following methods: 

• Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2015– 

0013, which is the docket number for 

this rulemaking. Then, click the Search 

button. In the Search panel on the left 

side of the screen, under the Document 

Type heading, click on the box next to 

Proposed Rules to locate this document. 

You may submit a comment by clicking 

on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ 

• By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R6–ES–2015– 

0013; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls 

Church, VA 22041–3803. 

We will post all comments on 

http:// www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Public Comments section, 

below, for more information). 

Copies of Documents: The proposed 

rule and draft environmental assessment 

are available on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. In addition, the 

supporting file for this proposed rule 

will be available for public inspection, 

by appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the Wyoming Ecological 

Services Field Office, 5353 Yellowstone 

Road, Suite 308A, Cheyenne, WY 

82009; telephone 307–772–2374. 

Persons who use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) may call the 

Federal Information Relay Services 

(FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Sattelberg, Field Supervisor, 

Telephone: 307–772–2374. Direct all 

questions or requests for additional 

information to: BLACK–FOOTED 

FERRET QUESTIONS, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Wyoming Ecological 

Services Field Office, 5353 Yellowstone 

Road, Suite 308A, Cheyenne, WY 

82009. Individuals who are hearingimpaired or speech-impaired may call 

the Federal Relay Service at 1–800–877– 

8337 for TTY assistance. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments 

We want any final rule resulting from 

this proposal to be as effective as 

possible. Therefore, we invite Tribal and 

governmental agencies, the scientific 

community, industry, and other 

interested parties to submit comments 

or recommendations concerning any 

aspect of this proposed rule. Comments 

should be as specific as possible. 

To issue a final rule to implement this 

proposed action, we will take into 

consideration all comments and any 

additional information we receive. Such 

communications may lead to a final rule 

that differs from this proposal. All 

comments, including commenters’ 

names and addresses, if provided to us, 

will become part of the supporting 

record. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning the proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments must be 

submitted to http://www.regulations.gov 

before 11:59 p.m. (Eastern Time) on the 

date specified in the DATES section. We 

will not consider hand-delivered 

comments that we do not receive, or 

mailed comments that are not 

postmarked, by the date specified in the 

DATES section. 

We will post your entire comment–– 

including your personal identifying 

information––on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. If you provide 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you may request at the top of 

your document that we withhold this 

information from public review. 

However, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as some of the supporting 

documentation we used in preparing 

this proposed rule, will be available for 

public inspection on http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Wyoming Ecological Services 

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

We are specifically seeking comments 

concerning: 

• The appropriateness of designating 

reintroduced populations of blackfooted ferrets in Wyoming as NEPs; 

• Threats to black-footed ferrets in the 

proposed NEP area that have not been 

considered in this proposed rule and 

that might affect a reintroduced 

population; 

• The suitability of the proposed 

boundaries for this NEP; 

• The effects of reintroducing blackfooted ferrets on public and private land 

management activities such as ranching, 

recreation, energy development, and 

residential development; and 

• The compatibility of this proposal 

and ongoing efforts to implement the 

black-footed ferret safe harbor 

agreement (SHA) in cooperation with 

non-federal landowners. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our Interagency 

Cooperative Policy for Peer Review in 

Endangered Species Act Activities, 

which was published on July 1, 1994 

(59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert 

opinion of at least three appropriate and 

independent specialists regarding 

scientific data and interpretations 

contained in this proposed rule. We will 

send copies of this proposed rule to the 

peer reviewers immediately following 

publication in the Federal Register. The 

purpose of such review is to ensure that 

our decisions are based on scientifically 

sound data, assumptions, and analysis. 

Accordingly, the final decision may 

differ from this proposal. 

Background 

Statutory and Regulatory Framework 

The black-footed ferret was listed as 

endangered throughout its range on 

March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001), and again 

on June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8491), under 

early endangered species legislation and 

was ‘‘grandfathered’’ under the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) without critical 

habitat. The Act provides that species 

listed as endangered are afforded 

protection primarily through section 9 

prohibitions and the consultation 

requirements of section 7. Section 9 of 

the Act, among other things, prohibits 

the taking of endangered wildlife. 

‘‘Take’’ is defined by the Act as to 

harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 

wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or 

attempt to engage in any such conduct. 

Section 7 of the Act outlines the 

procedures for Federal interagency 

cooperation to conserve federally listed 

species and protect designated critical 

habitat. It mandates that all Federal 

agencies use their existing authorities to 

further the purposes of the Act by 

carrying out programs for the 

conservation of listed species. It also 

states that Federal agencies must, in 

consultation with the Service, ensure 

that any action they authorize, fund, or 

carry out is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of a listed species 

or result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of designated critical 

habitat. Section 7 of the Act does not 

affect activities undertaken on private 

land unless they are authorized, funded, 

or carried out by a Federal agency. 

Congress amended the Act in 1982, 

because species’ reintroductions were 

difficult to achieve due to concerns over 

the rigid protection and prohibitions 

surrounding listed species (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2010). Although 

the Secretary of the U.S. Department of 

the Interior (Secretary) already had 

authority to conserve a species by 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19265 

introducing it in areas outside its 

current range, Congress enacted the 

provisions of section 10(j) to mitigate 

fears that reintroduced populations 

would negatively impact landowners 

and other private parties. Congress 

recognized that more flexible 

reintroduction rules could encourage 

recovery partners to host such 

populations on their lands (H.R. Rep. 

No. 97–567, at 8 (1982)). Congress 

designed section 10(j) to provide the 

Secretary regulatory flexibility and 

discretion in managing the 

reintroduction of endangered species. 

This flexibility allows the Secretary to 

better conserve and recover endangered 

species (H.R. Rep. No. 97–567, at 33 

(1982)). 

Under section 10(j) of the Act and our 

regulations at 50 CFR 17.81, the Service 

may designate as an experimental 

population a population of endangered 

or threatened species that has been or 

will be released into suitable natural 

habitat outside the species’ current 

natural range (but within its probable 

historical range, absent a finding by the 

Director of the Service in the extreme 

case that the primary habitat of the 

species has been unsuitable and 

irreversibly altered or destroyed). With 

the experimental population 

designation, the relevant population is 

treated as threatened for purposes of 

section 9 of the Act, regardless of the 

species’ designation elsewhere in its 

range. This approach allows us to 

develop tailored take prohibitions under 

section 4(d) of the Act that are necessary 

and advisable to provide for the 

conservation of the species. In these 

situations, the general regulations that 

extend most section 9 prohibitions to 

threatened species do not apply to that 

species, and the 10(j) rule that already 

exists for the black-footed ferret 

contains the prohibitions and 

exemptions necessary and appropriate 

to conserve that species. 

Authorities under section 10(j) of the 

Act have been successfully used to 

reintroduce black-footed ferrets in other 

portions of their range, which 

historically included portions of 

Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Montana, 

Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, 

Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, 

and Wyoming, as well as Saskatchewan, 

Canada, and Chihuahua, Mexico. Eleven 

of 24 reintroduction efforts, including 

the first ferret reintroduction at Shirley 

Basin, Wyoming, were established 

pursuant to section 10(j); seven 

reintroduction efforts were authorized 

via scientific recovery permits issued by 

the Service under section 10(a)(1)(A); 

and four sites were established via the 

SHA. Ferrets reintroduced at sites in 

Canada and Mexico are regulated under 

other authorities by their respective 

governments. 

Before authorizing the release as an 

experimental population of any 

population (including eggs, propagules, 

or individuals) of an endangered or 

threatened species, and before 

authorizing any necessary 

transportation to conduct the release, 

the Service must find, by regulation, 

that such release will further the 

conservation of the species. In making 

such a finding, the Service will use the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available to consider the following 

factors (see 49 FR 33893, August 27, 

1984). 

(1) Any Possible Adverse Effects on 

Extant Populations of a Species as a 

Result of Removal of Individuals, Eggs, 

or Propagules for Introduction 

Elsewhere 

The captive-breeding population of 

black-footed ferrets is the primary 

repository of genetic diversity for the 

species. Ferrets are dispersed among six 

facilities, protecting the species from a 

single catastrophic event. 

Approximately 250 juvenile ferrets are 

produced annually through the captive 

breeding program; approximately 80 

juveniles are retained annually for 

future captive breeding purposes, and 

the remaining juveniles are considered 

excess and are allocated for 

reintroduction or occasionally for 

research (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2013a, p. 81). Ferrets selected for 

reintroduction under this proposed rule 

will be genetically redundant to animals 

maintained for captive-breeding; hence 

any loss of reintroduced animals will 

not impact the genetic diversity of the 

species. Only ferrets that are surplus to 

the needs of the captive-breeding 

program are used for reintroduction into 

the wild. Therefore, any loss of an 

experimental population in the wild 

will not threaten the survival of the 

species as a whole. 

(2) The Likelihood That Any Such 

Experimental Population Will Become 

Established and Survive in the 

Foreseeable Future 

The best available data indicate that 

reintroduction of black-footed ferrets 

into occupied prairie dog habitat in 

Wyoming is biologically feasible and 

will promote conservation of the 

species. Currently, we estimate a 

minimum of 102 breeding adult ferrets 

at Shirley Basin, Wyoming (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2013a, Table 2). 

Shirley Basin is one of four currently 

successful ferret reintroduction sites 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a, 

pp. 22 and 73). We are confident that 

Wyoming can support additional 

successful reintroduction sites, based on 

the amount of available habitat and a 

history of successful ferret management 

at Shirley Basin since 1991. 

(3) The Relative Effects That 

Establishment of an Experimental 

Population Will Have on the Recovery 

of the Species 

Participation by as many of the States 

and Tribes within the black-footed 

ferret’s historical range as possible is 

important to achieving recovery of the 

species. We consider occupied prairie 

dog habitat to be potential habitat for 

ferrets. Tribes have played an important 

role in ferret recovery in several areas of 

the species’ historical range. However, 

we are not aware of any prairie dog 

complexes suitable for ferret 

reintroduction on or adjacent to Tribal 

lands in Wyoming. The nearest 

potential reintroduction sites are two 

white-tailed prairie dog complexes–– 

Fifteen-mile Complex near Worland in 

Hot Springs County and Sweetwater 

Complex near Sweetwater Station in 

Fremont County (Luce 2008, pp. 29–30). 

Both sites are of intermediate potential 

for ferret reintroduction and are located 

approximately 19 miles (30 kilometers) 

from reservation boundaries. Wyoming 

currently contains more than 3 million 

acres (ac) (1,215,000 hectares (ha)) of 

prairie dog occupied habitat (Van Pelt 

2013, pp. 8 and 14). Consequently, 

Wyoming has the potential to play a 

significant role in recovery of the ferret. 

(4) The Extent To Which the Introduced 

Population May Be Affected by Existing 

or Anticipated Federal or State Actions 

or Private Activities Within or Adjacent 

to the Experimental Population Area 

We conclude that the effects of 

Federal, State, and private actions will 

not pose a substantial threat to blackfooted ferret establishment and 

persistence in Wyoming because the 

best available information, including the 

past history of ferret reintroductions at 

other sites rangewide, indicates that 

activities currently occurring or likely to 

occur at prospective reintroduction sites 

in occupied prairie dog habitat within 

the proposed NEP area are compatible 

with ferret recovery (see subsequent 

discussion on management). 

As set forth in 50 CFR 17.81(c), all 

regulations designating experimental 

populations under section 10(j) must 

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, 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19266 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

and other criteria appropriate to identify 

the experimental population(s); (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; (3) management restrictions, 

protective measures, or other special 

management concerns of that 

population, which may include but are 

not limited to, measures to isolate and/ 

or contain the experimental population 

designated in the regulation from 

natural populations; 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. Detailed information on each of 

these required elements is provided in 

the following sections. 

Under 50 CFR 17.81(d), the Service 

must consult with appropriate State fish 

and wildlife agencies, Tribes, local 

governmental entities, affected Federal 

agencies, and affected private 

landowners in developing and 

implementing experimental population 

rules. To the maximum extent 

practicable, section 10(j) rules represent 

an agreement between the Service; the 

affected State, Tribal, and Federal 

agencies; and persons holding any 

interest in land which may be affected 

by the establishment of an experimental 

population. 

Based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available, we must 

determine whether the experimental 

population is essential or nonessential 

to the continued existence of the 

species. The regulations (50 CFR 

17.80(b)) 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. All other 

populations are considered 

nonessential. We have determined that 

this proposed experimental population 

would not be essential to survival of the 

black-footed ferret in the wild because 

loss of an experimental population in 

Wyoming will not affect the 23 

reintroduction sites outside of Wyoming 

in Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Montana, 

New Mexico, South Dakota, and Utah; 

in Chihuahua, Mexico; and in 

Saskatchewan, Canada. Therefore, loss 

of an experimental population in 

Wyoming will not appreciably reduce 

the likelihood of future survival of the 

ferret rangewide. 

All reintroduction efforts are 

undertaken to move a species toward 

recovery. Recovery of the black-footed 

ferret will require participation by at 

least 9 of the 12 States within the 

species’ historical range (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2013a, p. 6). Wyoming 

contains 10 percent of the species’ 

historical range in the United States 

(Ernst et al. 2006, table 1) and an even 

higher percentage of habitat that is 

currently available––more than 3 

million ac (1,215,000 ha) of prairie dog 

occupied habitat (Van Pelt 2013, pp. 8 

and 14). Therefore, the State could play 

a significant role in the species’ 

recovery. However, this does not mean 

that ferret populations in Wyoming are 

‘‘essential’’ under section 10(j) of the 

Act. 

The potential future loss of blackfooted ferrets from Wyoming would not 

affect the species’ survival throughout 

the remaining 90 percent of its range in 

the wild, or in captivity. We estimate 

that there are approximately 418 

breeding adult ferrets in the wild, 

including approximately 102 breeding 

adults in the reintroduced population at 

Shirley Basin, Wyoming (24 percent of 

ferrets in the wild); there are a 

minimum of 280 breeding adults in 

captivity (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2013a, pp. 22 and 68). Animals lost 

during reintroduction efforts can be 

readily replaced through captivebreeding, which produces juvenile 

ferrets in excess of the numbers needed 

to maintain the captive-breeding 

population. Captive-breeding and 

reintroduction of surplus ferrets have 

occurred since 1991, with no apparent 

loss of reproductive capability in the 

wild observed to date. The loss of an 

experimental population in Wyoming 

will not appreciably reduce the 

likelihood of future survival of the ferret 

rangewide. Therefore, the Service is 

proposing to designate an NEP for the 

ferret throughout Wyoming. 

For the purposes of section 7 of the 

Act, we treat an NEP as a threatened 

species when the NEP is located within 

a National Wildlife Refuge or unit of the 

National Park Service, and Federal 

agency conservation requirements under 

section 7(a)(1) and Federal agency 

consultation requirements of section 

7(a)(2) of the Act apply. Section 7(a)(1) 

requires all Federal agencies to use their 

authorities to carry out programs for the 

conservation of listed species. Section 

7(a)(2) requires that Federal agencies, in 

consultation with the Service, ensure 

that any action they authorize, fund, or 

carry out is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of a listed species 

or adversely modify its critical habitat. 

When NEPs are located outside a 

National Wildlife Refuge or National 

Park Service unit, then, for the purposes 

of section 7, we treat the population as 

proposed for listing and only section 

7(a)(1) and section 7(a)(4) apply. In 

these instances, NEPs provide 

additional flexibility because Federal 

agencies are not required to consult 

with us under section 7(a)(2). Section 

7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to 

confer (rather than consult) with the 

Service on actions that are likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

species proposed to be listed. The 

results of a conference are in the form 

of conservation recommendations that 

are optional as the agencies carry out, 

fund, or authorize activities. Because 

the NEP is, by definition, not essential 

to the continued existence of the 

species, the effects of proposed actions 

affecting the NEP will generally not rise 

to the level of jeopardizing the 

continued existence of the species. As a 

result, a formal conference will likely 

not be required for black-footed ferrets 

established within the proposed NEP 

area in Wyoming. Nonetheless, some 

agencies voluntarily confer with the 

Service on actions that may affect a 

species proposed for listing. Activities 

that are not carried out, funded, or 

authorized by Federal agencies are not 

subject to provisions or requirements in 

section 7. 

Section 10(j)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act states 

that critical habitat shall not be 

designated for any experimental 

population that is determined to be 

nonessential. Accordingly, we cannot 

designate critical habitat for a 

reintroduced species in areas where we 

establish an NEP. 

Biological Information 

The endangered black-footed ferret is 

the only ferret species native to the 

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

It is a medium-sized mustelid, typically 

weighing 1.4–2.5 pounds (645–1125 

grams) and measuring 19–24 inches 

(479–600 millimeters) in total length; 

upper body parts are yellowish buff, 

occasionally whitish, feet and tail tip 

are black, and a black ‘‘mask’’ occurs 

across the eyes (Hillman and Clark 

1980, p. 30). 

The black-footed ferret depends 

almost exclusively on prairie dogs for 

food and on prairie dog burrows for 

shelter (Hillman 1968, p. 438; Biggins 

2006, p. 3). Historical habitat of the 

ferret coincided with the ranges of the 

black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys 

ludovicianus), white-tailed prairie dog 

(C. leucurus), and Gunnison’s prairie 

dog (C. gunnisoni), which collectively 

occupied approximately 100 million ac 

(40 million ha) of intermountain and 

prairie grasslands extending from 

Canada to Mexico (Anderson et al. 1986, 

pp. 25–50; Biggins et al. 1997, p. 420). 

This amount of prairie dog habitat could 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19267 

have supported 500,000–1,000,000 

ferrets historically (Anderson et al. 

1986, p. 58). Since the late 1800s, ferret 

specimens have been collected from 

Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Montana, 

Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, 

Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, 

and Wyoming in the United States and 

Saskatchewan and Alberta in Canada 

(Anderson et al. 1986, pp. 25–50). We 

conclude that the ferret’s historical 

range included Mexico, which is within 

the contiguous range of the black-tailed 

prairie dog as previously noted (Biggins 

et al. 1997, p. 420). This inclusion of 

Mexico in the ferret’s historical range is 

described in more detail in the recovery 

plan and resulted in a ferret 

reintroduction initiated in 2001 (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a, pp. 

16–17). 

Black-footed ferrets historically 

occurred throughout Wyoming (except 

for the extreme northwest corner of the 

State) within black-tailed prairie dog 

habitat in the eastern portion of the 

State and white-tailed prairie dog 

habitat in the west (Anderson et al. 

1986, p. 48). The last wild population of 

ferrets was discovered near Meeteetse, 

Wyoming, in 1981, after the species was 

presumed extinct (Clark et al. 1986, p. 

8; Lockhart et al. 2006, p. 8). Following 

disease outbreaks at Meeteetse, all 

surviving wild ferrets were removed 

from the wild between 1985 and 1987, 

to initiate a captive-breeding program 

(Lockhart et al. 2006, p. 8). No wild 

populations have been found since the 

capture of the last Meeteetse ferret 

despite extensive and intensive 

rangewide searches; it is unlikely that 

any undiscovered wild populations 

remain. Therefore, the Service considers 

the State of Wyoming unoccupied by 

wild ferrets, with the exception of 

reintroduced populations, which 

alleviates the requirement for project 

proponents to conduct presence/

absence surveys for ferrets under section 

7 of the Act prior to developing projects 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013c). 

In Shirley Basin, Wyoming, a 

reintroduced population of ferrets was 

established as an NEP in accordance 

with section 10(j) of the Act. The Wolf 

Creek, Colorado, reintroduction site was 

also established as an NEP under 

section 10(j), and includes a small 

portion of Sweetwater County, 

Wyoming, in the experimental 

population area. However, no evidence 

of ferrets from this reintroduction effort 

has been found in Sweetwater County or 

elsewhere in Wyoming. The map at the 

conclusion of this proposed rule 

identifies the existing NEPs in 

Wyoming. 

Relationship of the Experimental 

Population to Recovery Efforts 

All currently known black-footed 

ferrets in the wild are the result of 

reintroduction efforts. As previously 

discussed, only ferrets that are surplus 

to the needs of the captive-breeding 

program are used for reintroduction into 

the wild. There have been 24 ferret 

reintroduction projects, beginning in 

1991, at Shirley Basin in the 

southeastern portion of Wyoming. 

Shirley Basin contains the only ferret 

population in Wyoming. 

The downlisting criteria for the blackfooted ferret include establishing at least 

1,500 free-ranging breeding adults in 10 

or more populations, in at least 6 of 12 

States within the historical range of the 

species, with no fewer than 30 breeding 

adult ferrets in any population; delisting 

criteria include establishing at least 

3,000 free-ranging breeding adults in 30 

or more populations, in at least 9 of 12 

States within the historical range of the 

species, with no fewer than 30 breeding 

adults in any population (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2013a, pp. 61–62). In 

our recovery plan for the ferret, we 

suggest recovery guidelines for the 

States that are proportional to the 

amount of prairie dog habitat 

historically present. A proportional 

share for Wyoming would include 

approximately 171 free-ranging breeding 

adult ferrets to meet their portion of the 

rangewide numerical goal for 

downlisting and 341 breeding adults to 

meet their portion of the rangewide 

numerical goal for delisting; each ferret 

population should contain at least 30 

breeding adults to be considered viable 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a, 

Table 8). 

Currently, we estimate a minimum of 

102 breeding adult black-footed ferrets 

at Shirley Basin, Wyoming (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2013a, Table 2). 

Shirley Basin is one of four currently 

successful ferret reintroduction sites–– 

other successful sites include two in 

South Dakota and one in Arizona (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a, p. 73). 

We are confident that Wyoming can 

support additional successful 

reintroduction sites, based on the 

amount of available habitat (see the 

following section) and a history of 

successful ferret management at Shirley 

Basin since 1991. Additional viable 

ferret populations within Wyoming will 

aid recovery of the species. 

In 2013, the Service developed a 

programmatic SHA to encourage nonfederal landowners to voluntarily 

undertake conservation activities on 

their properties that would benefit the 

black-footed ferret (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2013b). This SHA is 

applicable across the 12 States in the 

ferret’s historical range, including 

Wyoming. Landowners are provided 

assurances that additional restrictions 

will not be required, as long as the 

landowner complies with provisions 

outlined in the SHA and detailed in a 

Reintroduction Plan developed for the 

enrolled lands. The goals of the SHA 

and the proposed 10(j) are similar–– 

achieve recovery of the ferret. However, 

conservation activities are more tailored 

to the specific site under the SHA. 

There are also differences between SHA 

and 10(j) regarding regulations under 

the Act (statutory and regulatory 

framework are discussed in the 

Background section, above). The 

decision of whether to use 10(j) or the 

SHA is at the landowner’s discretion. 

Location of the Proposed Nonessential 

Experimental Population 

The proposed NEP for Wyoming 

would be Statewide, with the exception 

of the two areas where an NEP 

designation for black-footed ferret 

already exists (see below). Furthermore, 

suitable habitat for black-footed ferret 

reintroduction in the proposed NEP 

would likely be limited to Big Horn, 

Campbell, Carbon, Converse, Crook, 

Fremont, Goshen, Hot Springs, Johnson, 

Laramie, Lincoln, Natrona, Niobrara, 

Park, Platte, Sheridan, Sublette, 

Sweetwater, Uinta, Washakie, and 

Weston Counties because these counties 

have sufficient prairie dog habitat to 

support viable ferret populations. If this 

rule is finalized as proposed, any ferrets 

found in Wyoming would be considered 

part of an NEP. There are many 

historical records of ferrets within the 

proposed NEP (Anderson et al. 1986, 

pp. 36–37). However, the species has 

been extirpated throughout the State 

since 1987, with the exception of a 

reintroduced ferret population in the 

Shirley Basin. A 10(j) designation 

already exists for the Shirley Basin 

ferret population in Albany County and 

portions of Carbon and Natrona 

Counties that are east of the North Platte 

River. A 10(j) designation also exists for 

the Wolf Creek, Colorado, ferret 

reintroduction site and includes a very 

small portion of Sweetwater County in 

Wyoming. Both of these NEPs would 

remain outside the boundary of the 

proposed NEP under 10(j) of the Act, 

and would continue to operate under 

their respective management plans. Any 

new reintroduction sites within the 

proposed NEP would require 

development of a management plan 

specific to that site. 

Several sites in Wyoming are suitable 

for reintroduction of black-footed ferrets 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19268 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

in addition to the Shirley Basin site. The 

main requirements for ferret 

reintroduction are: (1) An area of 

occupied prairie dog habitat that is 

purposefully managed and of sufficient 

size to support a viable population of 

ferrets (a minimum of 1,500 ac (608 ha) 

of black-tailed prairie dog occupied 

habitat or 3,000 ac (1,215 ha) of whitetailed or Gunnison’s prairie dog 

occupied habitat); (2) a willing 

landowner; and (3) a management plan 

that addresses sylvatic plague. Recent 

estimates of prairie dog occupied habitat 

in Wyoming include 2,893,487 ac 

(1,171,862 ha) in the white-tailed prairie 

dog range and 229,607 ac (92,991 ha) in 

the black-tailed prairie dog range (Van 

Pelt 2013, pp. 8 and 14). Luce (2008, pp. 

28–31) identified several sites in 

Wyoming with potential for ferret 

reintroduction including one site with 

potential for reintroduction within less 

than 3 years, 24 sites with potential for 

reintroduction within 3–10 years, and 

two sites with long-term potential for 

reintroduction. 

Likelihood of Population Establishment 

and Survival 

The Service and its partners have 

initiated 24 black-footed ferret 

reintroduction projects since 1991. 

These projects have experienced varying 

degrees of success. However, all 

reintroduction efforts have contributed 

to our understanding of the species’ 

needs. Recovery of the species is a 

dynamic process that requires adaptive 

management. 

Some transfers of individual blackfooted ferrets between populations will 

likely be necessary in perpetuity to 

maintain genetic diversity in the face of 

habitat fragmentation and as a 

management tool for sylvatic plague 

(until additional plague vaccines can be 

adapted for field use). Nevertheless, we 

believe that recovery can be achieved 

through a combination of expansion of 

ferret populations at existing 

reintroduction sites and reintroduction 

of ferrets at new sites, both of which are 

possible if conservation of prairie dog 

occupied habitat and disease 

management are aggressively pursued. 

Participation by all States within the 

historical range of the black-footed ferret 

is important to maximize resilience of 

ferret populations in the wild and to 

allow for an equitable distribution of the 

responsibility for achieving recovery 

goals. Federal, State, and local agencies 

in Wyoming have been active 

participants in ferret recovery since the 

last wild population was found at 

Meeteetse in 1981. With an estimated 

102 breeding adult ferrets already 

established at Shirley Basin, suggested 

numerical recovery guidelines for 

Wyoming of 171 breeding adults to 

support rangewide downlisting and 341 

breeding adults to support rangewide 

delisting are achievable. Meeting their 

portion of the rangewide numerical goal 

for downlisting would require 

establishing one additional large 

reintroduction site similar to Shirley 

Basin or two to three smaller sites. 

Meeting their portion of the rangewide 

numerical goal for delisting would 

require establishing two large sites, six 

small sites, or a combination of large, 

medium, and small sites in addition to 

the sites previously established for 

meeting their portion of the rangewide 

numerical goal for downlisting. The 

Recovery Plan estimates that 35,000 ac 

(14,000 ha) of purposefully managed 

prairie dog occupied habitat will be 

needed to meet Wyoming’s portion of 

the rangewide habitat goal for 

downlisting and 70,000 ac (28,000 ha) to 

meet their portion of the rangewide 

habitat goal for delisting (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2013a, Table 8). This 

equates to purposeful management of 

approximately 2 percent of prairie dog 

occupied habitat in Wyoming to meet 

their portion of the rangewide habitat 

goal for delisting. 

Sustaining black-footed ferret 

numbers during periodic outbreaks of 

sylvatic plague will require ongoing 

management, potentially including 

dusting prairie dog burrows with flea 

control powder and vaccinating ferrets 

prior to release. Additionally, research 

is currently underway investigating the 

potential of supporting ferrets at 

reintroduction sites by providing 

vaccine to wild prairie dogs via oral 

bait. 

The Service, the Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department (WGFD), and other 

partners propose to reintroduce the 

black-footed ferret at one or more 

additional sites within the species’ 

historical range in Wyoming. These 

reintroduced populations would be 

managed as a NEP. If this proposed rule 

is finalized, the WGFD, in cooperation 

with the Service, would have primary 

management responsibilities for ferret 

reintroductions in Wyoming. Based 

upon the past history of successful 

management at Shirley Basin, Wyoming, 

and the substantial amount of occupied 

prairie dog habitat available for 

additional reintroduction of ferrets, we 

believe there is a high likelihood of 

population establishment and survival 

in Wyoming. 

Addressing Causes of Extirpation 

The black-footed ferret rangewide 

population declined for three principal 

reasons: (1) A major conversion of 

native rangeland to cropland, 

particularly in the eastern portion of the 

species’ range, beginning in the late 

1800s; (2) poisoning of prairie dogs to 

reduce competition with domestic 

livestock for forage, beginning in the 

early 1900s; and (3) the inadvertent 

introduction of sylvatic plague, which 

causes mortality to both ferrets and 

prairie dogs, beginning in the 1930s. 

The combined effects of these three 

factors resulted in a rangewide decrease 

in the amount of habitat occupied by 

prairie dogs from approximately 100 

million ac (40.5 million ha) historically 

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

1960s (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2013a, pp. 23–24). This habitat loss and 

fragmentation resulted in a 

corresponding decrease in ferrets, which 

require relatively large areas of prairie 

dog occupied habitat to maintain viable 

populations. By the 1960s, only two 

remnant ferret populations remained–– 

in Mellette County, South Dakota, and 

Meeteetse, Wyoming (Lockhart et al. 

2006, pp. 7–8). 

Wyoming has had less rangeland 

converted to cropland than most other 

States within the historical range of the 

black-footed ferret (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture 2005, Table 1). 

Consequently, prairie dog poisoning and 

sylvatic plague are likely the two 

primary reasons for the extirpation of 

ferrets from the State. Extensive 

poisoning of prairie dogs had begun in 

Wyoming by 1916 (Clark 1973, p. 89), 

and plague was present in Wyoming by 

1936 (Eskey and Haas 1940, p. 4). 

Occupied prairie dog habitat reached a 

low in Wyoming in the early 1960s, 

when approximately 64,336 ac (26,056 

ha) were reported (U.S. Bureau of Sport 

Fisheries and Wildlife 1961, Table 1). 

However, large-scale poisoning of 

prairie dogs no longer occurs, and 

poisoning is more closely regulated than 

it was historically. Improved plague 

management, including dusting prairie 

dog burrows with insecticide to control 

fleas (the primary vector for plague 

transmission) and the development of 

vaccines that prevent plague in prairie 

dogs and black-footed ferrets, is also 

being used. 

The most recent surveys estimate 

3,123,094 ac (1,264,853 ha) of occupied 

prairie dog habitat in Wyoming (Van 

Pelt 2013, pp. 8 and 14). This 

considerable increase over the past 50 

years indicates that there has been a 

reduction in threats and improved 

management of prairie dogs. This 

increases the likelihood of successful 

reintroduction of ferrets in Wyoming. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19269 

Release Procedures 

The Service will cooperate with other 

Federal agencies, WGFD, Tribes, 

landowners, and other stakeholders to 

develop, implement, and maintain longterm site management before, during, 

and after releases. Partners will collect 

habitat data for site evaluation and 

documentation of baseline conditions 

and develop management plans for 

prairie dogs and plague prior to any 

release of black-footed ferrets. All 

applicable laws regulating the 

protection of ferrets will be followed 

(see Management, below). Partners will 

develop annual site-specific 

reintroduction plans and submit them to 

the Service by mid-March as part of an 

annual ferret allocation process (which 

allocates available captive ferrets for 

release in specific numbers for specific 

sites). Reintroduction plans will include 

current estimates of prairie dog numbers 

and density, disease prevalence and 

management, proposed reintroduction 

and monitoring methods, and predator 

management. If the reintroduction plan 

covers years subsequent to the initial 

releases, it will also include a recent 

description of the status of ferrets on the 

site. 

All reintroduction efforts will follow 

techniques described in Roelle et al. 

(2006) as appropriate, which presents 

recommendations for managing captive 

populations, evaluating potential 

habitat, reestablishing populations, and 

managing disease. Captive-reared blackfooted ferrets exposed to prairie dog 

burrows and natural prey in outdoor 

preconditioning pens prior to their 

release survive in the wild at 

significantly higher rates than cagereared, non-preconditioned ferrets 

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

et al. 1998, p. 77). Therefore, all captivereared ferrets released within the 

proposed Wyoming NEP will receive 

adequate preconditioning in outdoor 

pens at the National Black-footed Ferret 

Conservation Center or at another 

facility approved by the Service. We 

will vaccinate all ferrets for canine 

distemper and sylvatic plague and mark 

them with passive integrated 

transponder tags prior to release. We 

will transport ferrets to the 

reintroduction site and release them 

directly from transport cages into prairie 

dog burrows. In conformance with 

standard ferret reintroduction protocol, 

no fewer than 20 captive-raised or wildtranslocated ferrets will be released at 

any reintroduction site in Wyoming 

during the first year of the project. 

Twenty or more additional animals will 

be released annually for the next 2–4 

years. Released ferrets will be excess to 

the needs of the captive-breeding 

program. 

Donor Stock Assessment and Effects on 

Donor Populations 

Eighteen black-footed ferrets were 

captured from the last wild population 

at Meeteetse, Wyoming, in 1985–1987, 

and used to initiate a captive-breeding 

program (Lockhart et al. 2006, pp. 11– 

12). Of the 18 captured ferrets, 15 

individuals, representing the genetic 

equivalent of 7 distinct founders, 

produced a captive population that is 

the foundation of present recovery 

efforts (Garelle et al. 2006, p. 4). Extant 

ferret populations, both captive and 

reintroduced, descend from these seven 

founders. The purpose of the captivebreeding program is to provide animals 

for reintroduction to achieve recovery of 

the species, while maintaining 

maximum genetic diversity in the 

captive population (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2013a, p. 81). 

Black-footed ferrets used to establish 

any experimental population in the 

proposed Wyoming NEP will either be 

translocated wild-born kits from another 

self-sustaining reintroduced population 

(such as Shirley Basin) or come from 

one of six captive-breeding populations 

currently housed at the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service National Black-footed 

Ferret Conservation Center near 

Wellington, Colorado; the Cheyenne 

Mountain Zoological Park, Colorado 

Springs, Colorado; the Louisville 

Zoological Garden, Louisville, 

Kentucky; the Smithsonian Biology 

Conservation Institute, Front Royal, 

Virginia; the Phoenix Zoo, Phoenix, 

Arizona; or the Toronto Zoo, Toronto, 

Ontario. 

The Service and its partners maintain 

a captive-breeding population of 

approximately 280 breeding adult blackfooted ferrets in order to provide a 

sustainable source of ferrets for 

reintroduction. The captive-breeding 

facilities produce approximately 250 

juvenile ferrets annually. Currently, 

approximately 80 juveniles are retained 

annually at these facilities for future 

captive-breeding purposes. The 

remaining juveniles are allocated 

annually for reintroduction, or 

occasionally for research (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2013a, p. 81). 

Therefore, there will be no effects on 

donor populations beyond those which 

are intended and accounted for in the 

management of wild or captive 

populations. 

Status of Proposed Population 

Additional successful reintroductions 

of black-footed ferrets are necessary for 

recovery of the species. We propose that 

any future releases of ferrets in 

Wyoming be designated as part of an 

NEP because of the need for increased 

management flexibility, which will 

encourage landowner participation and 

alleviate concerns regarding possible 

land use restrictions. The existing 10(j) 

rules for the ferret exempt from the 

section 9 take prohibitions any take of 

ferrets that is accidental and incidental 

to otherwise lawful activities. We 

provide this exemption to this proposed 

10(j) because we believe, based upon 

experience at previous reintroduction 

sites, that incidental take associated 

with otherwise lawful activities such as 

ranching and energy development will 

be low. Poisoning of prairie dogs can 

occur in black-tailed prairie dog habitat 

and could result in incidental take of 

ferrets. However, economic constraints 

have typically minimized the extent of 

poisoning in recent years compared to 

what occurred historically. We will 

ensure, as confirmed through our 

section 10 permitting authority and the 

section 7 consultation process, that the 

use of ferrets from the donor population 

(either the captive-breeding population 

or a self-sustaining wild population) for 

release into the proposed Wyoming NEP 

is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the species in the wild. 

This NEP designation is justified 

because no adverse effects to extant 

wild or captive black-footed ferret 

populations will result from release of 

progeny from either a wild or captive 

population onto a new reintroduction 

site. The only potential adverse effect 

would be to ferrets at a new 

reintroduction site, if a ferret population 

proves difficult to establish. However, 

we expect that reintroduction efforts 

into the proposed Wyoming NEP will 

result in the successful establishment of 

one or more self-sustaining populations, 

which will contribute to the recovery of 

the species. 

Management 

If this rule is finalized as proposed, 

the Service will coordinate closely with 

WGFD and other partners in the 

management of any black-footed ferrets 

in Wyoming that are reintroduced under 

section 10(j) authorities. Management of 

ferret populations in the proposed 

Wyoming NEP area would be guided by 

provisions in management plans 

developed in cooperation with partners 

(WGFD) and stakeholders such as U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, 

Wyoming Department of Agriculture, or 

potentially affected Tribes. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19270 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

We conclude that the effects of 

Federal, State, and private actions will 

not pose a substantial threat to blackfooted ferret establishment and 

persistence in Wyoming because 

management activities––primarily 

ranching and energy development–– 

currently occurring at prospective 

reintroduction sites in occupied prairie 

dog habitat within the proposed NEP 

area are compatible with ferret recovery, 

provided lethal control of prairie dogs 

does not reduce prairie dog occupied 

habitat to the extent that the viability of 

any potential ferret population is 

compromised (a minimum of 1,500 ac 

(608 ha) of black-tailed prairie dog 

occupied habitat or 3,000 ac (1,215 ha) 

of white-tailed or Gunnison’s prairie 

dog occupied habitat). This conclusion 

is based upon our past experience at 

ferret reintroduction sites in Wyoming 

and elsewhere throughout the species’ 

range. The best available information 

indicates that future ranching activities 

and energy development also would be 

compatible with ferret recovery. Most of 

the area containing suitable release sites 

with high potential for ferret 

establishment is managed by the BLM, 

the USFS, or private landowners and is 

currently protected through the 

following mechanisms: 

(1) Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 

1701 et seq.)––The BLM’s mission is set 

forth under the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act, which mandates that 

BLM manage public land resources for 

a variety of uses, such as energy 

development, livestock grazing, 

recreation, and timber harvesting, while 

protecting the natural, cultural, and 

historical resources on those lands. The 

BLM manages listed and sensitive 

species under guidance provided in the 

BLM MS–6840 Manual—Special Status 

Species Management. The Manual 

directs BLM to proactively conserve 

species listed under the Act and the 

ecosystems upon which they depend, 

ensure that all actions authorized or 

carried out by BLM are in compliance 

with the Act, and cooperate with the 

planning and recovery of listed species. 

The BLM has experience in managing 

the black-footed ferret at four 

reintroduction sites in four States that 

occur at least in part on its lands, 

including Shirley Basin, Wyoming, and 

Wolf Creek, Colorado, which includes a 

small portion of Sweetwater County, 

Wyoming. Therefore, we anticipate 

appropriate management by BLM on 

any future ferret reintroduction sites 

that include BLM lands. 

(2) National Forest Management Act 

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

seq.)––The National Forest Management 

Act instructs the USFS to strive to 

provide for a diversity of plant and 

animal communities when managing 

national forest lands. The USFS 

identifies species listed as endangered 

or threatened under the Act, including 

the black-footed ferret, as Category 1 

species at risk based on rangewide and 

national imperilment. The USFS has 

experience in managing the black-footed 

ferret at one reintroduction site in South 

Dakota that occurs at least in part on 

USFS lands. Therefore, we anticipate 

appropriate management by the USFS 

on any future ferret reintroduction sites 

that include USFS lands. 

(3) Wyoming State Law––The 

responsibilities of WGFD are defined in 

Wyoming Statute section 23–1–103, 

which instructs the WGFD to provide an 

adequate and flexible system for the 

control, management, protection, and 

regulation of all Wyoming wildlife. The 

Statute defines the black-footed ferret as 

a protected animal. The WGFD also 

defines the ferret as a ‘‘species of 

greatest conservation need’’ (Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department 2010, pp. 

IV–2–10–IV–2–13). The Wyoming State 

Wildlife Action Plan states that the 

current legal designation for the ferret 

(endangered) precludes the ability to 

initiate additional reintroduction 

attempts outside of the existing 10(j) at 

Shirley Basin; however, cooperative 

approaches to eliminate legal hurdles 

that preclude additional reintroduction 

sites should be developed (Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department 2010, pp. 

IV–2–10—IV–2–11). This proposed rule 

is being developed in cooperation with 

the State to address those legal barriers 

and initiate additional ferret 

reintroductions in Wyoming. The 

WGFD has experience in managing the 

ferret at the Shirley Basin 

Reintroduction site. Therefore, we 

anticipate appropriate management by 

WGFD on any future ferret 

reintroduction sites in Wyoming. 

Management issues related to the 

black-footed ferret proposed Wyoming 

NEP that have been considered include: 

(a) Incidental take: The regulations 

implementing the Act define 

‘‘incidental take’’ as take that is 

incidental to, and not the purpose of, 

carrying out an otherwise lawful activity 

(50 CFR 17.3), such as agricultural 

activities and other rural development, 

and other activities that are in 

accordance with Federal, State, Tribal, 

and local laws and regulations. 

Experimental population rules contain 

specific prohibitions and exceptions 

regarding the taking of individual 

animals that are developed under 

section 4(d) of the Act. If this 10(j) rule 

is finalized, incidental take of blackfooted ferrets within the proposed NEP 

area would not be prohibited, provided 

that the take is unintentional and is in 

accordance with the existing 10(j) 

regulation. However, if there is evidence 

of intentional take of this species within 

the proposed NEP area, we would refer 

the matter to the appropriate law 

enforcement entities for investigation. 

This would be consistent with how we 

currently manage lands enrolled in the 

SHA where intentional take is also not 

allowed. 

(b) Special handling: In accordance 

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

or agent of the Service or of a State 

wildlife agency may in the course of 

their official duties, handle black-footed 

ferrets to aid sick or injured ferrets, or 

to salvage dead ferrets. Employees or 

agents of other Federal, Tribal, or State 

agencies would need to acquire the 

necessary permits from the Service for 

these activities. 

(c) Coordination with landowners and 

land managers: This proposed NEP 

designation under section 10(j) of the 

Act was discussed with potentially 

affected State and Federal agencies, 

Tribes, local governments, and other 

stakeholders within the expected 

reestablishment area. These agencies, 

landowners, and land managers have 

either indicated support for, or no 

opposition to, the proposed population 

establishment, provided an NEP is 

designated and a 10(j) rule is 

promulgated to allow incidental take 

under the section 9 take prohibitions. 

(d) Public awareness and cooperation: 

We will inform the general public of the 

importance of this reintroduction 

project for the overall recovery of the 

black-footed ferret through this 

proposed rule and associated public 

meetings, if requested. Designation of 

the NEP under a 10(j) for Wyoming 

would increase reintroduction 

opportunities and provide greater 

flexibility in the management of the 

reintroduced ferret. The NEP 

designation is necessary to secure 

needed cooperation of the State, 

landowners, and other interests in the 

affected area. 

(e) Potential impacts to other federally 

listed species: There are several 

federally listed, proposed for listing 

(any species of fish, wildlife, or plant 

that is proposed in the Federal Register 

to be listed), and candidate (the Service 

has concluded that they should be 

proposed for listing) species in 

Wyoming. These species are identified 

in the following table. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19271 

TABLE 1—FEDERALLY LISTED, PROPOSED FOR LISTING, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES IN WYOMING

Species Current status in Wyoming under the Act 

Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) ...................................................... Shirley Basin NEP. 

Gray wolf (Canis lupus) ............................................................................ NEP in Wyoming. 

Whooping crane (Grus americana) .......................................................... Endangered. 

Interior least tern (Sterna antillarum) ....................................................... Endangered. 

Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) ......................................................... Endangered. 

Wyoming toad (Anaxyrus baxteri) ............................................................ Endangered. 

Bonytail chub (Gila elegans) .................................................................... Endangered. 

Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) ........................................... Endangered. 

Humpback chub (Gila cypha) ................................................................... Endangered. 

Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) .................................................. Endangered. 

Kendall Warm Springs dace (Rhinichthys osculus thermalis) ................. Endangered. 

Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) ................................................... Endangered. 

Blowout penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) .............................................. Endangered. 

Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) ............................................................... Threatened, with critical habitat. 

Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) ........................................................ Threatened. 

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) ................. Threatened. 

Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) .......................................... Threatened, with critical habitat proposed. 

Colorado butterfly plant (Gaura neomexicana coloradensis) ................... Threatened, with critical habitat. 

Desert yellowhead (Yermo xanthocephalus) ........................................... Threatened, with critical habitat. 

Western prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara) ............................ Threatened. 

Ute Ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) ............................................... Threatened. 

Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) ..................................... Proposed endangered. 

Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) ................................. Candidate. 

Fremont County rockcress (Boechera pusilla) ......................................... Candidate. 

Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) ............................................................. Candidate. 

Nearly all of the aforementioned 

species have habitat requirements such 

as forests, dunes, wetlands, or river 

systems that differ from the grassland 

prairie habitat requirements for the 

black-footed ferret. The only species 

that may be affected by reintroduction 

projects for the ferret in the proposed 

Wyoming NEP, other than the ferret, is 

the greater sage-grouse. The greater sagegrouse requires large, interconnected 

expanses of sagebrush (Connelly et al. 

2004, p. 3–2; Stiver et al. 2006, p. I–2; 

Knick and Connelly 2011, p. 1). Habitat 

loss, degradation, and fragmentation are 

the primary threats to the greater sagegrouse. A detailed description of the 

species’ natural history, seasonal 

habitats, threats, and population trends 

can be found in the Service’s 12-month 

finding (75 FR 13910, March 23, 2010). 

The ferret also requires large expanses 

of intact habitat; although it is 

dependent on prairie dogs, not 

sagebrush. However, some prairie dog 

habitat, particularly white-tailed prairie 

dog habitat, contains sagebrush. Prairie 

dogs may clip shrubs, including 

sagebrush, within their colonies 

(Johnson-Nistler et al. 2004, p. 644). 

Ferrets prey upon prairie dogs; however, 

in the large prairie dog colonies 

required to maintain a viable ferret 

population we do not expect the 

predator-prey relationship between 

ferrets and prairie dogs to be altered 

inasmuch as predators do not limit their 

prey in a functioning ecosystem. 

Therefore, we do not expect the 

ecological dynamics between prairie 

dogs and sagebrush to be altered. 

Consequently, we do not expect ferret 

reintroduction efforts to adversely 

impact greater sage-grouse. 

(f) Monitoring and evaluation: 

Monitoring is a required element of all 

black-footed ferret reintroduction 

projects. The following types of 

monitoring will be conducted. 

Reintroduction Effectiveness 

Monitoring––Partners will monitor 

population demographics and potential 

sources of mortality, including plague, 

annually for 5 years following the last 

release using spotlight surveys, snow 

tracking, other visual survey techniques, 

and possibly radio-telemetry of some 

individuals. Thereafter, demographic 

and genetic surveys will be completed 

periodically to track population status. 

Surveys will incorporate methods to 

monitor breeding success and long-term 

survival rates. In general, the Service 

anticipates that monitoring will be 

conducted by the lead for each 

reintroduction site, which in Wyoming 

will be the WGFD and participating 

partners. The WGFD will present 

monitoring results in their annual 

reports. 

Donor Population Monitoring–– 

Ferrets used for reintroduction will 

either be from the captive-breeding 

population or translocated from another 

viable reintroduction site. Ferrets in the 

captive-breeding population are 

managed and monitored in accordance 

with the Association of Zoos and 

Aquariums (AZA) Black-footed Ferret 

Species Survival Plan (SSP®). A 

breeding population of 280 animals will 

be maintained to provide a sustainable 

source of ferrets for reintroduction. The 

AZA SSP® Husbandry Manual provides 

up-to-date protocols for the care, 

propagation, preconditioning, and 

transportation of captive ferrets and is 

used at all participating captivebreeding facilities. Ferrets may also be 

translocated from other reintroduction 

sites (which also originated from captive 

sources), provided their removal will 

not create adverse impacts upon the 

donor population and provided 

appropriate permits are issued in 

accordance with our regulations (50 

CFR 17.22) prior to their removal. 

Population monitoring will be 

conducted at all donor sites. 

Monitoring Impacts to Other Listed 

Species––We do not expect impacts to 

other federally listed species (see 

section (e) discussion, above). The 

greater sage-grouse, a candidate species, 

is the only species with habitat that 

might overlap with the black-footed 

ferret. However, we do not expect ferret 

reintroduction efforts to adversely 

impact greater sage-grouse for the 

reasons previously discussed. The 

WGFD conducts annual monitoring of 

the greater sage-grouse Statewide. 

Additional monitoring will occur on 

non-federal lands enrolled in the 

Wyoming Candidate Conservation 

Agreement with Assurances for the 

greater sage-grouse and on Federal lands 

enrolled in the Wyoming Candidate 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19272 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Conservation Agreement for the greater 

sage-grouse. 

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 blackfooted ferrets into the proposed 

Wyoming NEP will further the 

conservation of the species, but that this 

population is not essential to the 

continued existence of the species in the 

wild. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our policy on peer 

review, published on July 1, 1994 (59 

FR 34270), we will provide copies of 

this proposed rule to three or more 

appropriate and independent specialists 

in order to solicit comments on the 

scientific data and assumptions relating 

to the supportive biological and 

ecological information for this proposed 

NEP designation. The purpose of such 

review is to ensure that the proposed 

NEP designation is based on the best 

scientific information available. We will 

invite these peer reviewers to comment 

during the public comment period and 

will consider their comments and 

information on this proposed rule 

during preparation of a final 

determination. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563) 

Executive Order 12866 provides that 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant 

rules. The Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs has determined that 

this rule is not significant. 

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the 

principles of E.O. 12866 while calling 

for improvements in the nation’s 

regulatory system to promote 

predictability, to reduce uncertainty, 

and to use the best, most innovative, 

and least burdensome tools for 

achieving regulatory ends. The 

executive order directs agencies to 

consider regulatory approaches that 

reduce burdens and maintain flexibility 

and freedom of choice for the public 

where these approaches are relevant, 

feasible, and consistent with regulatory 

objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes 

further that regulations must be based 

on the best available science and that 

the rulemaking process must allow for 

public participation and an open 

exchange of ideas. We have developed 

this rule in a manner consistent with 

these requirements. 

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

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(as amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

(SBREFA) of 1996; 5. U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 

whenever a Federal agency is required 

to publish a notice of rulemaking for 

any proposed or final rule, it must 

prepare, and make available for public 

comment, a regulatory flexibility 

analysis that describes the effect of the 

rule on small entities (small businesses, 

small organizations, and small 

government jurisdictions). However, no 

regulatory flexibility analysis is required 

if the head of an agency certifies that the 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. SBREFA 

amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

to require Federal agencies to provide a 

statement of the factual basis for 

certifying that a rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. We 

are certifying that this rule will not have 

a significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The following discussion explains our 

rationale. 

The area that would be affected if this 

proposed rule is adopted includes 

release sites in Wyoming and adjacent 

areas in Wyoming into which blackfooted ferrets may disperse. Because of 

the regulatory flexibility for Federal 

agency actions provided by the NEP 

designation and the exemption for 

incidental take, we do not expect this 

rule to have significant effects on any 

activities on Federal, State, Tribal, or 

private lands within the NEP. In regard 

to section 7(a)(2), the population is 

treated as proposed for listing, and 

Federal action agencies are not required 

to consult on their activities, unless the 

ferret is located within a National 

Wildlife Refuge or unit of the National 

Park Service. Section 7(a)(4) requires 

Federal agencies to confer (rather than 

consult) with the Service on actions that 

are likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a proposed species. 

However, because the proposed NEP is, 

by definition, not essential to the 

survival of the species, conferring will 

likely not be required for ferret 

populations within the NEP area. 

Furthermore, the results of a conference 

are advisory in nature and do not 

restrict agencies from carrying out, 

funding, or authorizing activities. In 

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

agencies to use their authorities to carry 

out programs to further the conservation 

of listed species, which would apply on 

any lands within the NEP area. As a 

result, and in accordance with these 

regulations, some modifications to 

proposed Federal actions within the 

NEP area may occur to benefit the ferret, 

but we do not expect projects to be 

halted or substantially modified as a 

result of these regulations. 

If adopted, this proposal would 

broadly authorize incidental take of the 

black-footed ferret within the NEP area. 

The regulations implementing the Act 

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 in 

the NEP area that are in accordance with 

Federal, State, Tribal, and local laws 

and regulations. Intentional take for 

purposes other than authorized data 

collection or recovery purposes would 

not be permitted. Intentional take for 

research or recovery purposes would 

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

permit under the Act. 

The principal activities on private 

property near the NEP area are ranching 

and energy development. We believe the 

presence of the black-footed ferret 

would not affect the use of lands for 

these purposes because there would be 

no new or additional economic or 

regulatory restrictions imposed upon 

States, non-Federal entities, or members 

of the public due to the presence of the 

ferret, and Federal agencies would only 

have to comply with sections 7(a)(1) and 

7(a)(4) of the Act in these areas. 

Therefore, this rulemaking is not 

expected to have any significant adverse 

impacts to activities on private lands 

within the NEP area. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.): 

(1) If adopted, this proposal would 

not ‘‘significantly or uniquely’’ affect 

small governments. We have 

determined and certify under the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 

U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this proposed 

rulemaking would not impose a cost of 

$100 million or more in any given year 

on local or State governments or private 

entities. A Small Government Agency 

Plan is not required. As explained 

above, small governments would not be 

affected because the proposed NEP 

designation would not place additional 

requirements on any city, county, or 

other local municipalities. 

(2) This rule would not produce a 

Federal mandate of $100 million or 

greater in any year (i.e., it is not a 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19273 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act). 

This proposed NEP designation for the 

black-footed ferret would not impose 

any additional management or 

protection requirements on the State or 

other entities. 

Takings (E.O. 12630) 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12630, the proposed rule does not have 

significant takings implications. This 

rule would allow for the take of 

reintroduced black-footed ferrets when 

such take is incidental to an otherwise 

legal activity, such as recreation (e.g., 

hiking, hunting, bird watching), 

forestry, agriculture, hydroelectric 

power generation, and other activities 

that are in accordance with Federal, 

State, and local laws and regulations. 

Therefore, we do not believe that 

establishment of this NEP would 

conflict with existing or proposed 

human activities or hinder public use of 

ferret habitat in Wyoming. 

A takings implication assessment is 

not required because this rule (1) will 

not effectively compel a property owner 

to suffer a physical invasion of property 

and (2) will not deny all economically 

beneficial or productive use of the land 

or aquatic resources. This rule would 

substantially advance a legitimate 

government interest (conservation and 

recovery of a listed species) and would 

not present a barrier to all reasonable 

and expected beneficial use of private 

property. 

Federalism (E.O. 13132) 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132, we have considered whether this 

proposed rule has significant 

Federalism effects and have determined 

that a federalism summary impact 

statement is not required. This rule 

would not have substantial direct effects 

on the States, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. In keeping 

with Department of the Interior policy, 

we requested information from and 

coordinated development of this 

proposed rule with the affected resource 

agencies in Wyoming. Achieving the 

recovery goals for this species would 

contribute to its eventual delisting and 

its return to State management. No 

intrusion on State policy or 

administration is expected; roles or 

responsibilities of Federal or State 

governments would not change; and 

fiscal capacity would not be 

substantially directly affected. The 

proposed rule operates to maintain the 

existing relationship between the State 

and the Federal Government and is 

being undertaken in coordination with 

the State of Wyoming. Therefore, this 

rule does not have significant 

Federalism effects or implications to 

warrant the preparation of a federalism 

summary impact statement under the 

provisions of Executive Order 13132. 

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12988, the Office of the Solicitor has 

determined that this rule would not 

unduly burden the judicial system and 

would meet the requirements of sections 

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

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which 

implement provisions of the Paperwork 

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

et seq.), require that Federal agencies 

obtain approval from OMB before 

collecting information from the public. 

This proposed rule does not contain any 

new information collections that require 

approval. OMB has approved our 

collection of information associated 

with reporting the taking of 

experimental populations (50 CFR 

17.84) and assigned OMB Control 

Number 1018–0095, which expires on 

October 31, 2017. We may not collect or 

sponsor and you are not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

In compliance with all provisions of 

NEPA, we have prepared a draft 

environmental assessment on this 

action, which is available for public 

review: (1) in person at the Wyoming 

Ecological Services Field Office (see 

ADDRESSES) and (2) online at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R6–ES–2015–0013, or at http://

www.fws.gov/wyominges/. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the presidential 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 229511), 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249), 

and the Department of the Interior 

Manual Chapter 512 DM 2, we have 

considered possible effects on federally 

recognized Indian Tribes and have 

determined that Tribal lands overlap the 

proposed Wyoming NEP in portions of 

Fremont and Hot Springs Counties. 

However, participation in black-footed 

ferret recovery is entirely voluntary. If 

suitable habitat for ferret recovery is 

available, non-Federal landowners, 

including Tribes, may choose to either 

not participate, or to participate through 

authorities under 10(j), 10(a)(1)(A), or 

the SHA (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2013b). If ferrets were reintroduced on 

non-tribal lands adjacent to Tribal lands 

and subsequently dispersed onto Tribal 

lands, the aforementioned authorities 

would provide a more relaxed 

regulatory situation under the Act 

through allowances for incidental take. 

However, as stated previously, we are 

not aware of any prairie dog complexes 

suitable for ferret reintroduction on or 

adjacent to Tribal lands. The nearest 

potential reintroduction sites are two 

white-tailed prairie dog complexes–– 

Fifteen-mile Complex near Worland in 

Hot Springs County and Sweetwater 

Complex near Sweetwater Station in 

Fremont County (Luce 2008, pp. 29–30). 

Both sites are of intermediate potential 

for ferret reintroduction and are located 

approximately 19 miles (30 kilometers) 

from reservation boundaries. We have 

communicated this information to the 

Northern Arapaho and Eastern 

Shoshone Tribes in Wyoming in letters 

offering government-to-government 

consultation. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

(E.O. 13211) 

Executive Order 13211 requires 

agencies to prepare Statements of 

Energy Effects when undertaking certain 

actions. This rule is not expected to 

significantly affect energy supplies, 

distribution, or use because energy 

development is compatible with blackfooted ferret recovery. Because this 

action is not a significant energy action, 

no Statement of Energy Effects is 

required. 

Clarity of This Rule 

We are required by E.O. 12866, E.O. 

12988, and the Presidential 

Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write 

all rules in plain language. This means 

that each rule we publish must: 

(1) Be logically organized; 

(2) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(3) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(4) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(5) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. To better help us revise the 

rule, your comments should be as 

specific as possible. For example, you 

should tell us the numbers of the 

sections and paragraphs that are 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19274 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

unclearly written, which sections or 

sentences are too long, or the sections 

where you feel lists and tables would be 

useful. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this final rule is available at http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R6–ES–2015–0013, or upon 

request from the Wyoming Ecological 

Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES). 

Authors 

The authors of this proposed rule are 

staff members of the Service’s 

Mountain-Prairie Region and the 

Wyoming Ecological Services Field 

Office (see ADDRESSES). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17––[AMENDED] 

■ 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. Amend § 17.11(h) by revising the 

entry for ‘‘Ferret, black-footed’’ under 

MAMMALS in the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife to read as 

follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate population 

where endangered or 

threatened 

Status When 

listed 

Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

MAMMALS

* * * * * * * 

Ferret, black-footed.Mustela nigripes .. Western U.S.A., 

Western Canada, Mexico.

Entire, except where listed 

as an experimental population.

E 1, 3, 433, 

545, 546, 

582, 646, 

703, 737 

NA NA 

Ferret, black-footed.Mustela nigripes .. Western U.S.A., 

Western Canada, Mexico.

U.S.A. (WY and specified 

portions of AZ, CO, MT, 

SD, and UT, see 

17.84(g)(9)).

XN 433, 545, 

546, 582, 

646, 703, 

737 

NA 17.84(g) 

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 17.84(g) by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (g)(1) and 

(g)(6)(i); 

■ b. By adding paragraph (g)(9)(viii); 

and 

■ c. By adding a map entitled 

‘‘Wyoming Black-footed Ferret NEP’’ 

immediately following the map entitled 

‘‘Rosebud Sioux Tribe ITOPA SAPA 

KIN (Black-footed Ferret) Experimental 

Population Area—South Dakota.’’ 

The revisions and additions 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 within the Wyoming NEP, in 

accordance with their respective 

management plans. 

* * * * * 

(6) * * * 

(i) Report such taking in Wyoming, 

including the Shirley Basin/Medicine 

Bow experimental population area, to 

the Field Supervisor, Ecological 

Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Cheyenne, Wyoming (telephone: 307/

772–2374). 

* * * * * 

(9) * * * 

(viii) The Wyoming Experimental 

Population Area encompasses most of 

the State of Wyoming. The boundaries 

of the nonessential experimental 

population include all areas in the State 

of Wyoming outside of the Shirley 

Basin/Medicine Bow Management Area 

(see paragraph (g)(9)(i)) and the small 

portion of Wyoming included as part of 

the Northwestern Colorado/

Northeastern Utah Experimental 

Population Area (see paragraph 

(g)(9)(v)). Any black-footed ferret found 

within the Wyoming Experimental 

Population Area will be considered part 

of the nonessential experimental 

population after the first breeding 

season following the first year of blackfooted ferret release. A black-footed 

ferret occurring outside of the State of 

Wyoming would initially be considered 

as endangered, but may be captured for 

genetic testing. If necessary, disposition 

of the captured animal may occur 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. 

* * * * * 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
* * * * * Dated: April 2, 2015. 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

[FR Doc. 2015–08271 Filed 4–9–15; 8:45 am] 

and Wildlife and Parks. 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish 

Michael J. Bean, 


EP10AP15.004</GPH>rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

0 w 100 

- Kilometers 

0 25 50 75 100