Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33613 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2020–0123; 

FXES11130200000–212–FF02ENEH00] 

RIN 2018–BD61 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Revision of a Nonessential 

Experimental Population of BlackFooted Ferrets (Mustela nigripes) in 

the Southwest 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; announcement of 

a draft environmental assessment. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service and USFWS), 

propose to revise the regulation for the 

nonessential experimental population of 

the black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) 

(ferret) in Arizona. We established the 

Aubrey Valley Experimental Population 

Area (AVEPA) in 1996 in accordance 

with section 10(j) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). 

This proposed rule would allow the 

reintroduction of ferrets across a larger 

landscape as part of a nonessential 

experimental population and include 

the AVEPA within a larger ‘‘Southwest 

Experimental Population Area’’ 

(SWEPA), which includes parts of 

Arizona and identified contiguous 

Tribal land in New Mexico and Utah. 

This proposed revision provides a 

framework for establishing and 

managing reintroduced populations of 

ferrets that will allow greater 

management flexibility and increased 

landowner cooperation. The best 

available data indicate that 

reintroduction of the ferret into suitable 

habitat in the proposed SWEPA is 

biologically feasible and will promote 

the conservation of the species. We are 

seeking comments on this proposal and 

on our draft environmental assessment 

(EA) that analyzes the potential 

environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed regulatory revisions. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

August 24, 2021. If you are using the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal (see 

ADDRESSES), the deadline for submitting 

an electronic comment is 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on this date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on the proposed rule and draft EA by 

one of the following methods: 

Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter the Docket Number for this 

rulemaking: FWS–R2–ES–2020–0123. 

Then, in the Search panel on the left 

side of the screen, under the Document 

Type heading, click on the Proposed 

Rules link to locate this document. You 

may submit a comment by clicking on 

‘‘Comment Now!’’ 

By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: 

Public Comments Processing, Attn: 

FWS–R2–ES–2020–0123, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 

We will post all comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see ‘‘Public 

Comments’’ below for more 

information). 

Copies of Documents: The proposed 

rule, draft EA, and supporting 

documents are available at the following 

website: http://www.regulations.gov in 

Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2020–0123. 

Persons who use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) may call the 

Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1–800– 

877–8339. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Humphrey, Field Supervisor, Phone: 

602–242–0210. Direct all questions or 

requests for additional information to: 

BLACK-FOOTED FERRET QUESTIONS, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona 

Ecological Services Office, 9828 North 

31st Avenue, Suite C3, Phoenix, AZ 

85051. Individuals who are hearingimpaired or speech-impaired may call 

the FRS at 1–800–877–8337 for TTY 

assistance. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments 

We want to ensure that any final rule 

developed from this proposed revision 

to the 1996 rule is as effective as 

possible. Therefore, we invite Tribal and 

other governmental agencies, the 

scientific community, industry, and 

other interested parties to submit 

comments (including recommendations 

and information) concerning any aspect 

of this proposed revision. Your 

comments should be as specific as 

possible. 

To issue a final rule implementing 

this revision, we will take into 

consideration all comments and 

information we receive. Such 

communications may lead to a final rule 

that differs from this proposed revision. 

All comments, including commenters’ 

names and addresses, if provided to us, 

will become part of the supporting 

record. 

You may submit your comments 

concerning the proposed revision by 

one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. 

You must submit comments to http://

www.regulations.gov before 11:59 p.m. 

(Eastern Time) on the date specified in 

DATES. We will not consider hardcopy 

comments not postmarked by the date 

specified in DATES. 

We will post your entire comment— 

including your personal identifying 

information—on 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. 

The comments we receive and any 

supporting documentation we used in 

preparing this proposal will be available 

for public inspection at http://

www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Arizona Ecological Services 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

We specifically seek comments on: 

• The appropriateness of revising the 

current AVEPA, and establishing new 

boundaries for the nonessential 

experimental population area to 

encompass all potential ferret habitat 

within Arizona and identified Tribal 

lands in New Mexico and Utah, for 

reintroduced populations of blackfooted ferrets; 

• Threats to ferrets in the proposed 

nonessential experimental population 

area that we have not considered in this 

revision that might affect a reintroduced 

population; 

• The suitability of the proposed 

boundaries for this nonessential 

experimental population; 

• The effects of reintroducing ferrets 

on public, private, and Tribal lands and 

activities such as ranching, recreation, 

residential development, and other land 

uses; and 

• The compatibility of this proposal 

with ongoing implementation of the 

programmatic ferret Safe Harbor 

Agreement (SHA) in cooperation with 

non-Federal landowners. 

Background 

Statutory and Regulatory Framework 

The 1982 amendments to the ESA (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) included the 

addition of section 10(j) that allows for 

the designation of reintroduced 

populations of listed species as 

‘‘experimental populations.’’ Our 

implementing regulations for section 

10(j) are in title 50 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations in part 17 

(specifically at 50 CFR 17.81); hereafter, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
33614 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

we refer to species-specific rules under 

section 10(j) of the ESA as ‘‘10(j) rules.’’ 

These regulations state that the Service 

may designate a population of 

endangered or threatened species that 

we have released or will release into 

suitable natural habitat outside the 

species’ current natural range, but 

within its probable historical range, as 

an experimental population. 

Under 50 CFR 17.81(b), before 

authorizing the release as an 

experimental population of any 

population of an endangered or 

threatened species, the Service must 

find by regulation that such release will 

further the conservation of the species. 

In making such a finding, the Service 

shall use the best scientific and 

commercial data available to consider: 

(1) Any possible adverse effects on 

extant populations of a species as a 

result of removal of individuals, eggs, or 

propagules for introduction elsewhere 

(see ‘‘Possible Adverse Effects on Wild 

and Captive-Breeding Populations’’ 

below); 

(2) the likelihood that any such 

experimental population will become 

established and survive in the 

foreseeable future (see ‘‘Likelihood of 

Population Establishment and Survival’’ 

below); 

(3) the relative effects that 

establishment of an experimental 

population will have on the recovery of 

the species (see ‘‘Effects of the SWEPA 

on Recovery Efforts for the Species’’ 

below); and 

(4) the extent to which the introduced 

population may be affected by existing 

or anticipated Federal, Tribal, or State 

actions or private activities within or 

adjacent to the experimental population 

area (see ‘‘Actions and Activities that 

May Affect the Introduced Population’’ 

below). 

Furthermore, under 50 CFR 17.81(c), 

any regulation designating experimental 

populations under section 10(j) of the 

ESA shall provide: 

(1) Appropriate means to identify the 

experimental population, including, but 

not limited to, its actual or proposed 

location, actual or anticipated 

migration, number of specimens 

released or to be released, and other 

criteria appropriate to identify the 

experimental population(s) (see 

‘‘Identifying the Location and 

Boundaries of the SWEPA’’ below); 

(2) a finding, based solely on the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available, and the supporting factual 

basis, on whether the experimental 

population is, or is not, essential to the 

continued existence of the species in the 

wild (see ‘‘Is the Proposed Experimental 

Population Essential or Nonessential?’’ 

below); 

(3) management restrictions, 

protective measures, or other special 

management concerns of that 

population, which may include but are 

not limited to, measures to isolate and/ 

or contain the experimental population 

designated in the regulation from 

natural populations (see ‘‘Management 

Restrictions, Protective Measures, and 

Other Special Management’’ below); and 

(4) a process for periodic review and 

evaluation of the success or failure of 

the release and the effect of the release 

on the conservation and recovery of the 

species (see ‘‘Review and Evaluation of 

the Success or Failure of the SWEPA’’ 

below). 

Under 50 CFR 17.81(d), the Service 

shall consult with appropriate State fish 

and wildlife agencies, local 

governmental entities [including Tribal 

governments], affected Federal agencies, 

and affected private landowners in 

developing and implementing 

experimental population rules. To the 

maximum extent practicable, 10(j) rules 

represent an agreement between the 

Service, affected Tribes, State and 

Federal agencies, and persons holding 

any interest in land that the 

establishment of an experimental 

population may affect. 

Under 50 CFR 17.81(f), the Secretary 

may designate critical habitat as defined 

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

essential experimental population. The 

Secretary will not designate critical 

habitat for nonessential populations. 

The term essential experimental 

population means an experimental 

population whose loss would be likely 

to appreciably reduce the likelihood of 

the survival of the species in the wild. 

We classify all other experimental 

populations as nonessential (50 CFR 

17.80). 

Under 50 CFR 17.82, we treat any 

population determined by the Secretary 

to be an experimental population as if 

we had listed it as a threatened species 

for the purposes of establishing 

protective regulations with respect to 

that population. The protective 

regulations adopted for an experimental 

population will contain applicable 

prohibitions, as appropriate, and 

exceptions for that population, allowing 

us discretion in devising management 

programs to provide for the 

conservation of the species. 

Under 50 CFR 17.83(a), for the 

purposes of section 7 of the ESA, we 

treat nonessential experimental 

populations as threatened when located 

in a National Wildlife Refuge or unit of 

the National Park Service (NPS), and 

Federal agencies follow conservation 

and consultation requirements per 

subsections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2), 

respectively. We treat nonessential 

experimental populations outside of a 

National Wildlife Refuge or NPS unit as 

species proposed for listing, and 

agencies only follow subsections 7(a)(1) 

and 7(a)(4). In these cases, nonessential 

experimental population designation 

provides additional flexibility, because 

it does not require Federal agencies to 

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

section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies 

to confer (not consult) with the Service 

on actions that are likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of a species 

proposed to be listed. A conference 

results in conservation 

recommendations, which are 

discretionary. Because the nonessential 

experimental population is, by 

definition, not essential to the 

continued existence of the species, the 

effects of proposed actions on the 

population will generally not rise to the 

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

agencies will likely never request a 

formal conference for actions that may 

affect ferrets established in the proposed 

SWEPA. Nonetheless, some Federal 

agencies voluntarily confer with the 

Service on actions that may affect a 

proposed species. 

Legal Status 

We listed the black-footed ferret as an 

endangered species in 1967 under the 

Endangered Species Preservation Act of 

1966 (32 FR 4001, March 11, 1967). We 

later codified this list in part 17 of title 

50 in the U.S. Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) (35 FR 8491, October 

13, 1970). With the passage of the ESA 

in 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we 

incorporated those species previously 

listed in the CFR into the Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants under the ESA, found at 50 

CFR 17.11 and 17.12 (39 FR 1175, 

January 4, 1974). 

In 1996, we designated the population 

of black-footed ferrets established via 

reintroduction in Aubrey Valley as a 

nonessential experimental population 

(61 FR 11320, March 20, 1996). The 

Aubrey Valley Experimental Population 

Area (AVEPA) includes parts of 

Coconino, Mohave, and Yavapai 

Counties in northwestern Arizona. At 

the time of its designation, the AVEPA 

consisted of 22 percent State lands, 45 

percent Tribal lands (Hualapai 

Reservation), and 33 percent deeded 

lands (owned by the Navajo Nation). 

In 2013, the USFWS developed a 

range-wide programmatic Safe Harbor 

Agreement (SHA) to encourage nonFederal landowners to voluntarily 

undertake conservation activities on 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33615 

their properties to benefit the ferret 

(USFWS 2013b, entire) (see ‘‘Historical 

Range’’ below). Through Certificates of 

Inclusion, we enroll willing landowners 

in our SHA section 10(a)(1)(A) 

Enhancement of Survival Permit. We 

treat ferrets as endangered outside of the 

AVEPA, and the provisions and 

exceptions of the experimental 

population designation do not apply; 

however, through the SHA, incidental 

take of ferrets by participating 

landowners and nonparticipating 

neighboring landowners is permissible. 

Also, through their certificates, we 

provide participating landowners 

assurances we will not require 

additional restrictions provided they 

follow provisions outlined in the SHA 

and detailed in a Reintroduction Plan 

developed by the landowner for the 

enrolled lands. The Service tailors 

conservation activities to each specific 

site under the SHA. 

General provisions of Arizona Revised 

Statutes, Title 17, protect all of 

Arizona’s native wildlife, including 

federally listed threatened and 

endangered species. Under Navajo 

Nation law, it is unlawful for any person 

to take ferrets. All wildlife on the Hopi 

Reservation is the property of the Hopi 

Tribe, and Tribal law provides for take 

(see ‘‘Management Restrictions, 

Protective Measures, and Other Special 

Management’’ below, for more 

information on State and Tribal legal 

status). 

Biological Information 

Species Description 

The black-footed ferret (Mustela 

nigripes) is a medium-sized member of 

the weasel family (Mustelidae) weighing 

1.4 to 2.5 pounds (645 to 1125 grams) 

and measuring 19 to 24 inches (480 to 

600 millimeters) in total length. Its body 

color includes yellowish-buff, 

occasionally whitish, upper parts, and 

black feet, tail tip, and ‘‘mask’’ across 

the eyes (Hillman and Clark 1980, p. 

30). 

Ecology/Habitat Use/Movement 

Black-footed ferrets are carnivorous, 

extremely specialized predators highly 

dependent on prairie dogs (Cynomys 

spp.) (Hillman 1968, p. 438; Biggins 

2006, p. 3). Ferrets prey predominantly 

on prairie dogs (Sheets et al. 1972, 

entire; Campbell et al. 1987, entire), 

occupy prairie dog burrows, and do not 

dig their own burrows (Forrest et al. 

1988, p. 261). Ferrets select areas within 

prairie dog colonies that contain high 

burrow densities and thus high 

densities of prairie dogs (Biggins et al. 

2006, p. 136; Eads et al. 2011, p. 763; 

Jachowski et al. 2011a, pp. 221–223; 

Livieri and Anderson 2012, pp. 201– 

202). Given their obligate tie to prairie 

dogs, ferret populations associated with 

larger, less fragmented prairie dog 

colonies are more likely to be resilient 

and less likely to be extirpated by 

stochastic events compared to those 

associated with smaller, fragmented 

colonies (Miller et al. 1994, p. 678; 

Jachowski et al. 2011b, entire). 

Resiliency is the ability of populations 

to tolerate natural, annual variation in 

their environment and to recover from 

periodic or random disturbances 

(USFWS 2019, p. 2). Such stochastic 

events include epizootics, such as 

sylvatic plague (plague), and extreme 

weather or climate, including drought. 

The last naturally occurring wild 

ferret population, in Wyoming, averaged 

approximately 25 breeding adults 

throughout intensive demographic 

studies from 1982 to 1985 (USFWS 

2019, p. 10). Based on this and 

population modeling, the Service 

considers 30 breeding adults a 

minimum for a population of ferrets to 

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

Ferrets require large, contiguous prairie 

dog colonies to meet their individual 

needs, with colonies no more than 4.35 

miles (7 kilometers [km]) apart. A 

conservative estimate of habitat 

requirements to support one female 

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

of black-tailed prairie dog (C. 

ludovicianus) colonies, or 370 ac (150 

ha) of Gunnison’s prairie dog (C. 

gunnisoni) colonies (USFWS 2013a, p. 

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

female home ranges (Biggins et al. 1993, 

p. 76), a population of 30 breeding adult 

ferrets would require 4,450 ac (1,800 ha) 

of black-tailed prairie dog colonies, or 

7,415 ac (3,000 ha) of Gunnison’s prairie 

dog colonies. 

Natal dispersal, defined as a 

permanent movement away from the 

birth area, occurs in the fall months 

among the young-of-the-year, although 

adults occasionally make permanent 

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

Newly released captive-born ferrets 

have dispersed up to 30 miles (49 km) 

(Biggins et al. 1999, p. 125), and wildborn ferrets more than 12 miles (20 km) 

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

greater distances than females. 

Historical Range 

The black-footed ferret is the only 

ferret species native to the Americas 

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

European settlement, ferret occurrence 

coincided with the ranges of three 

prairie dog species (black-tailed, 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 

one-half to one million ferrets 

(Anderson et al. 1986, p. 58). We have 

records of ferret specimens from 

Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Montana, 

Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, 

Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, 

and Wyoming in the United States 

(U.S.) and from Saskatchewan and 

Alberta in Canada (Anderson et al. 

1986, pp. 25–50). A rancher discovered 

the last wild population of ferrets (from 

which all existing ferrets descend) near 

Meeteetse, Wyoming, in 1981, after we 

had presumed the species extinct (Clark 

et al. 1986, p. 8; Lockhart et al. 2006, 

p. 8). By 1987, the Service and partners 

removed all known surviving wild 

ferrets (18 individuals) from this area to 

initiate a captive-breeding program 

following disease outbreaks (Lockhart et 

al. 2006, p. 8). Since then, we have not 

located any wild populations, despite 

extensive and intensive rangewide 

searches; it is unlikely any 

undiscovered natural wild populations 

remain. For these reasons, the Service 

considers the ferret extirpated 

throughout its historical range, except 

for reintroduced populations (USFWS 

2017, p. 2). 

In the Southwest, ferrets occurred in 

Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and 

Utah, within the historical range of 

Gunnison’s prairie dogs, and in New 

Mexico and likely southeastern Arizona 

and Mexico, within the historical range 

of black-tailed prairie dogs (Hillman and 

Clark 1980, entire). In Arizona, 

historical ferret collections (1929–1931) 

come from three locations in Coconino 

County (Belitsky et al. 1994, p. 29). In 

1967, Federal Animal Damage Control 

personnel (now known as Wildlife 

Services) reported seeing ferret sign 

while poisoning prairie dogs (pers. com. 

1993, as cited in Belitsky et al. 1994, p. 

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

speculated that prairie dog populations 

of sufficient size to support ferrets may 

have existed in northeastern Arizona on 

lands of the Navajo Nation, a sovereign 

Indian tribe. However, the Navajo 

Nation has determined that the ferret no 

longer occurs on their lands (Navajo 

Nation 2020). Prairie dogs also occur in 

significant numbers on the lands of two 

other sovereign Indian tribes, the Hopi 

Tribe (Johnson et al. 2010, entire) and 

the Hualapai Tribe, the latter of which 

the AVEPA partially overlaps. 

Dramatic historical declines in prairie 

dogs, coupled with prevalence of plague 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
33616 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

throughout the ferret’s historical range, 

and the failure to locate new wild 

ferrets, suggests the species is extirpated 

in Arizona, except where it has been 

reintroduced (USFWS 2017, p. 2). The 

date of ferret extirpation in the 

Southwest is unknown; in Arizona, we 

have no verified reports for ferrets from 

1931 through 1995, after which we 

initiated reintroduction efforts in the 

AVEPA. We consider the historical 

range of the ferret to coincide with the 

historical ranges of the Gunnison’s and 

black-tailed prairie dogs. 

Threats/Causes of Decline 

Black-footed ferret populations 

decreased historically for three main 

reasons. First, major conversion of 

native range to cropland, primarily in 

the eastern portion of the species’ range, 

began in the late 1800s. Second, 

widespread poisoning of prairie dogs to 

reduce perceived competition with 

domestic livestock for forage began in 

the early 1900s. Third, in the 1930s, 

plague began to significantly adversely 

affect both prairie dogs and ferrets 

(Eskey and Hass 1940, p. 62). By the 

1960s, prairie dog occupied habitat 

reached a low of about 1.4 million ac 

(570,000 ha) in the U.S. (Bureau of Sport 

Fisheries and Wildlife 1961, n.p.). For 

these reasons, ferret numbers declined 

to the point of perceived extinction. 

These threats resulted in a substantial 

loss of prairie dogs, which in turn led 

to an even greater decline in ferret 

populations due to the species’ 

dependence on prairie dog colonies 

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

population bottlenecks can result in loss 

of genetic diversity and fitness and can 

manifest following even a temporary 

loss of habitat (USFWS 2013a, p. 23). 

In Arizona, the combined effects of 

prairie dog poisoning and plague 

decreased the area occupied by 

Gunnison’s prairie dogs from about 6.6 

million ac (2.7 million ha) historically 

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

(Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 

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

Estimates of historical black-tailed 

prairie dog habitat in Arizona range 

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

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

1999, p. 1; Black-footed Ferret Recovery 

Foundation 1999, p. 4). Extirpation of 

black-tailed prairie dogs in Arizona 

probably occurred prior to 1960. As 

with the rangewide effects, these prairie 

dog losses also resulted in the loss of 

ferrets; by the 1960’s, we thought ferrets 

were extirpated in Arizona (Lockhart et 

al. 2006, pp. 7–8). 

Cropland Conversion 

Major conversion of native range to 

cropland eliminated millions of acres of 

ferret habitat in the eastern portion of 

the ferret’s range, particularly 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 be primarily cattle 

grazing, with relatively minimal crop 

development. Cropland conversion in 

Arizona, while affecting ferrets locally, 

was not a major cause of decline in the 

State. 

Prairie Dog Poisoning 

Poisoning was a major cause of the 

historical declines of prairie dogs and 

subsequently black-footed ferrets 

(Forrest et al. 1985; Cully 1993, p. 38; 

Forrest and Luchsinger 2005, pp. 115– 

120). Similar to other threats limiting 

ferret recovery, poisoning affects ferrets 

through inadvertent secondary effects, 

poisoning caused by consumption of 

poisoned prairie dogs, or indirectly, 

through the loss of prairie dog prey 

base. 

In Arizona, from 1916 to 1933, rodent 

control operations treated 4,365,749 ac 

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

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

and Rodent Control Agency report 

showed a 92 percent decline in 

occupied prairie dog habitat in Arizona 

since 1921, with Gunnison’s prairie 

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

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

colonies in the 1961 surveys were 

located on non-Tribal lands. The 1961 

Predator and Rodent Control Agency 

report also documented the extirpation 

of black-tailed prairie dogs from 

Arizona. Historical prairie dog 

poisoning was a major cause of decline 

of ferrets in Arizona. 

Plague 

Sylvatic plague is the most significant 

challenge to ferret recovery (USFWS 

2019, p. 21), with the USFWS 

classifying it as an imminent threat of 

high magnitude (USFWS 2020, p. 5). 

Plague is an exotic disease, caused by 

the bacterium Yersinia pestis, 

transmitted by fleas, that steamships 

inadvertently introduced to North 

America in 1900. Because it was foreign 

and unknown to their immune systems, 

both ferrets and prairie dogs were and 

continue to be extremely susceptible to 

mortality from plague (Barnes 1993, 

entire; Cully 1993, entire; Gage and 

Kosoy 2006, entire). Plague can be 

present in a prairie dog colony in an 

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

enzootic (persistent, low level of 

mortality) state. Most of the information 

we have about the effects of plague is 

from epizootic events. Although its 

effects are not as dramatic as an 

epizootic outbreak, enzootic plague may 

result in negative growth rates for 

prairie dog and ferret populations and 

hinder ferret recovery (USFWS 2013a, 

pp. 33, 100). 

The first confirmation of plague in 

Gunnison’s prairie dog in Arizona was 

in 1932, but we have limited historical 

data on the extent of its effects. In 2003, 

Wagner and Drickamer reported that in 

the previous 7 to 15 years, there had 

been a large reduction in the number of 

active Gunnison’s prairie dog colonies 

in Arizona, primarily due to outbreaks 

of plague, which they said was the 

dominant negative effect on Arizona 

prairie dog populations. Prairie dogs in 

northern Arizona will likely continue to 

experience regular plague outbreaks 

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

Other Impediments to Recovery 

To successfully recover black-footed 

ferrets we need purposeful management 

of prairie dog populations to provide 

habitat of sufficient quality and in a 

stable, spatial configuration suitable to 

support and maintain new populations 

of reintroduced ferrets. Unfortunately, 

current management efforts for the 

species are failing to meet these 

conservation objectives (USFWS 2013a, 

pp. 46, 58, Table 6; USFWS 2020 p. 5). 

The keys to correcting current 

management inadequacies are active 

plague management (discussed above), 

and ongoing, widespread partner 

involvement (USFWS 2013a, pp. 46–48) 

to facilitate establishment of new 

reintroduction sites and appropriately 

manage the quality and configuration of 

ferret habitat within the species range. 

In addition, consideration of other 

factors that may act alone or in concert 

with threats are necessary when 

planning and implementing recovery 

efforts. For example, canine distemper, 

a disease endemic to the U.S., posed a 

challenge to early ferret reintroduction 

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

250). Today, however, we have 

minimized the threat of catastrophic 

population losses from canine 

distemper by the use of commercial 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33617 

vaccines deployed in captive and wild 

ferret populations (USFWS 2013a, pp. 

29–30). As discussed in the BlackFooted Ferret Recovery Plan (USFWS 

2013a, pp. 53–55), we anticipate that 

climate change will alter and reduce 

prairie dog habitat and influence plague 

outbreaks. We also discuss prairie dog 

hunting and Federal and non-Federal 

actions and activities in the ‘‘Actions 

and Activities that May Affect the 

Introduced Population’’ section below. 

Recovery, Captive Breeding, and 

Reintroduction Efforts to Date 

The goal of the Black-footed Ferret 

Recovery Plan (Recovery Plan) is to 

recover the ferret to the point at which 

it can be reclassified to threatened status 

(downlisted) and ultimately removed 

(delisted) from the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife (USFWS 

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

Recovery Plan is to involve many 

partners across the historical range of 

the species in order to establish 

multiple, widely spaced populations, 

within the range of all three prairie dog 

species. Such distribution will 

safeguard the species, as a whole, from 

the widespread chronic effects of plague 

as well as other periodic or random 

disturbances that may result in the loss 

of a population in one or more given 

areas. Partner involvement is critical for 

the development of new sites and their 

long-term management. Although ferret 

habitat is significantly less than 

historical times, a sufficient amount 

remains if we can appropriately manage 

its quality and configuration to support 

reintroductions (USFWS 2013a, p. 5). 

The Recovery Plan provides objective, 

measurable criteria to achieve 

downlisting and delisting of the ferret. 

Recovery Plan downlisting and 

delisting criteria include managing a 

captive breeding population of at least 

280 adults as the source population to 

establish and supplement free-ranging 

populations and repopulate sites in the 

event of local extirpations. Downlisting 

criteria include establishing at least 

1,500 free-ranging breeding adults in 10 

or more populations, in at least 6 of 12 

States in the species’ historical range, 

with no fewer than 30 breeding adult 

ferrets in any population, and at least 3 

populations in colonies of Gunnison’s 

and white-tailed prairie dogs. Delisting 

criteria include at least 3,000 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 

criteria include maintaining 247,000 ac 

(100,000 ha) of prairie dog colonies at 

reintroduction sites for downlisting, and 

494,000 ac (200,000 ha) for delisting 

(USFWS 2013a, pp. 61–62). 

Additionally, for each State in the 

historical range of the species, the 

Recovery Plan suggests recovery 

guidelines proportional to the amount of 

prairie dog habitat historically present 

to equitably help support and achieve 

the recovery strategy and criteria 

(USFWS 2013a, p. 69). Guidelines for 

Arizona’s contribution to downlisting 

are 74 free-ranging breeding adult ferrets 

on 17,000 ac (6,880 ha) of Gunnison’s 

prairie dog- occupied habitat; delisting 

guidelines are 148 breeding adults on 

34,000 ac (13,760 ha) (USFWS 2013a, 

Table 8). The guidelines for New 

Mexico and Utah are 220 and 25 

breeding adult ferrets for downlisting, 

respectively, and 440 and 50 breeding 

adults for delisting; most of these 

guidelines are for black-tailed or whitetailed prairie dog habitat. 

Captive Breeding 

The Service and partners established 

the black-footed ferret captive-breeding 

program from 18 ferrets captured from 

the last known wild population at 

Meeteetse, Wyoming, in 1985 to 1987 

(Lockhart et al. 2006, pp. 11–12). Of 

those 18 ferrets, 15 individuals, 

representing the genetic equivalent of 

seven distinct founders (original genetic 

contributor, or ancestor), produced a 

captive population that is the 

foundation of present recovery efforts 

(Garelle et al. 2006, p. 4). All extant 

ferrets, both captive and reintroduced, 

descended from those seven founders. 

The purpose of the captive-breeding 

program is to maintain a secure and 

stable ferret population with maximum 

genetic diversity, to provide a 

sustainable source of ferrets for 

reintroduction to achieve recovery of 

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

The captive-breeding population of 

ferrets is the primary repository of 

genetic diversity for the species. There 

are currently six captive-breeding 

facilities maintained by the Service and 

its partners: The Service’s National 

Black-footed Ferret Conservation Center 

near Wellington, Colorado; the 

Cheyenne Mountain Zoological Park, 

Colorado Springs, Colorado; the 

Louisville Zoological Garden, 

Louisville, Kentucky; the Smithsonian 

Biology Conservation Institute, Front 

Royal, Virginia; the Phoenix Zoo, 

Phoenix, Arizona; and the Toronto Zoo, 

Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The 

combined population of all 6 facilities is 

currently about 300 ferrets (USFWS 

2020, p. 2). 

We manage the demography and 

genetics of the captive population 

consistent with guidance from the 

Association of Zoos and Aquariums 

(AZA) Black-footed Ferret Species 

Survival Plan (SSP®). This includes 

maintaining a stable breeding 

population of at least 280 animals with 

a high level of genetic diversity and 

providing a sustainable source of ferrets 

for reintroduction. The captive-breeding 

facilities produce about 250 juvenile 

ferrets annually and have produced 

about 9,300 ferrets in total (Graves et al. 

2018, p. 3; Santymire and Graves 2020, 

p. 12). The distribution of ferrets across 

six widespread facilities protects the 

species from catastrophic events. 

Currently, we retain about 80 juveniles 

annually in AZA SSP® 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 Service solicits 

proposals for allocations of ferrets to 

establish new sites or augment existing 

sites, or for educational or scientific 

purposes (e.g., plague vaccine research). 

The limited number of ferrets available 

for release each year requires that we 

efficiently allocate them to the highest 

priority sites first. The Service uses a 

ranking procedure for allocating ferrets 

to reintroduction sites (Jachowski and 

Lockhart 2009, pp. 59–60). Ranking 

criteria include project background and 

justification, involved agencies/parties, 

habitat conditions, ferret population 

information, predator management, 

disease monitoring and management, 

contingency plans, potential for 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 Service’s rankings of 

the proposals (USFWS 2013a, pp. 87– 

88). 

Each year, we allocate 150 to 220 

ferrets for reintroduction into the wild 

from the captive-breeding population; as 

of 2020 we had allocated 5,544 ferrets 

rangewide (T. Tretten, USFWS, pers. 

comm. 12/10/20). The number of ferrets 

we allocate to a site depends on site size 

and prey density (USFWS 2016, pp. 1, 

21). It also depends on purpose and 

needs; for example, whether the 

purpose is to initiate establishment of a 

population or augment a site, which 

may entail multiple releases in a year. 

A release can involve a single ferret, but 

for initial releases, in general, the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
33618 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Service recommends releasing 20 to 30 

individuals (P. Gober, USFWS, pers. 

comm., March 4, 2018). 

Rangewide Reintroduction Efforts to 

Date 

The Service and partners have 

reintroduced ferrets at 30 sites in the 

western U.S., Canada, and Mexico. In 

the United States, 12 ferret 

reintroductions have occurred through 

experimental population designations 

under section 10(j) of the ESA, 15 under 

SHA Enhancement of Survival permits 

under section 10(a)(1)(A), and one 

under section 7 of the ESA (John 

Hughes, USFWS, pers. comm., January 

28, 2018). Additionally, there has been 

one reintroduction each in Chihuahua, 

Mexico, and in Saskatchewan, Canada. 

As of December 9, 2019, 13 of 29 

reintroduction sites were active, with a 

total estimated wild population of about 

325 individuals (USFWS 2020, p. 2), 

254 of which are on only 4 sites 

(USFWS 2019, Table 3). The Service 

recently determined 2 reintroduction 

sites were in high condition (high 

resiliency), 8 were in moderate 

condition (moderate resiliency), 4 were 

in low condition (low resiliency), and 

15 were extirpated, primarily due to the 

plague (USFWS 2019, p. ii). We did not 

include the most recent reintroduction 

site, the thirtieth, in our analysis. There 

are 240,173 ac (97,197 ha) of active 

prairie dog colonies on all sites 

combined (USFWS 2019, p. 45). 

Arizona-Specific Reintroduction Efforts 

to Date 

The Arizona Game and Fish 

Department (AGFD) and Service have 

carried out multiple ferret 

reintroductions and augmentations in 

northern Arizona. In 1996, we 

reintroduced ferrets to the AVEPA in 

cooperation with the Hualapai Tribe 

and the Navajo Nation (61 FR 11320, 

March 20, 1996). AVEPA was the fifth 

ferret reintroduction site in the U.S. and 

the first reintroduction site in a 

Gunnison’s prairie dog population 

(USFWS 2013a, Figure 1). In 2011, 

AGFD personnel observed ferrets 

outside of the AVEPA, including on the 

adjacent Double O Ranch, presumably 

dispersing from the AVEPA. In 2012, 

the number of breeding adults in the 

AVEPA was 123, which exceeded the 

recommended State guidelines for 

downlisting (USFWS 2013a, Table 2, 

Table 8). Since then, AGFD has 

documented significantly fewer ferrets 

over several years (AGFD 2016, p. 3; 

USFWS 2019, p. 45). We suspect that 

enzootic plague may have caused this 

decline, but we do not know the longterm trend or whether it is cyclical. 

Despite lower numbers, we consider the 

AVEPA to be a persistent reintroduction 

site (P. Gober, USFWS, pers. comm, 

March 4, 2018). 

In 2007, we established the Espee 

Ranch (a.k.a. Allotment) reintroduction 

site under a section 10(a)(1)(A) research 

and recovery permit. The status of the 

Espee population is currently unknown 

but likely extirpated due to plague 

(AGFD, unpub. data). 

The Babbitt Ranches, LLC, for the 

Espee Allotment (the existing Espee 

Ranch reintroduction site), and Seibert 

Land Company LLC, for the Double O 

Ranch, enrolled in the programmatic 

SHA with the Service in 2014 and 2016, 

respectively. The figure at the end of 

this proposed rule identifies these SHA 

lands in the proposed SWEPA. The 

AVEPA and adjacent Double O Ranch 

contain the only known ferrets in the 

proposed SWEPA, and we consider 

them to be one population and 

reintroduction site. 

Plague Mitigation Efforts 

We continue making advances to 

address plague, even as it remains the 

most significant challenge to ferret 

recovery. Rocke et al. (2006, entire) 

developed a vaccine (F1–V) to prevent 

plague in ferrets, which we now use 

operationally, vaccinating all ferrets 

provided for reintroduction (Abbott and 

Rocke 2012, p. 54). Another vaccine 

under development is the sylvatic 

plague vaccine (SPV), which we deliver 

via treated baits to wild prairie dogs and 

may eventually protect ferrets from 

habitat reduction due to plague. SPV 

has been effective in a laboratory setting 

(Rocke et al. 2010, entire; Abbott and 

Rocke 2012, pp. 54–55), and a recent 

broad-scale experiment to test efficacy 

in the field found it prevented colony 

collapse where plague epizootics were 

documented (Rocke et al. 2017, p. 443). 

In addition, we have managed both 

enzootic and epizootic plague by 

application of the insecticide 

deltamethrin, in powder form, into 

prairie dog burrows to control fleas 

(Seery et al. 2003, p. 443; Seery 2006, 

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

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

application of insecticidal dust is costly 

and labor-intensive, and there are 

concerns about the development of 

deltamethrin-resistance in fleas. 

Therefore, we continue working to 

improve the application and efficacy of 

the insecticide deltamethrin and are 

researching other pesticides, such as 

fipronil, a systemic pulicide (fleaspecific insecticide) that is incorporated 

into grain baits for prairie dog 

consumption (Poche ́ et al. 2017, entire; 

Eads et al. 2019, entire). 

Summary 

Ferret recovery will be a dynamic 

process, requiring long-term active 

management (e.g., plague control) and 

involving reintroduced populations 

rangewide in various stages of 

suitability and sustainability—with 

some undergoing extirpation 

concurrently as others establish or 

reestablish after extirpation. The 

dynamic nature of ferret recovery and 

conservation is illustrated by the 

Service’s experience with the AVEPA 

population, which at one point was selfsustaining with ferrets dispersing 

outside the experimental population 

area, but then experienced a significant 

population decline, presumably due to 

plague, in 2013. Therefore, future ferret 

recovery is dependent on establishment 

of multiple, spatially spread 

populations of reintroduced ferrets in 

Arizona to contribute to species 

recovery, which establishment of the 

SWEPA will help achieve. 

Proposed Experimental Population 

We propose to revise and replace the 

existing nonessential experimental 

population designation for black-footed 

ferrets in Arizona (the AVEPA) with the 

SWEPA, under section 10(j) of the ESA. 

We based the proposed boundaries of 

the 40,905,350-ac (16,554,170-ha) 

SWEPA on the historical range of 

Gunnison’s and black-tailed prairie 

dogs, which coincides with the 

presumed historical range of blackfooted ferret in Arizona. The only ferrets 

occurring within the proposed SWEPA 

are within the AVEPA and adjacent 

areas and constitute a single population. 

Therefore, the SWEPA, which will 

encompass the AVEPA, would be 

wholly geographically separate from 

other populations. Currently, scattered 

throughout the SWEPA there are 

approximately 358,000 ac (144,880 ha) 

of prairie dog colonies (H. Hicks, AGFD, 

pers. comm., January 26, 2018; Johnson 

et al., 2010, p. iv) inhabiting about 0.875 

percent of the area. Establishment of the 

SWEPA allows the Service to 

reintroduce ferrets as a nonessential 

experimental population within the 

SWEPA area that encompasses all 

potential ferret habitat within the 

boundaries of the State of Arizona, 

including the Hopi Reservation, the 

Hualapai Reservation, and the Navajo 

Nation in its entirety, which includes 

the Nation’s contiguous areas in New 

Mexico and Utah (see the figure entitled 

‘‘Southwest Nonessential Experimental 

Population Area (SWEPA) for the blackfooted ferret’’ below). Land ownership 

within the SWEPA is Federal, private, 

State, and Tribal. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33619 

Potential Release Sites 

The Service selects ferret 

reintroduction sites and conducts 

reintroductions based on the BlackFooted Ferret Field Operations Manual 

(Operations Manual) (USFWS 2016, 

entire), and other site-specific plans and 

procedures. We propose all suitable 

habitat, meeting the minimum acreage 

requirements to support a population of 

ferrets within the SWEPA, as possible 

experimental population reintroduction 

locations as we currently lack 

information about the distribution of 

habitat, to appropriately identify all 

prospective reintroduction sites. Some 

SWEPA areas may become suitable in 

the future with appropriate 

management, and ferrets may also 

disperse from successful reintroduction 

sites as observed previously with the 

AVEPA 10(j). By including all suitable 

habitat within the SWEPA, where ferrets 

may be reintroduced or disperse as 

potential reintroduction sites, this 

experimental population designation 

will extend regulatory flexibility to any 

adjacent non-participating landowners 

to alleviate potential concerns. 

Currently, the Service anticipates 

reintroducing ferrets only into a small 

portion of the SWEPA that meets 

criteria for reintroductions. Six 

reintroduction areas have been 

identified by AGFD in their 

Management Plan for the Black-footed 

Ferret in Arizona (Management Plan) 

(AGFD 2016) based on prairie dog 

population estimates. Within the 

Management Plan, the areas are 

organized into Active Management 

Areas (MA), Suitable MAs, and 

Potential MAs. The AGFD currently 

manages Active MAs for ferrets. 

Suitable MAs have sustained minimum 

prairie dog-occupied acreage for 3 years 

and are ready to receive ferrets to 

establish new populations (see ‘‘Ferret 

Allocations’’ below). Potential MAs do 

not meet the minimum prairie dogoccupied acreage and need management 

to improve prairie dog populations (e.g., 

translocations or plague control) (AGFD 

2106, pp. 8–10). Two sites within the 

SWEPA currently are Active MAs: (1) 

AVEPA/Double O Ranch and (2) Espee 

Ranch, respectively. There are four 

Potential MAs. These areas are located 

in: (1) Kaibab National Forest, Williams/ 

Tusayan Ranger Districts; (2) CO Bar 

Ranch; (3) Petrified Forest National 

Park; and (4) Lyman Lake (see 

‘‘Identifying the Location and 

Boundaries of the SWEPA’’ below for 

more information on these sites). 

Ferret Allocations 

The Service allocates ferrets through 

an annual process (see ‘‘Captive 

Breeding’’ above). To qualify for the 

annual application and ranking process, 

AGFD, Tribes, and/or other land 

managers develop annual site-specific 

reintroduction plans and submit them to 

the Service by mid-March for 

consideration. The site manager of the 

proposed reintroduction site may be 

required to implement plague 

management at the site (e.g., applying 

Delta Dust® [deltamethrin]), prior to and 

after ferret reintroduction. 

Typically, the Service only considers 

ferret allocations to proposed 

reintroduction sites that contain enough 

prairie dog-occupied habitat to support 

at least 30 breeding adult ferrets. For 

Gunnison’s prairie dogs this typically 

equates to 7,415 acres (3,000 ha), and for 

black-tailed prairie dogs, typically 4,450 

acres (1,800 ha); however, these 

amounts vary depending on site 

conditions, such as the density of 

prairie dogs (USFWS 2019, p. 10). In 

addition, AGFD requires a minimum of 

5,540 acres of Gunnison’s prairie dogoccupied habitat for 3 years to consider 

it a ferret reintroduction site on AGFD 

lands (AGFD 2016, p. 15). For more 

information about allocations, see 

‘‘Possible Adverse Effects on Wild and 

Captive-Breeding Populations’’ below. 

Release Procedures 

The Service and ferret reintroduction 

managers follow the Operations Manual, 

allowing for adjustments to the 

techniques according to Serviceapproved management plans (e.g., 

AGFD 2016). All captive-reared ferrets 

receive adequate preconditioning in 

outdoor pens at the National Blackfooted Ferret Conservation Center, or 

other Service-approved facility, prior to 

release. Ferrets exposed to 

preconditioning exhibit higher postrelease survival rates than nonpreconditioned ferrets (Biggins et al. 

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

77). We vaccinate ferrets for canine 

distemper and plague, and implant 

passive integrated transponder (PIT) 

tags for later identification, prior to 

release. The Service makes 

arrangements with reintroduction site 

managers for a release date from August 

to November, which is when young-ofthe-year ferrets disperse (USFWS 2016, 

p. 16). Typically, the Service transports 

the ferrets to the site and releases them 

directly into suitable habitat without 

protection from predators, known as a 

‘‘hard release.’’ 

Reintroduction Site Management 

Field managers use the Operations 

Manual and Arizona’s Management Plan 

to manage reintroduction sites on nonTribal lands. Field managers use the 

Operations Manual and any appropriate 

Tribal ferret management plan and other 

site-specific plans and procedures for 

reintroductions on Tribal lands. The 

field manager conducting the 

reintroduction develops a site-specific 

management plan in conjunction with 

the landowner or manager and the 

Service. For most Federal, State, and 

private land sites, the field manager 

would be AGFD, and on Tribal lands, 

the field manager would be the 

appropriate Tribal wildlife authority. 

The Service is an active cooperator in 

the management of all sites. All 

involved parties follow all applicable 

laws regulating the protection of ferrets 

(see ‘‘Management Restrictions, 

Protective Measures, and Other Special 

Management’’ below). AGFD’s 

Management Plan (AGFD 2016) outlines 

procedures for prairie dog and ferret 

population monitoring; health and 

disease monitoring and management; 

prairie dog translocation; seasonal 

hunting closures; and supplemental 

feeding; captive-bred ferret releases and 

captive breeding; and predator 

management. It also includes protocols 

for ferret monitoring, capture, and 

handling (AGFD 2016, Appendices G 

and H). 

How will the experimental population 

(SWEPA) further the conservation of 

the species? 

As cited above, under 50 CFR 

17.81(b), before authorizing the release 

as an experimental population, the 

Service must find by regulation that 

such release will further the 

conservation of the species. We explain 

our rationale for making our finding 

below. 

Possible Adverse Effects on Wild and 

Captive-Breeding Populations 

Wild Populations 

We know of no naturally occurring 

wild populations of black-footed ferrets 

throughout the historical range of the 

species (see ‘‘Historical Range’’ above). 

The Service considers the ferret 

extirpated in the wild except for 

reintroduced populations (i.e., all ferrets 

in the wild are the result of 

reintroductions). We consider as surplus 

all ferrets used to establish populations 

at reintroduction sites that come from 

the captive-bred population or, 

occasionally, from self-sustaining 

reintroduced populations. If animals are 

translocated from other reintroduction 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
33620 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

sites, only wild-born kits from selfsustaining reintroduced populations are 

considered for translocation into new or 

non-self-sustaining reintroduction sites 

(Lockhart, pers. comm., 2000–2007, as 

cited in USFWS 2013a, p. 26, S. Larson, 

USFWS, pers. comm. April 22, 2008). 

Captive-Breeding Population 

In order to understand the effects of 

the proposed SWEPA on the captive 

population of ferrets, it is important to 

understand how the Service manages 

the black-footed ferret captive-breeding 

program (see ‘‘Captive Breeding’’ above). 

In Arizona, we initially released 40 

ferrets at AVEPA in 1996, 45 at Espee 

Ranch in 2007 and six at Double O 

Ranch in 2016. As of 2019 we have 

released 466 ferrets at AVEPA, 99 at 

Espee, and 41 at Double O (AGFD 2016, 

p. 5; J. Cordova, AGFD, pers. comm., 

October 10, 2019). 

We would use ferrets from the 

captive-bred population or a selfsustaining wild population to establish 

a population at reintroduction sites in 

the proposed SWEPA. In conformance 

with the Service’s allocation process, we 

anticipate the release of 20 to 30 

captive-raised or wild-translocated 

ferrets at any reintroduction site during 

the first year of the project. Subsequent 

annual supplemental releases are 

expected until the population becomes 

self-sustaining. 

We anticipate no adverse effects on 

existing populations of ferrets, whether 

captive or wild, due to the removal of 

individuals from those populations for 

the purpose of reintroducing and 

establishing new populations in the 

proposed SWEPA. We base this 

conclusion on the purpose for and the 

management of the captive-bred 

population (see ‘‘Captive Breeding’’ 

above), the management of other sites to 

achieve and maintain self-sustaining 

status for recovery purposes, and the 

allocation process, which prioritizes the 

limited number of ferrets available for 

reintroduction. 

Likelihood of Population Establishment 

and Survival 

In this section we address the 

likelihood that populations introduced 

into the proposed SWEPA will become 

established and survive in the 

foreseeable future. 

Addressing Causes of Extirpation 

Within the Experimental Population 

Area 

Investigating the causes for the 

extirpation of black-footed ferrets is 

necessary to understand whether we are 

sufficiently addressing threats to the 

species in the proposed SWEPA so that 

reintroduction efforts are likely to be 

successful. Ferrets depend on prairie 

dog populations for food, shelter, and 

reproduction. Historical ferret declines 

resulted from: (1) Widespread prairie 

dog poisoning; (2) adverse effects of 

plague on prairie dogs and ferrets; and 

(3) major conversion of habitat (see 

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

Widespread Poisoning of Prairie Dogs 

Poisoning of prairie dogs no longer 

occurs to the extent and intensity that 

it did historically; the current use of 

poison to control prairie dogs occurs in 

limited and selective ways. Although 

land-use and ownership patterns have 

not changed significantly since past 

poisoning campaigns, poisoning became 

less common in the 1970s because 

prairie dog populations had been 

reduced by over 90 percent and use of 

rodenticides became more closely 

regulated than it was historically 

(USFWS 2013a, pp. 49–51). State and 

Federal agencies have limited 

involvement in prairie dog control 

unless they pose a threat to human 

safety or health (e.g., plague 

transmission in an urban setting). 

Attitudes about control have also shifted 

to nonlethal methods. Translocation as 

a method of prairie dog control is 

becoming more common, while lethal 

control seems to be declining (Seglund 

et al. 2006, p. 49). In addition, 

landowners and managers have 

expressed interest in managing prairie 

dogs, specifically for ferret 

reintroductions, as evidenced by the 

number of current and potential 

reintroduction sites (see ‘‘Identified 

Reintroduction Sites’’ below). 

Landowners and managers have used 

zinc phosphide as a registered 

rodenticide for prairie dog control since 

the 1940s (Erickson and Urban 2004, p. 

12). In the early 2000s, manufacturers 

started promoting use of the 

anticoagulant rodenticides 

chlorophacinone (Rozol®) 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. 

EPA labeled Rozol® and Kaput-D® only 

for control of black-tailed prairie dogs, 

not Gunnison’s, and the labels do not 

allow use in Arizona or the taking of 

‘‘endangered species.’’ The EPA has also 

established additional restrictions 

through the Endangered Species 

Protection Bulletins that ban the use of 

Rozol® in ferret recovery sites. These 

bulletins are an extension of the 

pesticide label, and it is a violation of 

Federal and State law to use a pesticide 

in a manner inconsistent with the label. 

In Arizona, poisoning may occur on 

State, Federal, and private lands 

without a specific State permit. 

However, products registered for prairie 

dog control by the EPA require a 

pesticide applicators license, which an 

applicator can obtain only through a 

formal process with the Arizona 

Department of Agriculture (Underwood 

2007, pp. 23–24). Federal agencies and 

the State closely regulate and manage 

poisoning, and the extent of poisoning 

has been extremely limited in area 

compared to historical poisoning, 

usually in developed areas and confined 

to specific needs. For example, from 

2013 through 2018, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service’s (APHIS) 

Wildlife Services treated prairie dogs 

with zinc phosphide at three private 

properties totaling 56 acres of colonies, 

for livestock and property protection on 

pasture and farmland near rural 

communities (C. Carrillo, pers. comm. 

APHIS, October, 23, 2019). None of 

these treatments was in or near current 

or proposed reintroduction areas. Given 

the limited use of prairie dog poisons in 

Arizona and the number of landowners 

and managers willing to manage prairie 

dogs for ferrets, poisoning should not 

affect the establishment or success of 

reintroduced populations of ferrets. 

Adverse Effects of Plague 

As previously noted, plague can 

adversely affect ferrets directly via 

infection and subsequent mortality, and 

indirectly by decimating prairie dogs, 

the ferret’s prey. Management of plague 

has improved, including dusting prairie 

dog burrows with insecticide to control 

fleas and vaccinating ferrets, and the 

development of vaccines to prevent 

large-scale plague outbreaks in prairie 

dogs is underway. In Colorado, ferret 

survival significantly improved when 

researchers applied the insecticide 

deltamethrin as a prophylactic 

treatment to control fleas in prairie dog 

burrows (Seery et al. 2003, p. 443; Seery 

2006, entire). Researchers are currently 

investigating the potential of 

vaccinating wild prairie dogs for plague 

via oral bait. This has the potential to 

limit plague cycles more effectively and 

economically than direct vaccination of 

ferrets, though we may need to employ 

both in some cases. Based on our 

experiences at various reintroduction 

sites, we think we can manage the threat 

from plague by monitoring, dusting, 

vaccinating, and maintaining more, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33621 

widely spaced reintroduction sites 

(USFWS 2013a, p. 78). 

In Arizona, plague management 

includes best management practices and 

adaptive management to respond to 

changing conditions and incorporating 

new techniques as we develop them 

(AGFD 2016, p. 19, appendices E and F). 

In addition, AGFD, the Service, and the 

U.S. Geological Survey recently began 

planning an intensive plague study for 

the AVEPA to determine whether 

plague is present at an enzootic level 

that current plague surveillance is not 

detecting (Rachel Williams, USFWS, 

pers. comm., October 16, 2019). Plague 

will be an ongoing challenge to ferret 

recovery, but with current management 

tools, promising new treatments, and 

the benefit of being able to establish 

widely spaced populations across the 

SWEPA, we will be able to manage the 

ferret at a landscape level. 

Conversion of Habitat 

Currently, rangewide conversion of 

prairie dog habitat is not significant 

relative to historical levels, although it 

may affect some prairie dog populations 

locally (USFWS 2013a, pp. 24–25). We 

do not expect agricultural land 

conversion and urbanization to have a 

measurable effect on the current 

condition of ferrets at the species level 

(USFWS 2019, p. 56). In Arizona, 

agricultural development currently 

covers about 700,000 to 1.3 million ac 

(283,000 to 526,000 ha) or about one to 

two percent of the landscape (U of A 

Cooperative Extension 2010; American 

Farmland Trust 2020) predominantly in 

central and southern Arizona, outside 

the range of the Gunnison’s prairie dog. 

Within the range of Gunnison’s prairie 

dog in Arizona, agricultural 

development affects 31,449 ac (12,727 

ha), and urban development affects 

78,673 ac (31,838 ha), both of which, 

combined, is less than one percent of 

the range of the Gunnison’s prairie dog 

(Seglund 2006, p. 15). There are about 

26 million acres of agricultural activity 

in Arizona in the form of pastures and 

rangeland for livestock grazing (USDA 

2019; U of A 2010). These noncultivated agricultural lands may 

represent habitat for the prairie dog and 

ferret in the State (Ernst et al. 2006, p. 

91). Routine livestock grazing and 

ranching activities are largely 

compatible with maintaining occupied 

prairie dog habitat capable of supporting 

ferrets (USFWS 2013a, p. 20). 

Reintroduction Expertise 

The Service and its partners have 

considerable experience establishing 

reintroduced black-footed ferret 

populations. Since 1991, we have 

initiated 30 ferret reintroduction 

projects, including 2 in Arizona 

(USFWS 2019, Table 3). While, these 

projects have had varying degrees of 

success, they have all contributed to our 

understanding of the species’ needs and 

effective management toward 

establishing reintroduced populations. 

The Service and our partners 

continually apply adaptive management 

principles through monitoring and 

research to ensure that the best available 

scientific information is used to develop 

new tools (e.g., SPV), update strategies 

and protocols, and identify new 

reintroduction sites, to progress towards 

recovery (AGFD 2016, p. 19). 

Since reintroductions began, we have 

developed and refined techniques in 

several areas. These include 

management and oversight of the 

captive-breeding program, veterinary 

care and animal husbandry (USFWS 

2016, entire), advances in the 

preconditioning program (Biggins et al. 

1998, entire; USFWS 2016, pp. 34–37), 

release techniques, and disease and 

plague management, including ferret 

vaccination programs at individual 

reintroduction sites. With respect to 

disease management, vector control (i.e., 

dusting and/or fipronil grain baits) and 

SPV use in concert with vigilant plague 

epizootic monitoring may be the most 

effective way to reduce the range-wide 

effects of plague (Abbott et al. 2012, pp. 

54–55; Tripp et al. 2017, entire). 

However, plague remains an ongoing 

issue (Scott et al. 2010, entire; Rohlf et 

al. 2014, entire), and we need 

considerable management inputs to 

maintain both the captive and 

reintroduced populations (USFWS 

2019, p. 65). 

In Arizona specifically, we adapted 

our management and refined techniques 

to enhance reintroduction efforts. For 

example, when ferrets did not appear to 

be breeding at Aubrey Valley after 5 

years of releases, AGFD modified their 

release strategies to incorporate pen 

breeding and springtime releases and 

documented wild-born kits the 

following year (AGFD 2016, p. 5). The 

Service also continually adapts and 

refines our plague monitoring and 

management. At Espee, for example, we 

learned plague was present only after 

we released ferrets despite AGFD’s use 

of pre-release plague surveillance and 

management protocols. Subsequently, 

AGFD incorporated the latest disease 

monitoring protocols and adaptive 

management into its Management Plan 

(AGFD 2016, p. 19, appendices E and F). 

In addition, at Espee Ranch, AGFD is 

participating in trials of the 

experimental SPV, the results of which 

will contribute to both the national 

effort to deploy SPV in the field as well 

as our understanding of local plague 

conditions. Given the Service’s 30 years 

of experience with reintroducing ferrets 

across their historical range and our 25 

years in Arizona, development and 

refinement of management and 

reintroduction techniques, and ongoing 

adaptive management, we are likely to 

be successful in establishing and 

managing new populations of ferrets in 

the SWEPA. 

Habitat Suitability 

The likelihood of establishing ferret 

populations largely depends on 

adequate habitat. Although there was a 

significant decline of prairie dog 

occupied habitat on non-Tribal lands in 

Arizona historically, there has been a 

10-fold increase of occupied habitat 

since 1961 (Seglund 2006, p. 16). 

Outside of Navajo and Hopi land, 

Arizona currently has more than 

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

prairie dog habitat (H. Hicks, AGFD, 

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

portion of which is located on lands of 

the Hualapai Tribe. Lands of the Navajo 

Nation and the Hopi Tribe collectively 

may contain about 250,000 ac (101,174 

ha) of active prairie dog colonies 

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

purposeful management, this amount 

and distribution of prairie dog occupied 

habitat would be able to support 

multiple ferret reintroduction sites. 

In addition to the statewide amount of 

habitat, individual reintroduction sites 

need to be of sufficient size to support 

reintroduced ferrets. Two sites in 

Arizona currently meet or have met the 

State Gunnison’s prairie dog-occupied 

acreage criterion (5,540 acres) to 

reintroduce ferrets, the AVEPA/Double 

O Ranch and Espee Allotment (AGFD 

2016, p. 6). AGFD classifies both as 

Active MAs, where the State can 

release, manage, and monitor ferrets 

(AGFD 2016, p. 8). In 2018, the AVEPA/ 

Double O Ranch contained about 65,500 

ac (26,500 ha) of active prairie dog 

colonies and 264,000 ac (106,850 ha) of 

potential acreage (USFWS 2019, Table 

3). This is enough acreage for Arizona 

to meet the habitat portion of the State 

guidelines for delisting. However, as 

explained below, we need multiple sites 

to guard against stochastic or 

catastrophic events at any given site. In 

addition to the two Active MAs, the 

AGFD has identified four Potential 

MAs. Arizona has a plan to provide 

appropriate management for the ferret 

and its habitat (AGFD 2016, entire). In 

addition, Arizona has a management 

plan to conserve and maintain viable 

prairie dog populations and the 

ecosystems they inhabit (Underwood 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
33622 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

2007, entire). The acreage area criteria, 

along with implementation of 

management plans for viable prairie dog 

populations and ferrets and their 

habitats, will ensure that any sites 

selected for reintroduction have 

sufficient quantity and quality of habitat 

to support establishment of ferret 

populations. 

Increased Prey Stability 

Prairie dog populations in Arizona 

have increased from historical lows in 

the 1960’s, and the State is managing 

them for long-term viability. The 

potential for continued expansion of 

prairie dogs across Arizona through 

prairie dog conservation and disease 

management, coupled with past success 

of ferret reintroductions in Arizona and 

across the species’ range, suggests that 

ferret-occupied areas can expand 

through additional reintroductions and 

dispersal. Reintroduction of ferrets in 

the larger proposed SWEPA would 

allow us to meet Arizona’s ferret 

recovery goals and contribute to ferret 

recovery across their range. 

Summary 

The Service and our partners have 

considerable experience reintroducing 

ferrets range-wide and in Arizona. We 

have criteria for selecting suitable 

reintroduction sites and developed 

protocols and plans to manage those 

sites. In Arizona, we have the quantity, 

quality, and distribution of habitat to 

support reintroductions. Additionally, 

the causes of extirpation of ferrets in 

Arizona have been or are being 

addressed; the wide-spread poisoning of 

prairie dogs is no longer occurring, the 

Service and partners continue to 

develop plague management techniques, 

and the conversion of habitat into 

cropland is not occurring at a significant 

scale. Lastly, the demonstrated success 

of existing reintroduced ferret 

populations in Arizona indicate that 

additional reintroduction efforts in the 

SWEPA will be successful in 

establishing and sustaining additional 

black-footed ferret populations, required 

for species recovery. 

Effects of the SWEPA on Recovery 

Efforts for the Species 

The Service’s recovery strategy for the 

black-footed ferret requires 

establishment of numerous, spatially 

disperse populations of ferrets within 

the range of all three prairie dog species 

to reduce the risk of stochastic events 

affecting multiple populations (e.g., 

plague), increase management options, 

and maintain genetic diversity (USFWS 

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

Breeding and Reintroduction Efforts to 

Date’’ above). Delisting criteria for the 

species include 30 populations in 9 of 

12 States within the species’ historical 

range and distributed among the ranges 

of 3 prairie dog species (USFWS 2013a, 

p. 6). To implement this recovery 

strategy and achieve recovery criteria, 

additional successful reintroductions of 

ferrets are necessary (USFWS 2013a, p. 

7), which establishment of the proposed 

SWEPA will facilitate. 

Participation by numerous partners 

across the ferret’s former range is critical 

to achieve the ferret’s delisting criteria 

of multiple spatially dispersed 

populations and maximize species 

redundancy, representation, and 

resiliency. To achieve this strategy, for 

each State in the historical range of the 

species, the Recovery Plan suggests 

recovery guidelines for the number of 

ferrets and prairie dog habitat acreages 

(proportional to the historical amount of 

prairie dog habitat) to contribute to 

meeting recovery criteria (USFWS 

2013a, p. 69). We intend the recovery 

guidelines by State to improve risk 

management and ensure equity of 

recovery responsibilities across State 

boundaries (USFWS 2013a, Table 8). 

Arizona has led ferret recovery efforts, 

providing one of the early ferret 

reintroduction sites and the first in a 

Gunnison’s prairie dog population. 

Tribes have also played an important 

role in ferret recovery in several areas of 

the species’ historical range by 

providing land for about 24 percent of 

the reintroduction sites rangewide 

(USFWS 2013a, p. 44; USFWS 2019, 

Table 3). 

The recovery plan’s State guidelines 

for Arizona to contribute to ferret 

downlisting and delisting criteria are 74 

free-ranging breeding adult ferrets on 

17,000 ac (6,880 ha) of Gunnison’s 

prairie dog-occupied habitat, and 148 

breeding adults on 34,000 ac (13,760 

ha). The guidelines for New Mexico and 

Utah are 220 and 25 breeding adult 

ferrets for downlisting, respectively, and 

440 and 50 breeding adults for delisting 

(USFWS 2013a, Table 8). Delisting 

criteria for the entire range include five 

ferret populations in colonies of both 

Gunnison’s and white-tailed prairie 

dogs (USFWS 2013a, p. 6). About 27 

percent of the Gunnison’s prairie dog 

range occurs in Arizona (Seglund et al. 

2006, p. 70), so establishing additional 

ferret populations in Gunnison’s prairie 

dog habitat within the SWEPA would 

contribute to meeting this criterion. 

Currently, there is only one 

population of ferrets in Arizona. As of 

2013, we considered the AVEPA one of 

the four most successful reintroduced 

populations throughout the species’ 

range; it had a population that exceeded 

the recommended downlisting criteria 

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

77). However, the population declined 

significantly, for which we suspect that 

plague may be a cause. The proposed 

SWEPA will include all potential ferret 

habitat in Arizona and on participating 

Tribal lands, including Hualapai Tribal 

lands, a portion of Hopi Tribal lands, 

and Navajo Nation lands in Arizona, 

New Mexico, and Utah (see ‘‘Proposed 

Experimental Population’’ above). 

Establishing additional populations 

within the proposed SWEPA will 

reduce the vulnerability of extirpation 

of the species. Additionally, AGFD’s 

proposed widely spaced reintroduction 

sites, and the potential for other 

reintroduction sites (e.g., on the Navajo 

Nation) will reduce the effects of 

localized or stochastic events on overall 

recovery efforts, by reducing the 

likelihood that all individuals or all 

populations would be affected by the 

same event. Reintroducing viable ferret 

populations on the Navajo Nation in the 

New Mexico and Utah portions of the 

Navajo Nation would not only aid in 

recovery of the species but also in 

meeting the recovery guidelines for 

those States. 

The significant threat of plague to 

ferret populations emphasizes the need 

for several spatially dispersed 

reintroduction sites across the widest 

possible distribution of the species’ 

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

supporting the value of a statewide 

approach to reintroductions. 

Establishing the proposed SWEPA will 

facilitate ferret reintroduction across a 

large geographic area and will likely 

result in establishment of several 

populations that will persist over time, 

thus contributing to recovery of the 

species. 

Actions and Activities That May Affect 

the Introduced Population 

Classes of Federal, State, Tribal, and 

private actions and activities that may 

currently affect black-footed ferret 

viability, directly or indirectly, across 

its range are urbanization, energy 

development, agricultural land 

conversion, range management, and 

recreational shooting and poisoning of 

prairie dogs (USFWS 2019, p. 13). 

Actions and activities that affect prairie 

dogs may also indirectly affect ferrets 

given the ferret’s dependency on prairie 

dogs as a food source and their burrows 

for shelter. 

In Arizona, land ownership within 

the range of Gunnison’s prairie dog is 

approximately as follows: Tribal–49.05 

percent; private–21.62 percent; Federal– 

16.80 percent; State–12.53 percent; city/ 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33623 

county–0.01 percent (Seglund 2006, 

Table 3). Although urbanization may 

adversely affect local prairie dog 

colonies, effects across the range of the 

species in Arizona are not significant 

due to the small amount of urban land, 

and the distance of urban areas from 

ferret MAs. Similarly, the amount of oil 

and gas and other types of mineral 

exploration and extraction development 

covers less than one percent of the 

prairie dog range in Arizona 

(Underwood 2007, p. 10), and this 

development is not associated with 

ferret MAs. Solar and wind energy 

development has expanded in recent 

years but also comprises a very small 

part of the landscape. In Arizona, all 

solar power facilities are located in the 

southern and far western part of the 

State, outside the range of Gunnison’s 

prairie dog (U.S. Energy Information 

Administration 2020). To date, there 

have been a number of wind projects in 

the range of Gunnison’s prairie dog, but 

none are currently constructed within 

ferret MAs, and the existing 

infrastructure of wind projects occupies 

less than 0.005 percent of the ferret’s 

potential range (USFWS 2019, p. 40). As 

discussed above, agricultural 

development affects less than one third 

of one percent of the range of 

Gunnison’s prairie dog (Seglund 2006, 

p. 16). We do not expect agricultural 

land conversion to have a measurable 

effect on the future condition of the 

ferret in Arizona based on a 20-year 

analysis (USFWS 2019, p. 56). 

There are about 26 million acres of 

rangeland, used predominantly for 

grazing, in Arizona across Tribal, 

private, Federal, and State land (USDA, 

2019), and these lands represent 

potential habitat for both the prairie dog 

and ferret (Ernst et al. 2006, p. 91). 

Overgrazing in arid areas can alter 

ecosystem structure, which can affect 

prairie dogs by decreasing availability of 

forage and causing an increase in woody 

shrubs. Conversely, well-managed 

grazing can benefit prairie dog and other 

rodent populations by creating increases 

in shortgrass species (Norris 1950, p. 4; 

Smith 1958, p. 21; Koford 1958, pp. 66– 

67). Routine livestock grazing and 

ranching activities are largely 

compatible with maintaining occupied 

prairie dog habitat capable of supporting 

ferrets (USFWS 2013a, p. 20). 

Depending on intensity, recreational 

shooting of prairie dogs can negatively 

affect local prairie dog populations 

through direct mortality of individuals 

(Vosburgh and Irby 1998, entire; Keffer 

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

14–15), with the resulting decrease in 

prey base negatively affecting ferrets, 

and it is likely this activity could occur 

on ferret reintroduction sites (Reeve and 

Vosburgh 2006, entire). Recreational 

shooting reduces the number of prairie 

dogs in a colony, thereby decreasing 

prairie dog density (Knowles 1988, p. 

54), occupied acreage (Knowles and 

Vosburgh 2001, p. 12), and reproduction 

(Stockrahm and Seabloom 1979, entire). 

Recreational shooting also causes direct 

mortality to prairie dog-associated 

species such as ferrets (Knowles and 

Vosburgh 2001, p. 14; Reese and 

Vosburgh 2006, pp. 120–121). Although 

incidental take of ferrets by prairie dog 

shooters is not documented to date, 

direct ferret mortality due to accidental 

shooting is possible. Lastly, recreational 

shooting of prairie dogs also contributes 

to the environmental issue of lead 

accumulation in wildlife food chains 

(Knowles and Vosburgh 2001, p. 15; 

Pauli and Buskirk 2007, entire). Killing 

large numbers of animals with lead 

bullets and not removing carcasses from 

the field may present potentially 

dangerous amounts of lead to 

scavengers and predators of prairie 

dogs, such as ferrets. Luckily, we have 

not documented ferret ingestion of lead 

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

address these recreational shooting 

conservation issues, AGFD implements 

prairie dog shooting closures on public 

lands from April 1 to June 30 to reduce 

potential effects on prairie dog 

reproduction (USFWS 2019, p. 29). In 

addition, in the event of prairie dog 

population declines in an active ferret 

MA for any reason, the AGFD 

Commission may close prairie dog 

hunting until the population recovers 

(AGFD 2016, p. 13). 

Poisoning of prairie dogs has the 

potential to occur within both 

Gunnison’s and black-tailed prairie dog 

habitat and can affect ferrets through 

loss of prey, and inadvertent secondary 

poisoning for some poisons. In recent 

years, the extent of prairie dog 

poisoning has been closely regulated, 

limited in area, and confined to specific 

needs compared to historical poisoning. 

From 2013 through 2018 in Arizona, 

APHIS treated prairie dogs with zinc 

phosphide at three private properties, 

totaling 56 acres of colonies, for 

livestock and property protection on 

pasture and farmland near rural 

communities (C. Carrillo, pers. comm. 

APHIS, October 23, 2019). None of these 

treatments were in or near current or 

proposed ferret reintroduction areas. 

Certain activities associated with all 

of the aforementioned activities (prairie 

dog recreational shooting and 

poisoning) have the potential to result 

in incidental ferret fatality. For example, 

use and establishment of roads within 

prairie dog and ferret habitat may result 

in ferret road kills and increase human 

access for prairie dog shooting (Gordon 

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

information to suggest that incidental 

fatalities have a significant effect on 

ferret population viability. 

When the Service originally 

established AVEPA, we determined 

existing and foreseeable land use 

practices within the AVEPA to be 

compatible with sustaining ferret 

viability (61 FR 11320, March 20, 1996). 

These practices include: Grazing and 

related activities (including prairie dog 

control), big game hunting, prairie dog 

shooting, and the trapping of furbearers 

and predators. Other land uses include 

transportation and rights-of-way (e.g., 

for utilities). Our success reintroducing 

ferrets in the AVEPA over 25 years 

supports that finding. Similarly, in the 

Service’s establishment of the statewide 

nonessential experimental population of 

ferrets in Wyoming, we found that land 

use activities currently occurring across 

that State, primarily livestock grazing 

and associated ranch management 

practices, recreation, residential 

development, and mineral and energy 

development, are compatible with ferret 

recovery and that there is no 

information to suggest that similar 

future activities would be incompatible 

with ferret recovery (80 FR 66821, 

October 30, 2015). Based on our 

previous success with other 

experimental populations in areas 

influenced by similar land use activities 

and actions, including the AVEPA 

within the proposed SWEPA, we 

conclude that the effects of Federal, 

State, and private actions and activities 

will not pose a substantial threat to 

ferret establishment and persistence 

within the SWEPA and that SWEPA 

establishment will benefit the 

conservation of black-footed ferrets. 

Experimental Population Regulation 

Requirements 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 17.81(c) 

include a list of what we should provide 

in regulations designating experimental 

populations under section 10(j) of the 

ESA. We explain what our proposed 

regulations include and provide our 

rationale for those regulations below. 

Means To Identify the Experimental 

Population 

Our regulations require that we 

provide appropriate means to identify 

the experimental population, which 

may include geographic locations, 

number of individuals to be released, 

anticipated movements, and other 

information or criteria. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
33624 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Identifying the Location and Boundaries 

of the SWEPA 

The 40,905,350-ac SWEPA is located 

in the three States of Arizona, New 

Mexico, and Utah (see ‘‘Proposed 

Experimental Population’’ above), and 

we delineate the boundaries below in 

the figure titled ‘‘Southwest 

Nonessential Experimental Population 

Area (SWEPA) for the black-footed 

ferret.’’ These boundaries are based on 

various grasslands and parts of biotic 

communities in which grasslands are 

interspersed, with which prairie dogs 

are associated, including Plains and 

Great Basin Grassland, Great Basin 

Conifer Woodland, Great Basin 

Desertscrub, and Petrane Montane 

Conifer Forest biotic communities 

(AGFD 2016, pp. 8–10) (Brown et al. 

1979, entire) and represent a 184 fold 

increase in area from the AVEPA 

(USFWS 2021, p. 7 Figure 2). Within the 

SWEPA are the sovereign Indian lands 

of the Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, and 

the Navajo Nation. State political 

subdivisions include portions of 

Apache, Cochise, Coconino, Gila, 

Graham, Mohave, Navajo, Pima, Pinal, 

Santa Cruz, and Yavapai Counties of 

Arizona; Cibola, McKinley, Rio Arriba, 

Sandoval, and San Juan Counties of 

New Mexico; and San Juan County, 

Utah. 

The proposed SWEPA consists of two 

separate areas: (1) Northeast and 

northcentral Arizona, the southeast 

corner of Utah, and northwest New 

Mexico on the Navajo Nation, and (2) 

southeastern Arizona. 

The proposed SWEPA will encompass 

and replace the AVEPA. In addition, 

two areas enrolled in the programmatic 

SHA under certificates of inclusion, the 

Espee Allotment and Double O Ranch, 

would be within the SWEPA. Although 

this proposed experimental population 

designation can overlay SHAs, we 

contacted enrollees to assess interest in 

replacing their certificates of inclusion 

with this 10(j) rule. If we finalize this 

revised experimental population 

designation, we propose phasing out the 

SHA certificates of inclusion following 

finalization of the rule to allow for a 

transition for interested landowners. As 

a result, the Service proposes to conduct 

all future reintroductions of ferrets 

within the SWEPA under the proposed 

experimental population designation 

regulation. 

Number of Anticipated Ferret Releases 

The number of ferrets we will release 

at a given reintroduction site depends 

on multiple variables and can vary 

significantly between sites. In the 

AVEPA, for example, AGFD released 

ferrets for 5 years before documenting 

wild reproduction, which is necessary 

for a site to become self-sustaining. We 

continued releasing ferrets until the 

population appeared to be selfsustaining, but then began to release 

ferrets again after 4 years when the 

population appeared to be faltering. In 

total, over a span of 24 years starting in 

1996, the Service released 466 ferrets in 

the AVEPA. In addition, we released 99 

ferrets at Espee in a span of 3 years 

(2007 2009), and 41 at the Double O 

Ranch over 4 years starting in 2016. The 

Service anticipates initially releasing 20 

to 30 ferrets at new reintroduction sites 

in the SWEPA, with the number of 

ferrets released subsequently similar to 

other sites in Arizona. 

Actual or Anticipated Movements 

Understanding ferret movement 

patterns and distances will ensure 

accurate identification of ferrets 

associated with the SWEPA. 

Researchers have documented newly 

released captive-born ferrets dispersing 

up to 30 miles (49 km) (Biggins et al. 

1999, p. 125), and wild-born ferrets 

more than 12 miles (20 km) (USFWS 

2019, p. 7). AGFD first documented 

ferrets outside the AVEPA in 2011, 15 

years after initial releases. In the years 

between the 2011 sightings and 2016, 

when the Service released ferrets onto 

the Double O Ranch, there were about 

10 sightings outside of the AVEPA, with 

the farthest being about 15 miles outside 

the AVEPA. These sightings were by 

AGFD personnel during surveys of 

selected areas and incidentally by area 

residents. While dispersal of ferrets will 

depend on variables such as 

competition within a given population 

and the availability of adjacent habitat, 

we would expect a pattern of ferret 

dispersal from new reintroduction sites 

in the SWEPA to be similar to those 

observed in the AVEPA. Outside of the 

proposed SWEPA, the closest current 

reintroduced population of ferrets is 

Coyote Basin, Utah, which is about 200 

mi (320 km) away, substantially greater 

than documented ferret dispersal 

distances. Therefore, we would consider 

any black-footed ferret found in the wild 

within the boundaries of the SWEPA 

part of the nonessential experimental 

population. 

Identified Reintroduction Sites 

In the area of the proposed SWEPA 

under Arizona State jurisdiction, the 

current goal is to reintroduce ferrets into 

suitable habitat within three to five 

AGFD designated MAs (AGFD 2016, p. 

6). We may consider additional 

locations if landowners are willing to 

host ferrets where suitable prairie dog 

occupied acreage exists, including on 

Tribal lands. If the Navajo Nation were 

to request to reintroduce ferrets on their 

lands, potential reintroduction sites 

could include the New Mexico or Utah 

portions of the Navajo Nation. 

Two sites in Arizona currently meet 

or have met the minimum Gunnison’s 

prairie dog-occupied acreage 

requirement for a population of ferrets 

(AVEPA/Double O Ranch and Espee 

Ranch). Arizona’s Federal and State 

public lands and Tribal and private 

lands currently support a large amount 

of grasslands with varying sizes of 

Gunnison’s prairie dog colonies (AGFD 

2016, Figure 1). Within the ferret’s 

historical range in Arizona, the AGFD 

and Service have identified four 

additional potential reintroduction sites 

or Potential MAs, introduced in the 

prior ‘‘Proposed Experimental 

Population’’ section and discussed 

further below. 

Existing Reintroduction Sites (Active 

MAs) Within the SWEPA 

(1) AVEPA/Double O Ranch—The 

AVEPA encompasses 221,894 ac (89,800 

ha) of private, Tribal, State, and Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) managed 

lands and is located about 5 miles 

northwest of Seligman in Coconino, 

Yavapai, and Mohave Counties. The 

adjacent Double O Ranch encompasses 

236,792 ac (95,828 ha) of private, State, 

and Forest Service (FS) managed lands 

south of the AVEPA. Together, these 

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

grasslands. AGFD mapped an average of 

52,455 ac (21,228 ha) of Gunnison’s 

prairie dog colonies in the AVEPA 

between 2007 and 2016 (AGFD 2016, p. 

8) (H. Hicks, AGFD, pers. comm., 

January 26, 2018). In 2014 and 2016, 

respectively, Gunnison’s prairie dogs 

occupied 7,074 and 6,313 known ac 

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

(AGFD 2016, p. 7; H. Hicks, AGFD, pers. 

comm., January 26, 2018). Plague is 

likely present in the AVEPA. 

(2) Espee Ranch—The Espee 

Allotment encompasses 145,644 ac 

(58,941 ha) of private and State lands 

about 17 miles northeast of Seligman, in 

Coconino County, Arizona. There are 

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

which Gunnison’s prairie dogs occupied 

3,228 known ac (1,306 ha) in 2014 

(AGFD 2016, pp. 8 9). Plague is present 

on Espee Ranch and is the suspected 

reason for the lack of ferret observations 

despite multiple releases. 

Future Potential Reintroduction Sites 

(Potential MAs) Within the SWEPA 

The remaining four areas described 

below do not currently meet the 

minimum necessary Gunnison’s prairie 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33625 

dog-occupied acreage to support ferrets. 

We would need active management, 

such as translocations of prairie dogs, 

dusting for plague, or administration of 

a plague vaccine (e.g., SPV), along with 

annual monitoring of prairie dog 

populations, to potentially meet the 

minimum acreage of occupied prairie 

dog habitat (AGFD 2016, p. 9). 

(1) Kaibab National Forest, Williams/ 

Tusayan Ranger Districts—These areas 

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

National Forest System (NFS), military, 

private, and State managed lands 

surrounding the city of Williams in 

Coconino and Yavapai Counties. There 

were 96,954 ac (39,237 ha) of grasslands 

with 4,984 ac (2,017 ha) of known 

Gunnison’s prairie dog-occupied area in 

2015 (AGFD 2016, p. 9). 

(2) CO Bar Ranch—This ranch 

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

private, State, BLM, and Tribal lands 

and is located about 24 miles north of 

Flagstaff in Coconino County. There 

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

grasslands with 870 ac (352 ha) of 

known Gunnison’s prairie dog-occupied 

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

(3) Petrified Forest National Park— 

This area encompasses 223,027 ac 

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

and privately managed lands east of 

Holbrook in Navajo and Apache 

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

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

known Gunnison’s prairie dog-occupied 

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

(4) Lyman Lake—This area 

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

private, State, AGFD, BLM, and NFS 

lands south of St. Johns in Apache 

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

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

of known Gunnison’s prairie dogoccupied area in 2015 (AGFD 2016, p. 

10). 

Tribal Lands 

Forty-nine percent of the land within 

the range of Gunnison’s prairie dog in 

Arizona is under Tribal ownership 

(Seglund et al. 2006, Table 3). The 

Navajo Nation is the largest owner of 

Gunnison’s prairie dog habitat (Johnson 

et al. 2010, p. 6). Working with the Hopi 

Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, and Navajo 

Nation, we may be able to identify other 

potential sites for ferret reintroduction 

on their Tribal sovereign lands. All 

three Tribes have expressed interest in 

working with the Service and AGFD in 

ferret recovery (Hopi Tribe 2017, entire; 

Navajo Nation 2017, entire; Hualapai 

Tribe 2018, entire). The Hualapai and 

Hopi reservations and Hopi-owned 

ranches coincide entirely with Arizona, 

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

borders of the State), whereas the 

Navajo Nation also includes parts of the 

States of New Mexico and Utah, within 

which the Navajo Nation has sovereign 

authority to manage wildlife. 

We would need surveys of prairie dog 

populations on Tribal lands, in addition 

to other information such as incidence 

of plague, prior to considering these 

lands for ferret reintroduction. The 

Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe, in 

collaboration with Natural Heritage New 

Mexico, conducted a remote survey of 

Gunnison’s prairie dogs on the lands of 

both Tribes in 2010. This technique, 

using standard photo-interpretive 

techniques to identify disturbance in 

suitable habitat on digital orthophoto 

quarter quads, estimated the area of 

active Gunnison’s prairie dog towns on 

the Navajo Nation and Reservation of 

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

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

mentioned previously, we originally 

included some lands of the Hualapai 

Tribe when we designated the AVEPA, 

and the Tribe has worked cooperatively 

with AGFD on ferret recovery. The Hopi 

Tribe, while expressing interest in ferret 

recovery activities on some of their 

lands (e.g., ranches and part of their 

Reservation) requested excluding 

District 6 of their Reservation, pending 

review of this proposal by members of 

the Hopi Villages within District 6. If 

the Hopi Tribe, in consultation with the 

Hopi Villages, decides to include 

District 6 within the proposed SWEPA, 

then we will revise the final rule 

accordingly. 

Southeastern Arizona 

Black-tailed prairie dog habitat exists 

in southeastern Arizona (Cockrum 1960, 

p. 76). In 2008, the AGFD reintroduced 

this species into a small portion of its 

historical range via translocations from 

wild populations in New Mexico (Van 

Pelt 2009, p. 41, Figure 1). This new 

population occurs on the BLMadministered Las Cienegas National 

Conservation Area. Surveys in 2017 

estimated a minimum of 135 blacktailed prairie dogs occupied 19 ac (7.7 

ha) (H. Hicks, AGFD, pers. comm., 

October 3, 2017). It would likely take 

many years to reach enough black-tailed 

prairie dog-occupied acreage with a 

stable population to support a 

reintroduction of ferrets. However, 

efforts to expand black- tailed prairie 

dog colony acreage would offer 

opportunities to re-create habitat for 

ferrets (USFWS 2013a, p. 51). 

Is the proposed experimental 

population essential or nonessential? 

Essential experimental populations 

are those ‘‘whose loss would be likely 

to appreciably reduce the likelihood of 

survival of the species in the wild’’ (50 

CFR 17.80(b)). The Service defines 

‘‘survival’’ as the condition in which a 

species continues to exist in the future 

while retaining the potential for 

recovery (USFWS and NMFS 1998). 

Inherent in the definition of ‘‘essential’’ 

is the effect the potential loss of the 

experimental population would have on 

the species (49 FR 33893, August 27, 

1984). 

The ESA states that, prior to any 

release ‘‘the Secretary must find by 

regulation that such release will further 

the conservation of the species’’ (49 FR 

33893, August 27, 1984). 

Reintroductions are, by their nature, 

experiments, the fate of which is 

uncertain. However, it is always our 

goal for reintroductions to be successful 

and contribute to recovery. The 

importance of reintroductions to 

recovery does not necessarily mean 

these populations are ‘‘essential’’ under 

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

Congress’ expectation was that ‘‘in most 

cases, experimental populations will not 

be essential’’ (H.R. Conference Report 

No. 835 supra at 34; 49 FR 33888, 

August 27, 1984). The preamble to our 

1984 publication of implementing 

regulations reflect this understanding, 

stating that an essential population will 

be a special case and not the general 

rule (49 FR 33888, August 27, 1984). 

In our final rule establishing the 

nonessential experimental population in 

Aubrey Valley, the Service found the 

AVEPA to be ‘‘nonessential’’ because 

the captive-breeding population is both 

the secure source for all reintroductions, 

and the primary repository of genetic 

diversity for the species (61 FR 11320, 

March 20, 1996). We considered all 

reintroduced ferrets to be in excess to 

the captive population, and we could 

replace any reintroduced animals lost 

through captive breeding (61 FR 11323, 

March 20, 1996). 

The Service did not anticipate 

changing the nonessential designation 

for the AVEPA unless the experiment 

failed or until the ferret recovered (61 

FR 11323, March 20, 1996). However, 

because we are proposing to replace the 

AVEPA through incorporation into the 

proposed SWEPA 10(j), an evaluation as 

to whether the new SWEPA 

experimental population is essential to 

the continued existence of the species in 

the wild is appropriate. 

As discussed above, we expect the 

proposed SWEPA to further the 

conservation of the species by 

contributing to the establishment of 

multiple, widespread populations that 

will persist over time, which contribute 

to achieving recovery goals for the 

species. However, we consider the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
33626 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

SWEPA nonessential because there are 

now a number of reintroduced ferret 

populations in the wild, across the 

range of the species, that provide 

redundancy in case of local extirpations. 

There are 14 active reintroduction sites 

across the historical range, with a 

minimum average of 340 breeding adult 

ferrets, and a minimum of 254 at the 4 

most successful reintroduction sites 

(Rocky Mountain Arsenal National 

Wildlife Refuge, Colorado; Conata 

Basin/Badlands, South Dakota; and 

Shirley Basin and Meeteetse, Wyoming) 

(USFWS 2019, Table 3). Additionally, 

captive-breeding efforts continue to 

support the establishment of more 

populations throughout the species’ 

range. Loss of the SWEPA would not 

affect these remaining populations of 

ferrets in the wild. 

The ferret population in Arizona, 

while contributing incrementally to 

conservation in concert with other sites, 

is a relatively small portion of the total 

number and distribution of ferret 

populations needed for species 

recovery. The Recovery Plan’s delisting 

criteria for ferrets calls for 30 or more 

populations, with at least 1 population 

in each of at least 9 of 12 States within 

the historical range of the species, and 

at least 5 populations within colonies of 

Gunnison’s and white-tailed prairie 

dogs. About 27 percent of Gunnison’s 

prairie dog range occurs in Arizona. 

This is about 9 to 14 percent of all 

prairie dog occupied habitat (i.e., the 

range of all 3 prairie dog species) 

(USFWS 2013a, p. 24). Arizona’s 

relative recommended contribution of 

habitat to ferret delisting is about seven 

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

The proposed SWEPA will further the 

recovery of the ferret by opening all 

suitable habitat in the defined SWEPA 

area to the establishment of multiple 

wild populations within the species’ 

historical range. However, we conclude 

loss of reintroduced ferrets within the 

proposed area is not likely to 

appreciably reduce the likelihood of 

survival of the species in the wild. This 

is due to maintenance of the captive 

population, the number of 

reintroduction sites and established 

populations in the wild rangewide, and 

the expected incremental contribution 

of Arizona to the recovery of the ferret 

given Arizona has seven percent of the 

total range of all three prairie dog 

species. Therefore, as required by 50 

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

proposed SWEPA experimental 

population is not essential to the 

continued existence of the species in the 

wild, and we propose to designate the 

SWEPA experimental population as 

nonessential. 

Management Restrictions, Protective 

Measures, and Other Special 

Management 

We prefer applying the experimental 

population designation and regulations 

to the entire proposed SWEPA, because 

a single set of statutes and regulations 

and a single management framework 

would then apply to all lands, nonFederal and Federal, containing suitable 

ferret habitat within the designated 

SWEPA boundary. This approach would 

also extend regulatory assurances to all 

areas where ferrets could potentially 

establish, including the current 

properties covered by the SHA. There 

would be no significant differences 

between the terms and conditions of the 

SHA and 10(j) regulations in terms of 

how landowners operate their ranches 

with respect to ferret recovery. 

The Service will undertake SWEPA 

reintroductions in cooperation with 

AGFD, the Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, 

Hualapai Tribe, and other landowners. 

Existing management plans or those that 

wildlife managers develop in 

cooperation with us and other partners 

and stakeholders will guide 

management of ferret populations in the 

SWEPA (e.g., AGFD 2016). 

As discussed in the ‘‘Actions and 

Activities that May Affect the 

Introduced Population’’ section, 

Federal, State, Tribal, and private 

actions will not pose a substantial threat 

to ferret establishment and persistence 

in the proposed SWEPA. This is because 

land management activities, such as 

agricultural land conversion, 

recreational shooting of prairie dogs, 

poisoning of prairie dogs, urbanization, 

and energy development currently 

occurring or anticipated to occur at 

prospective reintroduction sites in 

Arizona are very limited in scope. In 

addition, as discussed in Addressing 

Causes of Extirpation within the 

Experimental Population Area above, 

we do not anticipate any change in 

prairie dog control efforts that would 

reduce prairie dog-occupied habitat to 

the extent that they would compromise 

the viability of any potential ferret 

population due to the low demand for 

poisoning and regulatory restrictions. 

We also base this conclusion on our 

experience with ferret reintroduction 

sites in Arizona over the past 25 years 

and elsewhere throughout the species’ 

range. The best available information 

indicates that future range and ranching 

activities will remain compatible with 

ferret recovery because they do not limit 

essential behavior such as feeding, 

breeding, or sheltering. We base this 

assessment on our ferret reintroduction 

efforts at the AVEPA and Espee and 

Double O ranches, and other 

reintroduction sites throughout the 

range of the species (80 FR 66826, 

October 30, 2015). 

The AGFD, BLM, FS, NPS, Tribes, 

and private landowners manage sites 

with high potential for ferret 

establishment, and these areas receive 

protection through the following legal 

mechanisms: 

Legal Mechanisms 

(1) Federal Land Policy and 

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

1701 et seq.) (FLPMA)—The BLM’s 

mission is set forth under the FLPMA, 

which mandates that BLM manage 

public land resources for a variety of 

uses, such as energy development, 

livestock grazing, recreation, and timber 

harvesting, while protecting the natural, 

cultural, and historical resources on 

those lands. The BLM manages listed 

and sensitive species under guidance 

provided in the BLM Manual Section 

6840—Special Status Species 

Management. The Manual directs BLM 

to conserve listed species and the 

ecosystems upon which they depend, 

ensure that all actions authorized or 

carried out by BLM comply with the 

ESA, and cooperate with the recovery 

planning and recovery of listed species. 

The BLM has experience in managing 

the ferret at four reintroduction sites in 

four States that occur at least in part on 

its lands. Therefore, we anticipate 

appropriate management by the BLM on 

any future ferret reintroduction sites 

that include BLM lands. 

(2) National Forest Management Act 

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

seq.)—This law instructs the FS to strive 

to provide for a diversity of plant and 

animal communities when managing 

NFS lands. The FS identifies species 

listed as endangered or threatened 

under the ESA, including the ferret, as 

Category 1 species at risk based on 

rangewide and national imperilment. 

The FS has experience managing the 

ferret on one reintroduction site that 

occurs at least in part on NFS lands. 

Therefore, we anticipate appropriate 

management by the FS on any future 

ferret reintroduction sites that include 

NFS lands. 

(3) Organic Act of 1916, as amended 

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

NPS to conserve National Park 

resources, consistent with the 

established values and purposes for 

each park. In addition, the Organic Act 

instructs NPS ‘‘to conserve the scenery 

and the natural and historical objects 

and the wildlife therein and to provide 

for the enjoyment of the same in such 

manner and by such means as will leave 

them unimpaired for the enjoyment of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33627 

future generations.’’ NPS management 

policies require them to conserve listed 

species and to prevent detrimental 

effects on these species. The NPS has 

experience managing the ferret at two 

parks in South Dakota, where the NPS 

protects ferrets and their habitats from 

large-scale loss or degradation, per their 

mandate. Management of these 

reintroduction sites would need to 

continue regardless of the species’ 

listing status. Therefore, we anticipate 

appropriate management by the NPS on 

any future ferret reintroduction sites 

that include NPS lands. 

(4) Navajo Nation law—Navajo Nation 

Code (NNC), Title 17, Chapter 3, 

Subchapter 21, provides protections for 

black-footed ferrets. Title 17 NNC 

section 507 makes it unlawful for any 

person to take wildlife on either of the 

following lists, as quoted from the code: 

(a) ‘‘The list of wildlife indigenous to 

the Navajo Nation that they determine 

to be endangered by regulation of the 

Resources Committee of the Navajo 

Nation Council.’’ Pursuant to Resources 

Committee Resolution RCF 014–91, they 

added the black-footed ferret to the list. 

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

and foreign fish and wildlife, as set forth 

in section 4 of the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 as endangered or threatened 

species, to the extent that the Resources 

Committee adopts these lists.’’ 

Navajo Nation Code (17 NNC section 

504) also makes it unlawful for any 

person to take or possess a fur-bearing 

animal, which includes ferrets by 

definition (17 NNC section 500), except 

as permitted by the Director, Navajo 

Nation Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

(5) Hopi Tribal Law—Tribal 

Ordinance 48 (Wildlife) documents the 

Tribe’s exclusive jurisdiction to regulate 

and adjudicate all matters pertaining to 

wildlife found on the Hopi Reservation. 

All wildlife found on the Reservation, 

whether resident or migratory, native or 

introduced, is the property of the Hopi 

Tribe, and Tribal Law provides the 

times and manner of allowable take. 

(6) Arizona State Law—General 

provisions of Arizona Revised Statutes, 

title 17, protects all of Arizona’s native 

wildlife, including federally listed 

threatened and endangered species. 

(7) Endangered Species Act—The ESA 

would continue to provide protection to 

ferrets through section 10 by requiring 

certain management entities to obtain an 

enhancement of survival permit from 

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

any intentional taking of a ferret that is 

prohibited by section 9 of the ESA and 

not exempted through this rule. The 

authorities of section 6 of the ESA, 50 

CFR 17.21, 50 CFR 17.31, and 50 CFR 

17.84(g) cover AGFD’s management 

activities. Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA also 

requires all Federal agencies to use their 

authorities to further the purposes of the 

ESA. 

Other Protections & Management 

Restrictions 

Other protections and management 

restrictions and measures in the 

proposed SWEPA would include: 

(1) Incidental take: Experimental 

population special rules contain specific 

prohibitions and exceptions regarding 

take of individual animals. These 

special rules are compatible with most 

routine human activities in the expected 

reestablishment area. Section 3(19) of 

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

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

trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to 

engage in any such conduct.’’ Under 50 

CFR 17.3, ‘‘harass’’ means an intentional 

or negligent act or omission that creates 

the likelihood of injury to wildlife by 

annoying it to such an extent as to 

significantly disrupt normal behavioral 

patterns that include, but are not limited 

to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. And 

‘‘harm’’ means an act that actually kills 

or injures wildlife, including significant 

habitat modification that actually kills 

or injures wildlife by significantly 

impairing essential behavioral patterns, 

including breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering. The regulations further 

define ‘‘incidental take’’ as take that is 

incidental to, and not the purpose of, 

the carrying out of an otherwise lawful 

activity. If we adopt the nonessential 

experimental population designation 

rule as proposed, it will allow most 

incidental take of ferrets in the 

experimental population area, provided 

the take is unintentional and not due to 

negligent conduct. However, if there 

were evidence of intentional take, we 

would refer the matter to the 

appropriate law enforcement entities for 

investigation. This is consistent with 

regulations for areas currently enrolled 

in the SHA and in the AVEPA where we 

do not allow intentional take. 

(2) Special handling: In accordance 

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

or agent of the Service or of a State 

wildlife agency may in the course of 

their official duties, handle ferrets to aid 

sick or injured ferrets, salvage dead 

ferrets, and conduct other activities 

consistent with 50 CFR 17.84(g), their 

section 6 work plan, and 50 CFR 17.31. 

Employees or agents of other agencies 

would need to acquire the necessary 

permits from the Service for these 

activities. 

(3) Arizona promulgation of 

regulations and other management for 

the conservation of the ferret as well as 

other species that, in turn, would 

benefit ferret recovery: For example, the 

AGFD includes the ferret on the Species 

of Greatest Conservation Need Tier 1A 

(AGFD 2012, p. 216). The list provides 

policy guidance on management 

priorities only, not legal or regulatory 

protection. The State also implements 

prairie dog shooting closures on public 

lands from April 1 to June 30. 

(3) Coordination with landowners and 

land managers: We discussed this 

proposed rule with potentially affected 

State and Federal agencies, Tribes, local 

governments, private landowners, and 

other stakeholders in the expected 

SWEPA. These agencies, landowners, 

and land managers have indicated either 

support for, or no opposition to, the 

proposed revision to the AVEPA. In 

advance of our developing the original 

rule for AVEPA, the AGFD determined 

that designation of a nonessential 

experimental population was necessary 

to achieve landowner support to make 

a ferret reintroduction project viable 

(AGFD 2106, p. 2; 61 FR 11325, March 

20, 1996). To receive the same public 

support for their Management Plan, the 

AGFD proposed a statewide 

nonessential experimental designation 

for the ferret (AGFD 2016, p. 2). 

(5) Public awareness and cooperation: 

We will inform the public of the 

importance of the SWEPA for the 

recovery of the ferret through this 

proposed rule and associated public 

meetings, if requested. The replacement 

of the AVEPA to establish the SWEPA 

under section 10(j) of the ESA as a 

nonessential experimental population 

would increase reintroduction 

opportunities and provide greater 

flexibility in the management of the 

reintroduced ferret. The nonessential 

experimental population designation 

will facilitate cooperation of the State, 

Tribes, landowners, and other interests 

in the affected area. 

(6) Potential effects to other species 

listed under the ESA: There are four 

federally listed species with 

distributions that overlap the proposed 

SWEPA and with habitat requirements 

that could overlap the grassland habitats 

that support prairie dogs (Table 1). 

However, we have not documented any 

of these species in current or potential 

ferret reintroduction sites and/or these 

species are unlikely to occur or compete 

for resources. We do not expect ferret 

reintroduction efforts to result in 

adverse effects to these species. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
33628 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES

IN THE PROPOSED 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 Natural 

Populations 

There are no naturally occurring wild 

populations of black-footed ferrets. The 

ferret is extirpated throughout its 

historical range, including in Arizona, 

New Mexico, and Utah, with the 

exception of reintroduced populations 

(USFWS 2017, entire) (see ‘‘Historical 

Range’’ above). Therefore, we do not 

need any measures to isolate or contain 

reintroduced ferrets in the SWEPA from 

natural populations. 

Review and Evaluation of the Success 

or Failure of the SWEPA 

Monitoring is a required element of 

all ferret reintroduction projects. 

Reintroduction projects will conduct the 

three following types of monitoring: 

(1) Reintroduction Effectiveness 

Monitoring: Reintroduction partners 

will monitor ferret population 

demographics and potential sources of 

fatality, including plague, annually for 5 

years following the last release using 

spotlight surveys, snow tracking, other 

visual survey techniques, or possibly 

radio-telemetry of some individuals 

following AGFD’s management plan 

(2016) or similar procedures identified 

in a management plan developed for a 

specific reintroduction site. Thereafter, 

partners will complete demographic 

surveys periodically to track population 

status. Surveys will incorporate 

methods to monitor breeding success 

and long-term survival rates, as 

appropriate. The Service anticipates that 

AGFD and/or other participating 

partners will conduct monitoring, and 

they will include monitoring results in 

their annual reports. 

(2) Donor Population Monitoring: We 

will acquire ferrets from the captivebreeding population, or partners may 

translocate ferrets from another viable 

reintroduction site. The Service and our 

partners manage ferrets in the captivebreeding 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 Service may also translocate 

ferrets from other reintroduction sites, 

provided their removal will not 

negatively affect the extant population 

and appropriate permits are issued in 

accordance with current regulations (50 

CFR 17.22) prior to their removal. 

Partners will conduct population 

monitoring following any removals for 

translocation under guidance of the 

Service-approved management plan for 

the donor site. 

(3) Monitoring Effects to Other Listed 

Species and Critical Habitat: We do not 

expect adverse effects to other federally 

listed species or critical habitat (see 

‘‘Other Protections and Management 

Restrictions’’ number 6, above). 

Findings 

Based on the above information, and 

using the best scientific and commercial 

data available (in accordance with 50 

CFR 17.81), we find that releasing 

ferrets into the proposed SWEPA will 

further the conservation of the species 

and that these reintroduced populations 

are not essential to the continued 

existence of the species. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our policy, 

‘‘Notice of Interagency Cooperative 

Policy for Peer Review in Endangered 

Species Act Activities,’’ (59 FR 34270, 

July 1, 1994), we will seek the expert 

opinion of at least three appropriate 

independent specialists regarding 

scientific data and interpretations 

contained in this proposed revision. We 

will send copies of this proposed 

revision to the peer reviewers 

immediately following publication in 

the Federal Register. The purpose of 

such review is to ensure we based our 

decisions on scientifically sound data, 

assumptions, and analysis. Accordingly, 

the final decision may differ from this 

proposal. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563) 

Executive Order 12866 provides that 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 

Management and Budget will review all 

significant rules. OIRA has determined 

that this rule is not significant. 

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the 

principles of E.O. 12866 while calling 

for improvements in the nation’s 

regulatory system to promote 

predictability, to reduce uncertainty, 

and to use the best, most innovative, 

and least burdensome tools for 

achieving regulatory ends. The 

executive order directs agencies to 

consider regulatory approaches that 

reduce burdens and maintain flexibility 

and freedom of choice for the public 

where these approaches are relevant, 

feasible, and consistent with regulatory 

objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes 

further that regulations must be based 

on the best available science and that 

the rulemaking process must allow for 

public participation and an open 

exchange of ideas. We have developed 

this proposed rule in a manner 

consistent with these requirements. 

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

et seq.) as amended by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 

601 et seq. 

Under these acts, whenever a Federal 

agency is required to publish a notice of 

rulemaking for any proposed or final 

rule or revision to a rule, it must 

prepare, and make available for public 

comment, a regulatory flexibility 

analysis that describes the effect of the 

action on small entities (small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small government jurisdictions). 

However, these acts require no 

regulatory flexibility analysis if the head 

of an agency certifies that the action will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The SBREFA amended the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act to require 

Federal agencies to provide a statement 

of the factual basis for certifying that an 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. We are 

certifying that this revision will not 

have a significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The following discussion explains our 

rationale. 

The affected area includes release 

sites in Arizona, lands of the Navajo 

Nation in Arizona, New Mexico, and 

Utah, and adjacent areas into which 

ferrets may disperse, which over time 

could include significant portions of the 

proposed SWEPA. Because of the 

regulatory flexibility for Federal agency 

actions provided by the nonessential 

experimental designation and the 

exemption for incidental take in the 

special rule, this revision is not 

expected to have significant effects on 

any activities on Federal, State, Tribal, 

or private lands in the revised area. 

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


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33629 

population as proposed for listing, and 

do not require Federal action agencies to 

consult with us on their activities. 

Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies 

to confer (rather than consult) with the 

Service on actions that are likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

species proposed for listing. However, 

because a nonessential experimental 

population is, by definition, not 

essential to the survival of the species, 

we will likely never require a 

conference for the ferret populations in 

the SWEPA. Furthermore, the results of 

a conference are advisory in nature and 

do not restrict agencies from carrying 

out, funding, or authorizing activities. In 

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

agencies to use their authorities to carry 

out programs to further the conservation 

of listed species, which would apply on 

any lands in the revised area. As a 

result, and in accordance with these 

regulations, some modifications to 

proposed Federal actions in the SWEPA 

may occur to benefit the ferret, but we 

do not expect implementing of these 

regulations to halt or substantially 

modify proposed projects. 

This revision would include the same 

authorization provided in the AVEPA 

for incidental take of the ferret but over 

a larger landscape, the SWEPA. The 

regulations implementing the ESA 

define ‘‘incidental take’’ as take that is 

incidental to, and not the purpose of, 

the carrying out of an otherwise lawful 

activity such as agricultural activities 

and other rural development, camping, 

hiking, hunting, vehicle use of roads 

and highways, and other activities that 

are in accordance with Federal, Tribal, 

State, and local laws and regulations. 

The proposed rule would not authorize 

intentional take for purposes other than 

authorized data collection or recovery 

purposes. Intentional take for research 

or recovery purposes would require a 

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

under the ESA. 

The principal activities on private 

property in or near the revised 

nonessential experimental population 

area are livestock grazing and associated 

ranch management practices (e.g., 

fencing, weed treatments, water 

developments, and maintenance). Ferret 

presence would not affect these land 

uses because there would be no new or 

additional economic or regulatory 

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

public due to the presence of the ferret, 

and Federal agencies would only have 

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

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

Therefore, we do not expect this 

rulemaking to have any significant 

adverse impacts to activities on private 

lands in the proposed SWEPA. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with this act: 

(1) This proposed revision will not 

‘‘significantly or uniquely’’ affect small 

governments because they would not 

place additional requirements on any 

city, county, or other local 

municipalities. The Service determined 

and certifies under this act, that it will 

not impose a cost of $100 million or 

more in any given year on local or State 

governments or private entities. 

Therefore, this act does not require a 

Small Government Agency Plan. 

(2) This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

this act; it will not produce a Federal 

mandate of $100 million or more in any 

year. The revised nonessential 

experimental population area for the 

ferret would not impose any additional 

management or protection requirements 

on the States or other entities. 

Takings (E.O. 12630) 

In accordance with E.O. 12630, the 

proposed revision does not have 

significant takings implications. It 

would allow for the take, as defined in 

the ESA, of reintroduced ferrets when 

such take is incidental to an otherwise 

legal activity, such as livestock grazing, 

agriculture, recreation (e.g., off-highway 

vehicle use), and other activities that are 

in accordance with Federal, State, and 

local laws and regulations. Therefore, 

the revision of the AVEPA to encompass 

a larger area, the proposed SWEPA, 

would not conflict with existing or 

proposed human activities or hinder 

public land use. 

This order does not require a takings 

implication assessment because this 

proposed rule: (1) Will not effectively 

compel a property owner to suffer a 

physical invasion of property, and (2) 

will not deny economically beneficial or 

productive use of the land. The revision 

would substantially advance a 

legitimate government interest 

(conservation and recovery of a listed 

species) and would not present a barrier 

to reasonable and expected beneficial 

use of private property. 

Federalism (E.O. 13132) 

In accordance with E.O. 13132, we 

have considered whether this proposed 

revision has significant federalism 

effects and determined we do not need 

to conduct a federalism assessment. It 

would not have substantial direct effects 

on the States, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. In keeping 

with Department of the Interior policy, 

we requested information from and 

coordinated development of this 

proposed revision with the affected 

resource agencies. Achieving the 

recovery goals for this species would 

contribute to its eventual delisting and 

its return to State management. We do 

not expect any intrusion on State 

administration or policy, change in roles 

or responsibilities of Federal or State 

governments, or substantial direct effect 

on fiscal capacity. The special rule 

operates to maintain the existing 

relationship between the State and the 

Federal Government, and we will 

implement it in coordination with the 

State of Arizona. Therefore, this 

proposed rule does not have significant 

federalism effects or implications to 

warrant preparation of a Federalism 

Assessment under the provisions of E.O. 

13132. 

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) 

In accordance with E.O. 12988, the 

Office of the Solicitor has determined 

that this revision would not unduly 

burden the judicial system and would 

meet the requirements of sections (3)(a) 

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

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.) 

This rule does not contain any new 

collection of information that require 

approval by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 

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

et seq.). OMB has previously approved 

the information collection requirements 

associated with reporting the taking of 

experimental populations (50 CFR 

17.84) and assigned control number 

1018–0095 (expires 09/30/2023). We 

may not collect, or sponsor, and may 

not require you to respond to a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

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

In compliance with all provisions of 

the NEPA, the Service has analyzed the 

impact of this proposed rule. Based on 

this analysis and any new information 

resulting from public comment on the 

proposed action, we will determine if 

there are any significant impacts or 

effects caused by this rule. In 

cooperation with the AGFD, the Hopi 

Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, and the Navajo 

Nation, we have prepared a draft 

environmental assessment on this 

proposed action and have made it 

available for public inspection online at 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
33630 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

<http://www.regulations.gov> or 

<http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ 

arizona/>. We solicit comments on the 

draft EA as set forth above in DATES and 

ADDRESSES. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationships With Tribes 

In accordance with the Executive 

Memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951, May 4, 

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

November 9, 2000), and the Department 

of the Interior Manual Chapter 512 DM 

2, we have considered possible effects of 

the proposed revision on federally 

recognized Indian Tribes. We 

determined that the proposed SWEPA 

overlaps or is adjacent to Tribal lands. 

Potential reintroduction sites identified 

in this revision, the CO Bar Ranch and 

Petrified Forest National Park, are near 

or adjacent to Tribal lands, as is the 

existing AVEPA where a reintroduced 

ferret population exists. We offered 

government-to-government consultation 

to nine Tribes: The Havasupai, Hopi, 

Hualapai, San Carlos Apache, San 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 on nonTribal lands adjacent to Tribal lands and 

they disperse onto Tribal lands, the 

aforementioned authorities will provide 

a more relaxed, flexible regulatory 

situation under the ESA through 

allowances for incidental take. 

Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (E.O. 13211) 

E.O. 13211 requires agencies to 

prepare Statements of Energy Effects 

when undertaking certain actions. We 

do not expect this proposed rule to have 

a significant effect on energy supplies, 

distribution, and use. Because this 

action is not a significant energy action, 

this order does not require a Statement 

of Energy Effects. 

Clarity of This Regulation 

E.O. 12866, E.O. 12988, and 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, require the Service to write all 

actions in plain language. This means 

that each rule we publish must: 

(1) Be logically organized; 

(2) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(3) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(4) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(5) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. 

Your comments about this proposed 

revision to the 1996 final rule should be 

as specific as possible. For example, you 

should identify the numbers of the 

sections and paragraphs that are not 

clear, the sections or sentences that are 

too long, or the sections where you feel 

lists and tables would be useful. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this proposed rule is available at 

http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 

Number FWS–R2–ES–2020–0123, or 

upon request from the Arizona 

Ecological Services Field Office (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are staff members of the Service’s 

Arizona Ecological Services Field Office 

(see ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Signing Authority 

The Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, approved this document and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Martha Williams, Principal Deputy 

Director Exercising the Delegated 

Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, approved this 

document on June 14, 2021, for 

publication. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 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 

entries 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) * * * 

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and 

applicable rules 

Mammals 

*******

Ferret, black-footed ............ Mustela nigripes ................ Wherever found ....................................... E 32 FR 4001, 3/11/1967; 35 

FR 8491, 6/2/1970. 

Ferret, black-footed ............ Mustela nigripes ................ U.S.A. (parts of WY (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


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33631 

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and 

applicable rules 

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; 

[Federal Register CITATION OF FINAL RULE]; 

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(g) by revising 

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

(g)(9)(iv) to read as set forth below and 

removing the fourth map (depicting the 

Aubrey Valley Experimental Population 

Area) and adding in its place the map 

shown below: 

§ 17.84 Special rules—vertebrates. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(1) The black-footed ferret 

populations identified in paragraphs 

(g)(9)(i) through (viii) of this section are 

nonessential experimental populations. 

We will manage each of these 

populations, and each reintroduction 

site in the Southwest and Wyoming 

nonessential experimental populations, 

in accordance with their respective 

management plans. 

* * * * * 

(6) * * * 

(iv) Report such taking in the 

Southwest Experimental Population 

Area (SWEPA) to the Field Supervisor, 

Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Phoenix, Arizona 

(telephone: 602–242–0210). 

* * * * * 

(9) * * * 

(iv) We consider the Southwest 

Experimental Population Area (SWEPA) 

to be the area shown on a map following 

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

SWEPA includes the core recovery areas 

for this species in Arizona. The 

boundary of the northern section of the 

SWEPA is those parts of Apache, 

Coconino, Gila, Mohave, Navajo, and 

Yavapai Counties, Arizona, that include 

the northern area as delineated on the 

map, excluding Hopi District 6. The 

northern section also includes portions 

of Cibola, McKinley, Rio Arriba, 

Sandoval, and San Juan Counties, New 

Mexico; and San Juan County, Utah. 

The boundary of the southern section of 

the SWEPA is those parts of Cochise, 

Pima, Pinal, Graham, and Santa Cruz 

Counties, Arizona, that include the 

southern area as delineated on the map. 

After the first breeding season following 

the first year of black-footed ferret 

release, we will consider any 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. 

* * * * * 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
33632 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

* * * * * 

Madonna Baucum, 

Regulations and Policy Chief, Division of 

Policy, Economics, Risk Management, and 

Analytics, Joint Administrative Operations, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–12991 Filed 6–24–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP25JN21.010</GPH>

US Fist1 and Wildlife Service 

Southwest Nonessential Experiment.al Population Area .(SWEPAJ for the black-footed ferret 

Nevada 

~\ 

Colorado 

/ 

~ 0 30 60 

0 30 60 

?mjeclioo: 

UTlil 12N 

Delllm: 

Ni!083 

90 

llS'l'WS ·gill• oo Wllfflllnly, expressed orlmplied, as to Ille aa:uraq,, refiallllity, or mmpleteness of these data. 

In addition, the Ii SFWS shall !ID! be hel<I fi- mr imjll<lper or mcorre ct use of !he dala described andf-Or conlalnoo 

herein. Gra!lhica1 representallolls provided by the 11se oftlliB data do !ID! represent lepl boundary d-,-lplioos. 

Reier to the teitual descrlpltons as publlslled i-n Ille Federal Register. 

~ SW Nonessential Expe.rimental Population Area (SWEPA) 

- Double O Ranch SHA 

120 - Espee Ranch SHA 

Mi Hopi District 6 (excluded) 

Km 

90 120