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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR enter the Docket Number for this one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. rulemaking: FWS–R2–ES–2020–0123. You must submit comments to http:// Fish and Wildlife Service Then, in the Search panel on the left www.regulations.gov before 11:59 p.m. side of the screen, under the Document (Eastern Time) on the date specified in 50 CFR Part 17 Type heading, click on the Proposed DATES. We will not consider hardcopy [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2020–0123; Rules link to locate this document. You comments not postmarked by the date FXES11130200000–212–FF02ENEH00] may submit a comment by clicking on specified in DATES. ‘‘Comment Now!’’ We will post your entire comment— RIN 2018–BD61 By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: including your personal identifying Public Comments Processing, Attn: information—on http:// Endangered and Threatened Wildlife FWS–R2–ES–2020–0123, U.S. Fish and www.regulations.gov. If you provide and Plants; Revision of a Nonessential Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 personal identifying information in your Experimental Population of Black- Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– comment, you may request at the top of Footed Ferrets (Mustela nigripes) in 3803. your document that we withhold this the Southwest We will post all comments on http:// information from public review. AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, www.regulations.gov. This generally However, we cannot guarantee that we Interior. means that we will post any personal will be able to do so. ACTION: Proposed rule; announcement of information you provide us (see ‘‘Public The comments we receive and any a draft environmental assessment. Comments’’ below for more supporting documentation we used in information). preparing this proposal will be available SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Copies of Documents: The proposed for public inspection at http:// Wildlife Service (Service and USFWS), rule, draft EA, and supporting www.regulations.gov, or by propose to revise the regulation for the documents are available at the following appointment, during normal business nonessential experimental population of website: http://www.regulations.gov in hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife the black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2020–0123. Service, Arizona Ecological Services (ferret) in Arizona. We established the Persons who use a telecommunications Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Aubrey Valley Experimental Population device for the deaf (TDD) may call the CONTACT). Area (AVEPA) in 1996 in accordance Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1–800– We specifically seek comments on: with section 10(j) of the Endangered 877–8339. • The appropriateness of revising the Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff current AVEPA, and establishing new This proposed rule would allow the Humphrey, Field Supervisor, Phone: boundaries for the nonessential reintroduction of ferrets across a larger 602–242–0210. Direct all questions or experimental population area to landscape as part of a nonessential requests for additional information to: encompass all potential ferret habitat experimental population and include BLACK-FOOTED FERRET QUESTIONS, within Arizona and identified Tribal the AVEPA within a larger ‘‘Southwest U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona lands in New Mexico and Utah, for Experimental Population Area’’ Ecological Services Office, 9828 North reintroduced populations of black- (SWEPA), which includes parts of 31st Avenue, Suite C3, Phoenix, AZ footed ferrets; Arizona and identified contiguous 85051. Individuals who are hearing- • Threats to ferrets in the proposed Tribal land in New Mexico and Utah. impaired or speech-impaired may call nonessential experimental population This proposed revision provides a the FRS at 1–800–877–8337 for TTY area that we have not considered in this framework for establishing and assistance. revision that might affect a reintroduced managing reintroduced populations of population; SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ferrets that will allow greater • The suitability of the proposed management flexibility and increased Public Comments boundaries for this nonessential landowner cooperation. The best experimental population; We want to ensure that any final rule • available data indicate that developed from this proposed revision The effects of reintroducing ferrets reintroduction of the ferret into suitable to the 1996 rule is as effective as on public, private, and Tribal lands and habitat in the proposed SWEPA is possible. Therefore, we invite Tribal and activities such as ranching, recreation, biologically feasible and will promote other governmental agencies, the residential development, and other land the conservation of the species. We are uses; and scientific community, industry, and • seeking comments on this proposal and other interested parties to submit The compatibility of this proposal on our draft environmental assessment comments (including recommendations with ongoing implementation of the (EA) that analyzes the potential and information) concerning any aspect programmatic ferret Safe Harbor environmental impacts associated with of this proposed revision. Your Agreement (SHA) in cooperation with the proposed regulatory revisions. comments should be as specific as non-Federal landowners. DATES: We will accept comments possible. Background received or postmarked on or before To issue a final rule implementing August 24, 2021. If you are using the this revision, we will take into Statutory and Regulatory Framework Federal eRulemaking Portal (see consideration all comments and The 1982 amendments to the ESA (16 ADDRESSES), the deadline for submitting information we receive. Such U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) included the an electronic comment is 11:59 p.m. communications may lead to a final rule addition of section 10(j) that allows for Eastern Time on this date. that differs from this proposed revision. the designation of reintroduced ADDRESSES: You may submit comments All comments, including commenters’ populations of listed species as on the proposed rule and draft EA by names and addresses, if provided to us, ‘‘experimental populations.’’ Our one of the following methods: will become part of the supporting implementing regulations for section Electronically: Go to the Federal record. 10(j) are in title 50 of the Code of eRulemaking Portal: http:// You may submit your comments Federal Regulations in part 17 www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, concerning the proposed revision by (specifically at 50 CFR 17.81); hereafter,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM 25JNP1 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 Population Essential or Nonessential?’’ and consultation requirements per section 10(j) of the ESA as ‘‘10(j) rules.’’ below); subsections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2), These regulations state that the Service (3) management restrictions, respectively. We treat nonessential may designate a population of protective measures, or other special experimental populations outside of a endangered or threatened species that management concerns of that National Wildlife Refuge or NPS unit as we have released or will release into population, which may include but are species proposed for listing, and suitable natural habitat outside the not limited to, measures to isolate and/ agencies only follow subsections 7(a)(1) species’ current natural range, but or contain the experimental population and 7(a)(4). In these cases, nonessential within its probable historical range, as designated in the regulation from experimental population designation an experimental population. natural populations (see ‘‘Management provides additional flexibility, because Under 50 CFR 17.81(b), before Restrictions, Protective Measures, and it does not require Federal agencies to authorizing the release as an Other Special Management’’ below); and consult under section 7(a)(2). Instead, experimental population of any (4) a process for periodic review and section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies population of an endangered or evaluation of the success or failure of to confer (not consult) with the Service threatened species, the Service must the release and the effect of the release on actions that are likely to jeopardize find by regulation that such release will on the conservation and recovery of the the continued existence of a species further the conservation of the species. species (see ‘‘Review and Evaluation of proposed to be listed. A conference In making such a finding, the Service the Success or Failure of the SWEPA’’ results in conservation shall use the best scientific and below). recommendations, which are commercial data available to consider: Under 50 CFR 17.81(d), the Service discretionary. Because the nonessential shall consult with appropriate State fish (1) Any possible adverse effects on experimental population is, by and wildlife agencies, local extant populations of a species as a definition, not essential to the governmental entities [including Tribal result of removal of individuals, eggs, or continued existence of the species, the governments], affected Federal agencies, propagules for introduction elsewhere effects of proposed actions on the and affected private landowners in (see ‘‘Possible Adverse Effects on Wild population will generally not rise to the developing and implementing and Captive-Breeding Populations’’ level of ‘‘jeopardy.’’ As a result, Federal experimental population rules. To the below); agencies will likely never request a maximum extent practicable, 10(j) rules (2) the likelihood that any such formal conference for actions that may represent an agreement between the affect ferrets established in the proposed experimental population will become Service, affected Tribes, State and established and survive in the SWEPA. Nonetheless, some Federal Federal agencies, and persons holding agencies voluntarily confer with the foreseeable future (see ‘‘Likelihood of any interest in land that the Population Establishment and Survival’’ Service on actions that may affect a establishment of an experimental proposed species. below); population may affect. (3) the relative effects that Under 50 CFR 17.81(f), the Secretary Legal Status establishment of an experimental may designate critical habitat as defined We listed the black-footed ferret as an population will have on the recovery of in section 3(5)(A) of the ESA for an endangered species in 1967 under the the species (see ‘‘Effects of the SWEPA essential experimental population. The Endangered Species Preservation Act of on Recovery Efforts for the Species’’ Secretary will not designate critical 1966 (32 FR 4001, March 11, 1967). We below); and habitat for nonessential populations. later codified this list in part 17 of title (4) the extent to which the introduced The term essential experimental 50 in the U.S. Code of Federal population may be affected by existing population means an experimental Regulations (CFR) (35 FR 8491, October or anticipated Federal, Tribal, or State population whose loss would be likely 13, 1970). With the passage of the ESA actions or private activities within or to appreciably reduce the likelihood of in 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we adjacent to the experimental population the survival of the species in the wild. incorporated those species previously area (see ‘‘Actions and Activities that We classify all other experimental listed in the CFR into the Lists of May Affect the Introduced Population’’ populations as nonessential (50 CFR Endangered and Threatened Wildlife below). 17.80). and Plants under the ESA, found at 50 Furthermore, under 50 CFR 17.81(c), Under 50 CFR 17.82, we treat any CFR 17.11 and 17.12 (39 FR 1175, any regulation designating experimental population determined by the Secretary January 4, 1974). populations under section 10(j) of the to be an experimental population as if In 1996, we designated the population ESA shall provide: we had listed it as a threatened species of black-footed ferrets established via (1) Appropriate means to identify the for the purposes of establishing reintroduction in Aubrey Valley as a experimental population, including, but protective regulations with respect to nonessential experimental population not limited to, its actual or proposed that population. The protective (61 FR 11320, March 20, 1996). The location, actual or anticipated regulations adopted for an experimental Aubrey Valley Experimental Population migration, number of specimens population will contain applicable Area (AVEPA) includes parts of released or to be released, and other prohibitions, as appropriate, and Coconino, Mohave, and Yavapai criteria appropriate to identify the exceptions for that population, allowing Counties in northwestern Arizona. At experimental population(s) (see us discretion in devising management the time of its designation, the AVEPA ‘‘Identifying the Location and programs to provide for the consisted of 22 percent State lands, 45 Boundaries of the SWEPA’’ below); conservation of the species. percent Tribal lands (Hualapai (2) a finding, based solely on the best Under 50 CFR 17.83(a), for the Reservation), and 33 percent deeded scientific and commercial data purposes of section 7 of the ESA, we lands (owned by the Navajo Nation). available, and the supporting factual treat nonessential experimental In 2013, the USFWS developed a basis, on whether the experimental populations as threatened when located range-wide programmatic Safe Harbor population is, or is not, essential to the in a National Wildlife Refuge or unit of Agreement (SHA) to encourage non- continued existence of the species in the the National Park Service (NPS), and Federal landowners to voluntarily wild (see ‘‘Is the Proposed Experimental Federal agencies follow conservation undertake conservation activities on

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM 25JNP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33615

their properties to benefit the ferret Jachowski et al. 2011a, pp. 221–223; which collectively covered about 100 (USFWS 2013b, entire) (see ‘‘Historical Livieri and Anderson 2012, pp. 201– million ac (40.5 million ha) of Great Range’’ below). Through Certificates of 202). Given their obligate tie to prairie Plains, mountain basins, and semi-arid Inclusion, we enroll willing landowners dogs, ferret populations associated with grasslands extending from Canada to in our SHA section 10(a)(1)(A) larger, less fragmented prairie dog Mexico (Anderson et al. 1986, pp. 25– Enhancement of Survival Permit. We colonies are more likely to be resilient 50; Biggins et al. 1997, p. 420). This treat ferrets as endangered outside of the and less likely to be extirpated by amount of habitat could have supported AVEPA, and the provisions and stochastic events compared to those one-half to one million ferrets exceptions of the experimental associated with smaller, fragmented (Anderson et al. 1986, p. 58). We have population designation do not apply; colonies (Miller et al. 1994, p. 678; records of ferret specimens from however, through the SHA, incidental Jachowski et al. 2011b, entire). Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Montana, take of ferrets by participating Resiliency is the ability of populations Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, landowners and nonparticipating to tolerate natural, annual variation in Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, neighboring landowners is permissible. their environment and to recover from and Wyoming in the United States Also, through their certificates, we periodic or random disturbances (U.S.) and from Saskatchewan and provide participating landowners (USFWS 2019, p. 2). Such stochastic Alberta in Canada (Anderson et al. assurances we will not require events include epizootics, such as 1986, pp. 25–50). A rancher discovered additional restrictions provided they sylvatic plague (plague), and extreme the last wild population of ferrets (from follow provisions outlined in the SHA weather or climate, including drought. which all existing ferrets descend) near and detailed in a Reintroduction Plan The last naturally occurring wild Meeteetse, Wyoming, in 1981, after we developed by the landowner for the ferret population, in Wyoming, averaged had presumed the species extinct (Clark enrolled lands. The Service tailors approximately 25 breeding adults et al. 1986, p. 8; Lockhart et al. 2006, conservation activities to each specific throughout intensive demographic p. 8). By 1987, the Service and partners site under the SHA. studies from 1982 to 1985 (USFWS removed all known surviving wild General provisions of Arizona Revised 2019, p. 10). Based on this and ferrets (18 individuals) from this area to Statutes, Title 17, protect all of population modeling, the Service initiate a captive-breeding program Arizona’s native wildlife, including considers 30 breeding adults a following disease outbreaks (Lockhart et federally listed threatened and minimum for a population of ferrets to al. 2006, p. 8). Since then, we have not endangered species. Under Navajo be self-sustaining (USFWS 2013a, p. 70). located any wild populations, despite Nation law, it is unlawful for any person Ferrets require large, contiguous prairie extensive and intensive rangewide to take ferrets. All wildlife on the Hopi dog colonies to meet their individual searches; it is unlikely any Reservation is the property of the Hopi needs, with colonies no more than 4.35 undiscovered natural wild populations Tribe, and Tribal law provides for take miles (7 kilometers [km]) apart. A remain. For these reasons, the Service (see ‘‘Management Restrictions, conservative estimate of habitat considers the ferret extirpated Protective Measures, and Other Special requirements to support one female throughout its historical range, except Management’’ below, for more ferret is 222 acres (ac) (90 hectares [ha]) for reintroduced populations (USFWS information on State and Tribal legal of black-tailed prairie dog (C. 2017, p. 2). status). ludovicianus) colonies, or 370 ac (150 In the Southwest, ferrets occurred in ha) of Gunnison’s prairie dog (C. Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Biological Information gunnisoni) colonies (USFWS 2013a, p. Utah, within the historical range of Species Description 73). Assuming a two-to-one female-to- Gunnison’s prairie dogs, and in New male sex ratio and overlapping male and Mexico and likely southeastern Arizona The black-footed ferret (Mustela female home ranges (Biggins et al. 1993, and Mexico, within the historical range nigripes) is a medium-sized member of p. 76), a population of 30 breeding adult of black-tailed prairie dogs (Hillman and the weasel family (Mustelidae) weighing ferrets would require 4,450 ac (1,800 ha) Clark 1980, entire). In Arizona, 1.4 to 2.5 pounds (645 to 1125 grams) of black-tailed prairie dog colonies, or historical ferret collections (1929–1931) and measuring 19 to 24 inches (480 to 7,415 ac (3,000 ha) of Gunnison’s prairie come from three locations in Coconino 600 millimeters) in total length. Its body dog colonies. County (Belitsky et al. 1994, p. 29). In color includes yellowish-buff, Natal dispersal, defined as a 1967, Federal Animal Damage Control occasionally whitish, upper parts, and permanent movement away from the personnel (now known as Wildlife black feet, tail tip, and ‘‘mask’’ across birth area, occurs in the fall months Services) reported seeing ferret sign the eyes (Hillman and Clark 1980, p. among the young-of-the-year, although while poisoning prairie dogs (pers. com. 30). adults occasionally make permanent 1993, as cited in Belitsky et al. 1994, p. Ecology/Habitat Use/Movement moves (Forrest et al. 1988, p. 268). 2). Anderson et al. (1986, p. 25) Newly released captive-born ferrets speculated that prairie dog populations Black-footed ferrets are carnivorous, have dispersed up to 30 miles (49 km) of sufficient size to support ferrets may extremely specialized predators highly (Biggins et al. 1999, p. 125), and wild- have existed in northeastern Arizona on dependent on prairie dogs (Cynomys born ferrets more than 12 miles (20 km) lands of the Navajo Nation, a sovereign spp.) (Hillman 1968, p. 438; Biggins (USFWS 2019, p. 7). Males tend to move Indian tribe. However, the Navajo 2006, p. 3). Ferrets prey predominantly greater distances than females. Nation has determined that the ferret no on prairie dogs (Sheets et al. 1972, longer occurs on their lands (Navajo entire; Campbell et al. 1987, entire), Historical Range Nation 2020). Prairie dogs also occur in occupy prairie dog burrows, and do not The black-footed ferret is the only significant numbers on the lands of two dig their own burrows (Forrest et al. ferret species native to the Americas other sovereign Indian tribes, the Hopi 1988, p. 261). Ferrets select areas within (Anderson et al. 1986, p. 24). Before Tribe (Johnson et al. 2010, entire) and prairie dog colonies that contain high European settlement, ferret occurrence the Hualapai Tribe, the latter of which burrow densities and thus high coincided with the ranges of three the AVEPA partially overlaps. densities of prairie dogs (Biggins et al. prairie dog species (black-tailed, white- Dramatic historical declines in prairie 2006, p. 136; Eads et al. 2011, p. 763; tailed [C. leucurus], and Gunnison’s), dogs, coupled with prevalence of plague

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM 25JNP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 33616 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules

throughout the ferret’s historical range, Cropland Conversion inadvertently introduced to North and the failure to locate new wild Major conversion of native range to America in 1900. Because it was foreign ferrets, suggests the species is extirpated cropland eliminated millions of acres of and unknown to their immune systems, in Arizona, except where it has been ferret habitat in the eastern portion of both ferrets and prairie dogs were and reintroduced (USFWS 2017, p. 2). The the ferret’s range, particularly black- continue to be extremely susceptible to mortality from plague (Barnes 1993, date of ferret extirpation in the tailed prairie dog colonies (USFWS entire; Cully 1993, entire; Gage and Southwest is unknown; in Arizona, we 2013a, p. 23). Land conversion caused Kosoy 2006, entire). Plague can be have no verified reports for ferrets from far less physical loss of Gunnison’s present in a prairie dog colony in an 1931 through 1995, after which we prairie dog habitat because, outside of epizootic (swift, large-scale die-offs) or initiated reintroduction efforts in the riparian corridors and proximate enzootic (persistent, low level of AVEPA. We consider the historical irrigated lands, much of the habitat mortality) state. Most of the information range of the ferret to coincide with the occupied by this species is not suitable we have about the effects of plague is historical ranges of the Gunnison’s and for crops (Lockhart et al., 2006, p. 7). from epizootic events. Although its Knowles (2002, p. 12) noted black-tailed prairie dogs. effects are not as dramatic as an displacement of prairie dogs from the Threats/Causes of Decline epizootic outbreak, enzootic plague may more productive valley bottomlands in result in negative growth rates for Black-footed ferret populations Colorado and New Mexico, but not in prairie dog and ferret populations and decreased historically for three main Arizona. Instead of converting native hinder ferret recovery (USFWS 2013a, reasons. First, major conversion of rangeland to irrigated crop and pasture pp. 33, 100). native range to cropland, primarily in lands, land- use of the range in Arizona The first confirmation of plague in the eastern portion of the species’ range, was and continues to be primarily cattle Gunnison’s prairie dog in Arizona was grazing, with relatively minimal crop began in the late 1800s. Second, in 1932, but we have limited historical development. Cropland conversion in widespread poisoning of prairie dogs to data on the extent of its effects. In 2003, Arizona, while affecting ferrets locally, reduce perceived competition with Wagner and Drickamer reported that in was not a major cause of decline in the domestic livestock for forage began in the previous 7 to 15 years, there had State. the early 1900s. Third, in the 1930s, been a large reduction in the number of plague began to significantly adversely Prairie Dog Poisoning active Gunnison’s prairie dog colonies in Arizona, primarily due to outbreaks affect both prairie dogs and ferrets Poisoning was a major cause of the (Eskey and Hass 1940, p. 62). By the of plague, which they said was the historical declines of prairie dogs and dominant negative effect on Arizona 1960s, prairie dog occupied habitat subsequently black-footed ferrets prairie dog populations. Prairie dogs in reached a low of about 1.4 million ac (Forrest et al. 1985; Cully 1993, p. 38; northern Arizona will likely continue to (570,000 ha) in the U.S. (Bureau of Sport Forrest and Luchsinger 2005, pp. 115– experience regular plague outbreaks Fisheries and Wildlife 1961, n.p.). For 120). Similar to other threats limiting (Wagner et al. 2006, p. 337). these reasons, ferret numbers declined ferret recovery, poisoning affects ferrets to the point of perceived extinction. through inadvertent secondary effects, Other Impediments to Recovery These threats resulted in a substantial poisoning caused by consumption of To successfully recover black-footed loss of prairie dogs, which in turn led poisoned prairie dogs, or indirectly, ferrets we need purposeful management to an even greater decline in ferret through the loss of prairie dog prey of prairie dog populations to provide populations due to the species’ base. habitat of sufficient quality and in a dependence on prairie dog colonies In Arizona, from 1916 to 1933, rodent stable, spatial configuration suitable to (Lockhart et al. 2006, p. 7). Such control operations treated 4,365,749 ac support and maintain new populations population bottlenecks can result in loss (1,766,756 ha) of prairie dog colonies of reintroduced ferrets. Unfortunately, of genetic diversity and fitness and can (Oakes 2000, p. 179). A 1961 Predator current management efforts for the manifest following even a temporary and Rodent Control Agency report species are failing to meet these loss of habitat (USFWS 2013a, p. 23). showed a 92 percent decline in conservation objectives (USFWS 2013a, occupied prairie dog habitat in Arizona pp. 46, 58, Table 6; USFWS 2020 p. 5). In Arizona, the combined effects of since 1921, with Gunnison’s prairie The keys to correcting current prairie dog poisoning and plague dogs occupying 445,370 ac (180,235 ha). management inadequacies are active decreased the area occupied by Only 9,956 ac (4,029 ha) of prairie dog plague management (discussed above), Gunnison’s prairie dogs from about 6.6 colonies in the 1961 surveys were and ongoing, widespread partner million ac (2.7 million ha) historically located on non-Tribal lands. The 1961 involvement (USFWS 2013a, pp. 46–48) to about 445,000 ac (180,000 ha) in 1961 Predator and Rodent Control Agency to facilitate establishment of new (Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife report also documented the extirpation reintroduction sites and appropriately 1961, n.p.; Oakes 2000, pp. 169–171). of black-tailed prairie dogs from manage the quality and configuration of Estimates of historical black-tailed Arizona. Historical prairie dog ferret habitat within the species range. prairie dog habitat in Arizona range poisoning was a major cause of decline In addition, consideration of other from 650,000 ac (263,000 ha) to of ferrets in Arizona. factors that may act alone or in concert 1,396,000 ac (565,000 ha) (Van Pelt with threats are necessary when 1999, p. 1; Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plague planning and implementing recovery Foundation 1999, p. 4). Extirpation of Sylvatic plague is the most significant efforts. For example, canine distemper, black-tailed prairie dogs in Arizona challenge to ferret recovery (USFWS a disease endemic to the U.S., posed a probably occurred prior to 1960. As 2019, p. 21), with the USFWS challenge to early ferret reintroduction with the rangewide effects, these prairie classifying it as an imminent threat of efforts (Wimsatt et al. 2006, pp. 249– dog losses also resulted in the loss of high magnitude (USFWS 2020, p. 5). 250). Today, however, we have ferrets; by the 1960’s, we thought ferrets Plague is an exotic disease, caused by minimized the threat of catastrophic were extirpated in Arizona (Lockhart et the bacterium Yersinia pestis, population losses from canine al. 2006, pp. 7–8). transmitted by fleas, that steamships distemper by the use of commercial

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM 25JNP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33617

vaccines deployed in captive and wild colonies. We must meet these combined population of all 6 facilities is ferret populations (USFWS 2013a, pp. population objectives for at least 3 years currently about 300 ferrets (USFWS 29–30). As discussed in the Black- prior to downlisting or delisting. Habitat 2020, p. 2). Footed Ferret Recovery Plan (USFWS criteria include maintaining 247,000 ac We manage the demography and 2013a, pp. 53–55), we anticipate that (100,000 ha) of prairie dog colonies at genetics of the captive population climate change will alter and reduce reintroduction sites for downlisting, and consistent with guidance from the prairie dog habitat and influence plague 494,000 ac (200,000 ha) for delisting Association of Zoos and Aquariums outbreaks. We also discuss prairie dog (USFWS 2013a, pp. 61–62). (AZA) Black-footed Ferret Species hunting and Federal and non-Federal Additionally, for each State in the Survival Plan (SSP®). This includes actions and activities in the ‘‘Actions historical range of the species, the maintaining a stable breeding and Activities that May Affect the Recovery Plan suggests recovery population of at least 280 animals with Introduced Population’’ section below. guidelines proportional to the amount of a high level of genetic diversity and prairie dog habitat historically present providing a sustainable source of ferrets Recovery, Captive Breeding, and to equitably help support and achieve for reintroduction. The captive-breeding Reintroduction Efforts to Date the recovery strategy and criteria facilities produce about 250 juvenile The goal of the Black-footed Ferret (USFWS 2013a, p. 69). Guidelines for ferrets annually and have produced Recovery Plan (Recovery Plan) is to Arizona’s contribution to downlisting about 9,300 ferrets in total (Graves et al. recover the ferret to the point at which are 74 free-ranging breeding adult ferrets 2018, p. 3; Santymire and Graves 2020, it can be reclassified to threatened status on 17,000 ac (6,880 ha) of Gunnison’s p. 12). The distribution of ferrets across (downlisted) and ultimately removed prairie dog- occupied habitat; delisting six widespread facilities protects the (delisted) from the List of Endangered guidelines are 148 breeding adults on species from catastrophic events. and Threatened Wildlife (USFWS 34,000 ac (13,760 ha) (USFWS 2013a, Currently, we retain about 80 juveniles 2013a, pp. 5, 59). The strategy of the Table 8). The guidelines for New annually in AZA SSP® facilities for Recovery Plan is to involve many Mexico and Utah are 220 and 25 continued captive-breeding purposes. partners across the historical range of breeding adult ferrets for downlisting, We consider the remaining juveniles the species in order to establish respectively, and 440 and 50 breeding genetically redundant and excess to the multiple, widely spaced populations, adults for delisting; most of these AZA SSP®, and available for within the range of all three prairie dog guidelines are for black-tailed or white- reintroductions (USFWS 2013a, p. 81). species. Such distribution will tailed prairie dog habitat. Each year the Service solicits safeguard the species, as a whole, from proposals for allocations of ferrets to the widespread chronic effects of plague Captive Breeding establish new sites or augment existing as well as other periodic or random The Service and partners established sites, or for educational or scientific disturbances that may result in the loss the black-footed ferret captive-breeding purposes (e.g., plague vaccine research). of a population in one or more given program from 18 ferrets captured from The limited number of ferrets available areas. Partner involvement is critical for the last known wild population at for release each year requires that we the development of new sites and their Meeteetse, Wyoming, in 1985 to 1987 efficiently allocate them to the highest long-term management. Although ferret (Lockhart et al. 2006, pp. 11–12). Of priority sites first. The Service uses a habitat is significantly less than those 18 ferrets, 15 individuals, ranking procedure for allocating ferrets historical times, a sufficient amount representing the genetic equivalent of to reintroduction sites (Jachowski and remains if we can appropriately manage seven distinct founders (original genetic Lockhart 2009, pp. 59–60). Ranking its quality and configuration to support contributor, or ancestor), produced a criteria include project background and reintroductions (USFWS 2013a, p. 5). captive population that is the justification, involved agencies/parties, The Recovery Plan provides objective, foundation of present recovery efforts habitat conditions, ferret population measurable criteria to achieve (Garelle et al. 2006, p. 4). All extant information, predator management, downlisting and delisting of the ferret. ferrets, both captive and reintroduced, disease monitoring and management, Recovery Plan downlisting and descended from those seven founders. contingency plans, potential for pre- delisting criteria include managing a The purpose of the captive-breeding conditioning of released ferrets, captive breeding population of at least program is to maintain a secure and veterinary and husbandry support, and 280 adults as the source population to stable ferret population with maximum research contributions. Members of the establish and supplement free-ranging genetic diversity, to provide a Black-footed Ferret Recovery populations and repopulate sites in the sustainable source of ferrets for Implementation Team review the event of local extirpations. Downlisting reintroduction to achieve recovery of proposals and the Service’s rankings of criteria include establishing at least the species (USFWS 2013a, pp. 6, 81). the proposals (USFWS 2013a, pp. 87– 1,500 free-ranging breeding adults in 10 The captive-breeding population of 88). or more populations, in at least 6 of 12 ferrets is the primary repository of Each year, we allocate 150 to 220 States in the species’ historical range, genetic diversity for the species. There ferrets for reintroduction into the wild with no fewer than 30 breeding adult are currently six captive-breeding from the captive-breeding population; as ferrets in any population, and at least 3 facilities maintained by the Service and of 2020 we had allocated 5,544 ferrets populations in colonies of Gunnison’s its partners: The Service’s National rangewide (T. Tretten, USFWS, pers. and white-tailed prairie dogs. Delisting Black-footed Ferret Conservation Center comm. 12/10/20). The number of ferrets criteria include at least 3,000 free- near Wellington, Colorado; the we allocate to a site depends on site size ranging breeding adults in 30 or more Cheyenne Mountain Zoological Park, and prey density (USFWS 2016, pp. 1, populations, in at least 9 of 12 States in Colorado Springs, Colorado; the 21). It also depends on purpose and the species’ historical range. There Louisville Zoological Garden, needs; for example, whether the should be no fewer than 30 breeding Louisville, Kentucky; the Smithsonian purpose is to initiate establishment of a adults in any population, and at least 10 Biology Conservation Institute, Front population or augment a site, which populations with 100 or more breeding Royal, Virginia; the Phoenix Zoo, may entail multiple releases in a year. adults, and at least 5 populations in Phoenix, Arizona; and the Toronto Zoo, A release can involve a single ferret, but Gunnison’s and white-tailed prairie dog Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The for initial releases, in general, the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM 25JNP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 33618 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules

Service recommends releasing 20 to 30 Despite lower numbers, we consider the Summary individuals (P. Gober, USFWS, pers. AVEPA to be a persistent reintroduction Ferret recovery will be a dynamic comm., March 4, 2018). site (P. Gober, USFWS, pers. comm, process, requiring long-term active March 4, 2018). management (e.g., plague control) and Rangewide Reintroduction Efforts to In 2007, we established the Espee involving reintroduced populations Date Ranch (a.k.a. Allotment) reintroduction rangewide in various stages of The Service and partners have site under a section 10(a)(1)(A) research suitability and sustainability—with reintroduced ferrets at 30 sites in the and recovery permit. The status of the some undergoing extirpation western U.S., Canada, and Mexico. In Espee population is currently unknown concurrently as others establish or the United States, 12 ferret but likely extirpated due to plague reestablish after extirpation. The reintroductions have occurred through (AGFD, unpub. data). experimental population designations The Babbitt Ranches, LLC, for the dynamic nature of ferret recovery and under section 10(j) of the ESA, 15 under Espee Allotment (the existing Espee conservation is illustrated by the SHA Enhancement of Survival permits Ranch reintroduction site), and Seibert Service’s experience with the AVEPA under section 10(a)(1)(A), and one Land Company LLC, for the Double O population, which at one point was self- under section 7 of the ESA (John Ranch, enrolled in the programmatic sustaining with ferrets dispersing Hughes, USFWS, pers. comm., January SHA with the Service in 2014 and 2016, outside the experimental population 28, 2018). Additionally, there has been respectively. The figure at the end of area, but then experienced a significant one reintroduction each in Chihuahua, this proposed rule identifies these SHA population decline, presumably due to Mexico, and in Saskatchewan, Canada. lands in the proposed SWEPA. The plague, in 2013. Therefore, future ferret As of December 9, 2019, 13 of 29 AVEPA and adjacent Double O Ranch recovery is dependent on establishment reintroduction sites were active, with a contain the only known ferrets in the of multiple, spatially spread total estimated wild population of about proposed SWEPA, and we consider populations of reintroduced ferrets in 325 individuals (USFWS 2020, p. 2), them to be one population and Arizona to contribute to species 254 of which are on only 4 sites reintroduction site. recovery, which establishment of the (USFWS 2019, Table 3). The Service SWEPA will help achieve. Plague Mitigation Efforts recently determined 2 reintroduction Proposed Experimental Population sites were in high condition (high We continue making advances to resiliency), 8 were in moderate address plague, even as it remains the We propose to revise and replace the condition (moderate resiliency), 4 were most significant challenge to ferret existing nonessential experimental in low condition (low resiliency), and recovery. Rocke et al. (2006, entire) population designation for black-footed 15 were extirpated, primarily due to the developed a vaccine (F1–V) to prevent ferrets in Arizona (the AVEPA) with the plague (USFWS 2019, p. ii). We did not plague in ferrets, which we now use SWEPA, under section 10(j) of the ESA. include the most recent reintroduction operationally, vaccinating all ferrets We based the proposed boundaries of site, the thirtieth, in our analysis. There provided for reintroduction (Abbott and the 40,905,350-ac (16,554,170-ha) are 240,173 ac (97,197 ha) of active Rocke 2012, p. 54). Another vaccine SWEPA on the historical range of prairie dog colonies on all sites under development is the sylvatic Gunnison’s and black-tailed prairie combined (USFWS 2019, p. 45). plague vaccine (SPV), which we deliver dogs, which coincides with the via treated baits to wild prairie dogs and presumed historical range of black- Arizona-Specific Reintroduction Efforts may eventually protect ferrets from footed ferret in Arizona. The only ferrets to Date habitat reduction due to plague. SPV occurring within the proposed SWEPA The Arizona Game and Fish has been effective in a laboratory setting are within the AVEPA and adjacent Department (AGFD) and Service have (Rocke et al. 2010, entire; Abbott and areas and constitute a single population. carried out multiple ferret Rocke 2012, pp. 54–55), and a recent Therefore, the SWEPA, which will reintroductions and augmentations in broad-scale experiment to test efficacy encompass the AVEPA, would be northern Arizona. In 1996, we in the field found it prevented colony wholly geographically separate from reintroduced ferrets to the AVEPA in collapse where plague epizootics were other populations. Currently, scattered cooperation with the Hualapai Tribe documented (Rocke et al. 2017, p. 443). throughout the SWEPA there are and the Navajo Nation (61 FR 11320, In addition, we have managed both approximately 358,000 ac (144,880 ha) March 20, 1996). AVEPA was the fifth enzootic and epizootic plague by of prairie dog colonies (H. Hicks, AGFD, ferret reintroduction site in the U.S. and application of the insecticide pers. comm., January 26, 2018; Johnson the first reintroduction site in a deltamethrin, in powder form, into et al., 2010, p. iv) inhabiting about 0.875 Gunnison’s prairie dog population prairie dog burrows to control fleas percent of the area. Establishment of the (USFWS 2013a, Figure 1). In 2011, (Seery et al. 2003, p. 443; Seery 2006, SWEPA allows the Service to AGFD personnel observed ferrets entire, Matchett et al. 2010, pp. 31–33; reintroduce ferrets as a nonessential outside of the AVEPA, including on the USFWS 2013a, p. 101). However, the experimental population within the adjacent Double O Ranch, presumably application of insecticidal dust is costly SWEPA area that encompasses all dispersing from the AVEPA. In 2012, and labor-intensive, and there are potential ferret habitat within the the number of breeding adults in the concerns about the development of boundaries of the State of Arizona, AVEPA was 123, which exceeded the deltamethrin-resistance in fleas. including the Hopi Reservation, the recommended State guidelines for Therefore, we continue working to Hualapai Reservation, and the Navajo downlisting (USFWS 2013a, Table 2, improve the application and efficacy of Nation in its entirety, which includes Table 8). Since then, AGFD has the insecticide deltamethrin and are the Nation’s contiguous areas in New documented significantly fewer ferrets researching other pesticides, such as Mexico and Utah (see the figure entitled over several years (AGFD 2016, p. 3; fipronil, a systemic pulicide (flea- ‘‘Southwest Nonessential Experimental USFWS 2019, p. 45). We suspect that specific insecticide) that is incorporated Population Area (SWEPA) for the black- enzootic plague may have caused this into grain baits for prairie dog footed ferret’’ below). Land ownership decline, but we do not know the long- consumption (Poche´ et al. 2017, entire; within the SWEPA is Federal, private, term trend or whether it is cyclical. Eads et al. 2019, entire). State, and Tribal.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM 25JNP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33619

Potential Release Sites Ferret Allocations Reintroduction Site Management The Service selects ferret The Service allocates ferrets through Field managers use the Operations Manual and Arizona’s Management Plan reintroduction sites and conducts an annual process (see ‘‘Captive to manage reintroduction sites on non- reintroductions based on the Black- Breeding’’ above). To qualify for the Tribal lands. Field managers use the annual application and ranking process, Footed Ferret Field Operations Manual Operations Manual and any appropriate AGFD, Tribes, and/or other land (Operations Manual) (USFWS 2016, Tribal ferret management plan and other entire), and other site-specific plans and managers develop annual site-specific site-specific plans and procedures for procedures. We propose all suitable reintroduction plans and submit them to reintroductions on Tribal lands. The habitat, meeting the minimum acreage the Service by mid-March for field manager conducting the requirements to support a population of consideration. The site manager of the reintroduction develops a site-specific ferrets within the SWEPA, as possible proposed reintroduction site may be management plan in conjunction with experimental population reintroduction required to implement plague the landowner or manager and the locations as we currently lack management at the site (e.g., applying Service. For most Federal, State, and ® information about the distribution of Delta Dust [deltamethrin]), prior to and private land sites, the field manager habitat, to appropriately identify all after ferret reintroduction. would be AGFD, and on Tribal lands, prospective reintroduction sites. Some Typically, the Service only considers the field manager would be the SWEPA areas may become suitable in ferret allocations to proposed appropriate Tribal wildlife authority. the future with appropriate reintroduction sites that contain enough The Service is an active cooperator in management, and ferrets may also prairie dog-occupied habitat to support the management of all sites. All disperse from successful reintroduction at least 30 breeding adult ferrets. For involved parties follow all applicable sites as observed previously with the Gunnison’s prairie dogs this typically laws regulating the protection of ferrets AVEPA 10(j). By including all suitable equates to 7,415 acres (3,000 ha), and for (see ‘‘Management Restrictions, Protective Measures, and Other Special habitat within the SWEPA, where ferrets black-tailed prairie dogs, typically 4,450 Management’’ below). AGFD’s may be reintroduced or disperse as acres (1,800 ha); however, these Management Plan (AGFD 2016) outlines potential reintroduction sites, this amounts vary depending on site procedures for prairie dog and ferret experimental population designation conditions, such as the density of prairie dogs (USFWS 2019, p. 10). In population monitoring; health and will extend regulatory flexibility to any disease monitoring and management; adjacent non-participating landowners addition, AGFD requires a minimum of 5,540 acres of Gunnison’s prairie dog- prairie dog translocation; seasonal to alleviate potential concerns. hunting closures; and supplemental occupied habitat for 3 years to consider feeding; captive-bred ferret releases and Currently, the Service anticipates it a ferret reintroduction site on AGFD captive breeding; and predator reintroducing ferrets only into a small lands (AGFD 2016, p. 15). For more management. It also includes protocols portion of the SWEPA that meets information about allocations, see for ferret monitoring, capture, and criteria for reintroductions. Six ‘‘Possible Adverse Effects on Wild and handling (AGFD 2016, Appendices G reintroduction areas have been Captive-Breeding Populations’’ below. identified by AGFD in their and H). Management Plan for the Black-footed Release Procedures How will the experimental population Ferret in Arizona (Management Plan) The Service and ferret reintroduction (SWEPA) further the conservation of (AGFD 2016) based on prairie dog managers follow the Operations Manual, the species? population estimates. Within the allowing for adjustments to the As cited above, under 50 CFR Management Plan, the areas are techniques according to Service- 17.81(b), before authorizing the release organized into Active Management approved management plans (e.g., as an experimental population, the Areas (MA), Suitable MAs, and AGFD 2016). All captive-reared ferrets Service must find by regulation that Potential MAs. The AGFD currently receive adequate preconditioning in such release will further the manages Active MAs for ferrets. outdoor pens at the National Black- conservation of the species. We explain Suitable MAs have sustained minimum footed Ferret Conservation Center, or our rationale for making our finding prairie dog-occupied acreage for 3 years other Service-approved facility, prior to below. and are ready to receive ferrets to release. Ferrets exposed to establish new populations (see ‘‘Ferret Possible Adverse Effects on Wild and preconditioning exhibit higher post- Captive-Breeding Populations Allocations’’ below). Potential MAs do release survival rates than non- not meet the minimum prairie dog- preconditioned ferrets (Biggins et al. Wild Populations occupied acreage and need management 1998, pp. 651–652; Vargas et al. 1998, p. We know of no naturally occurring to improve prairie dog populations (e.g., 77). We vaccinate ferrets for canine wild populations of black-footed ferrets translocations or plague control) (AGFD distemper and plague, and implant throughout the historical range of the 2106, pp. 8–10). Two sites within the passive integrated transponder (PIT) species (see ‘‘Historical Range’’ above). SWEPA currently are Active MAs: (1) tags for later identification, prior to The Service considers the ferret AVEPA/Double O Ranch and (2) Espee release. The Service makes extirpated in the wild except for Ranch, respectively. There are four arrangements with reintroduction site reintroduced populations (i.e., all ferrets Potential MAs. These areas are located managers for a release date from August in the wild are the result of in: (1) Kaibab National Forest, Williams/ to November, which is when young-of- reintroductions). We consider as surplus Tusayan Ranger Districts; (2) CO Bar the-year ferrets disperse (USFWS 2016, all ferrets used to establish populations Ranch; (3) Petrified Forest National p. 16). Typically, the Service transports at reintroduction sites that come from Park; and (4) Lyman Lake (see the ferrets to the site and releases them the captive-bred population or, ‘‘Identifying the Location and directly into suitable habitat without occasionally, from self-sustaining Boundaries of the SWEPA’’ below for protection from predators, known as a reintroduced populations. If animals are more information on these sites). ‘‘hard release.’’ translocated from other reintroduction

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM 25JNP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 33620 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules

sites, only wild-born kits from self- reintroduction efforts are likely to be Protection Bulletins that ban the use of sustaining reintroduced populations are successful. Ferrets depend on prairie Rozol® in ferret recovery sites. These considered for translocation into new or dog populations for food, shelter, and bulletins are an extension of the non-self-sustaining reintroduction sites reproduction. Historical ferret declines pesticide label, and it is a violation of (Lockhart, pers. comm., 2000–2007, as resulted from: (1) Widespread prairie Federal and State law to use a pesticide cited in USFWS 2013a, p. 26, S. Larson, dog poisoning; (2) adverse effects of in a manner inconsistent with the label. USFWS, pers. comm. April 22, 2008). plague on prairie dogs and ferrets; and In Arizona, poisoning may occur on (3) major conversion of habitat (see State, Federal, and private lands Captive-Breeding Population ‘‘Threats/Causes of Decline’’ above). without a specific State permit. In order to understand the effects of However, products registered for prairie the proposed SWEPA on the captive Widespread Poisoning of Prairie Dogs dog control by the EPA require a population of ferrets, it is important to Poisoning of prairie dogs no longer pesticide applicators license, which an understand how the Service manages occurs to the extent and intensity that applicator can obtain only through a the black-footed ferret captive-breeding it did historically; the current use of formal process with the Arizona program (see ‘‘Captive Breeding’’ above). poison to control prairie dogs occurs in Department of Agriculture (Underwood In Arizona, we initially released 40 limited and selective ways. Although 2007, pp. 23–24). Federal agencies and ferrets at AVEPA in 1996, 45 at Espee land-use and ownership patterns have the State closely regulate and manage Ranch in 2007 and six at Double O not changed significantly since past poisoning, and the extent of poisoning Ranch in 2016. As of 2019 we have poisoning campaigns, poisoning became has been extremely limited in area released 466 ferrets at AVEPA, 99 at less common in the 1970s because compared to historical poisoning, Espee, and 41 at Double O (AGFD 2016, prairie dog populations had been usually in developed areas and confined p. 5; J. Cordova, AGFD, pers. comm., reduced by over 90 percent and use of to specific needs. For example, from October 10, 2019). rodenticides became more closely 2013 through 2018, Animal and Plant We would use ferrets from the regulated than it was historically Health Inspection Service’s (APHIS) captive-bred population or a self- (USFWS 2013a, pp. 49–51). State and Wildlife Services treated prairie dogs sustaining wild population to establish Federal agencies have limited with zinc phosphide at three private a population at reintroduction sites in involvement in prairie dog control properties totaling 56 acres of colonies, the proposed SWEPA. In conformance unless they pose a threat to human for livestock and property protection on with the Service’s allocation process, we safety or health (e.g., plague pasture and farmland near rural anticipate the release of 20 to 30 transmission in an urban setting). communities (C. Carrillo, pers. comm. captive-raised or wild-translocated Attitudes about control have also shifted APHIS, October, 23, 2019). None of ferrets at any reintroduction site during to nonlethal methods. Translocation as these treatments was in or near current the first year of the project. Subsequent a method of prairie dog control is or proposed reintroduction areas. Given annual supplemental releases are becoming more common, while lethal the limited use of prairie dog poisons in expected until the population becomes control seems to be declining (Seglund Arizona and the number of landowners self-sustaining. et al. 2006, p. 49). In addition, and managers willing to manage prairie We anticipate no adverse effects on landowners and managers have dogs for ferrets, poisoning should not existing populations of ferrets, whether expressed interest in managing prairie affect the establishment or success of captive or wild, due to the removal of dogs, specifically for ferret reintroduced populations of ferrets. individuals from those populations for reintroductions, as evidenced by the Adverse Effects of Plague the purpose of reintroducing and number of current and potential establishing new populations in the reintroduction sites (see ‘‘Identified As previously noted, plague can proposed SWEPA. We base this Reintroduction Sites’’ below). adversely affect ferrets directly via conclusion on the purpose for and the Landowners and managers have used infection and subsequent mortality, and management of the captive-bred zinc phosphide as a registered indirectly by decimating prairie dogs, population (see ‘‘Captive Breeding’’ rodenticide for prairie dog control since the ferret’s prey. Management of plague above), the management of other sites to the 1940s (Erickson and Urban 2004, p. has improved, including dusting prairie achieve and maintain self-sustaining 12). In the early 2000s, manufacturers dog burrows with insecticide to control status for recovery purposes, and the started promoting use of the fleas and vaccinating ferrets, and the allocation process, which prioritizes the anticoagulant rodenticides development of vaccines to prevent chlorophacinone (Rozol®) and large-scale plague outbreaks in prairie limited number of ferrets available for ® reintroduction. diphacinone (Kaput ). These chemicals dogs is underway. In Colorado, ferret pose a much greater risk than zinc survival significantly improved when Likelihood of Population Establishment phosphide of secondary poisoning to researchers applied the insecticide and Survival nontarget wildlife that prey upon prairie deltamethrin as a prophylactic In this section we address the dogs, such as ferrets (Erickson and treatment to control fleas in prairie dog likelihood that populations introduced Urban 2004, p. 85). In 2009, the U.S. burrows (Seery et al. 2003, p. 443; Seery into the proposed SWEPA will become Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2006, entire). Researchers are currently ® established and survive in the authorized use of Rozol throughout investigating the potential of foreseeable future. much of black-tailed prairie dog range vaccinating wild prairie dogs for plague via a Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and via oral bait. This has the potential to Addressing Causes of Extirpation Rodenticide Act Section 3 registration. limit plague cycles more effectively and Within the Experimental Population EPA labeled Rozol® and Kaput-D® only economically than direct vaccination of Area for control of black-tailed prairie dogs, ferrets, though we may need to employ Investigating the causes for the not Gunnison’s, and the labels do not both in some cases. Based on our extirpation of black-footed ferrets is allow use in Arizona or the taking of experiences at various reintroduction necessary to understand whether we are ‘‘endangered species.’’ The EPA has also sites, we think we can manage the threat sufficiently addressing threats to the established additional restrictions from plague by monitoring, dusting, species in the proposed SWEPA so that through the Endangered Species vaccinating, and maintaining more,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM 25JNP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33621

widely spaced reintroduction sites initiated 30 ferret reintroduction effort to deploy SPV in the field as well (USFWS 2013a, p. 78). projects, including 2 in Arizona as our understanding of local plague In Arizona, plague management (USFWS 2019, Table 3). While, these conditions. Given the Service’s 30 years includes best management practices and projects have had varying degrees of of experience with reintroducing ferrets adaptive management to respond to success, they have all contributed to our across their historical range and our 25 changing conditions and incorporating understanding of the species’ needs and years in Arizona, development and new techniques as we develop them effective management toward refinement of management and (AGFD 2016, p. 19, appendices E and F). establishing reintroduced populations. reintroduction techniques, and ongoing In addition, AGFD, the Service, and the The Service and our partners adaptive management, we are likely to U.S. Geological Survey recently began continually apply adaptive management be successful in establishing and planning an intensive plague study for principles through monitoring and managing new populations of ferrets in the AVEPA to determine whether research to ensure that the best available the SWEPA. plague is present at an enzootic level scientific information is used to develop Habitat Suitability that current plague surveillance is not new tools (e.g., SPV), update strategies detecting (Rachel Williams, USFWS, and protocols, and identify new The likelihood of establishing ferret pers. comm., October 16, 2019). Plague reintroduction sites, to progress towards populations largely depends on will be an ongoing challenge to ferret recovery (AGFD 2016, p. 19). adequate habitat. Although there was a recovery, but with current management Since reintroductions began, we have significant decline of prairie dog tools, promising new treatments, and developed and refined techniques in occupied habitat on non-Tribal lands in the benefit of being able to establish several areas. These include Arizona historically, there has been a widely spaced populations across the management and oversight of the 10-fold increase of occupied habitat SWEPA, we will be able to manage the captive-breeding program, veterinary since 1961 (Seglund 2006, p. 16). ferret at a landscape level. care and animal husbandry (USFWS Outside of Navajo and Hopi land, 2016, entire), advances in the Arizona currently has more than Conversion of Habitat preconditioning program (Biggins et al. 108,000 ac (43,707 ha) of occupied Currently, rangewide conversion of 1998, entire; USFWS 2016, pp. 34–37), prairie dog habitat (H. Hicks, AGFD, prairie dog habitat is not significant release techniques, and disease and pers. comm., January 26, 2018), a relative to historical levels, although it plague management, including ferret portion of which is located on lands of may affect some prairie dog populations vaccination programs at individual the Hualapai Tribe. Lands of the Navajo locally (USFWS 2013a, pp. 24–25). We reintroduction sites. With respect to Nation and the Hopi Tribe collectively do not expect agricultural land disease management, vector control (i.e., may contain about 250,000 ac (101,174 conversion and urbanization to have a dusting and/or fipronil grain baits) and ha) of active prairie dog colonies measurable effect on the current SPV use in concert with vigilant plague (Johnson et al., 2010, p. iv). With condition of ferrets at the species level epizootic monitoring may be the most purposeful management, this amount (USFWS 2019, p. 56). In Arizona, effective way to reduce the range-wide and distribution of prairie dog occupied agricultural development currently effects of plague (Abbott et al. 2012, pp. habitat would be able to support covers about 700,000 to 1.3 million ac 54–55; Tripp et al. 2017, entire). multiple ferret reintroduction sites. (283,000 to 526,000 ha) or about one to However, plague remains an ongoing In addition to the statewide amount of two percent of the landscape (U of A issue (Scott et al. 2010, entire; Rohlf et habitat, individual reintroduction sites Cooperative Extension 2010; American al. 2014, entire), and we need need to be of sufficient size to support Farmland Trust 2020) predominantly in considerable management inputs to reintroduced ferrets. Two sites in central and southern Arizona, outside maintain both the captive and Arizona currently meet or have met the the range of the Gunnison’s prairie dog. reintroduced populations (USFWS State Gunnison’s prairie dog-occupied Within the range of Gunnison’s prairie 2019, p. 65). acreage criterion (5,540 acres) to dog in Arizona, agricultural In Arizona specifically, we adapted reintroduce ferrets, the AVEPA/Double development affects 31,449 ac (12,727 our management and refined techniques O Ranch and Espee Allotment (AGFD ha), and urban development affects to enhance reintroduction efforts. For 2016, p. 6). AGFD classifies both as 78,673 ac (31,838 ha), both of which, example, when ferrets did not appear to Active MAs, where the State can combined, is less than one percent of be breeding at Aubrey Valley after 5 release, manage, and monitor ferrets the range of the Gunnison’s prairie dog years of releases, AGFD modified their (AGFD 2016, p. 8). In 2018, the AVEPA/ (Seglund 2006, p. 15). There are about release strategies to incorporate pen Double O Ranch contained about 65,500 26 million acres of agricultural activity breeding and springtime releases and ac (26,500 ha) of active prairie dog in Arizona in the form of pastures and documented wild-born kits the colonies and 264,000 ac (106,850 ha) of rangeland for livestock grazing (USDA following year (AGFD 2016, p. 5). The potential acreage (USFWS 2019, Table 2019; U of A 2010). These non- Service also continually adapts and 3). This is enough acreage for Arizona cultivated agricultural lands may refines our plague monitoring and to meet the habitat portion of the State represent habitat for the prairie dog and management. At Espee, for example, we guidelines for delisting. However, as ferret in the State (Ernst et al. 2006, p. learned plague was present only after explained below, we need multiple sites 91). Routine livestock grazing and we released ferrets despite AGFD’s use to guard against stochastic or ranching activities are largely of pre-release plague surveillance and catastrophic events at any given site. In compatible with maintaining occupied management protocols. Subsequently, addition to the two Active MAs, the prairie dog habitat capable of supporting AGFD incorporated the latest disease AGFD has identified four Potential ferrets (USFWS 2013a, p. 20). monitoring protocols and adaptive MAs. Arizona has a plan to provide management into its Management Plan appropriate management for the ferret Reintroduction Expertise (AGFD 2016, p. 19, appendices E and F). and its habitat (AGFD 2016, entire). In The Service and its partners have In addition, at Espee Ranch, AGFD is addition, Arizona has a management considerable experience establishing participating in trials of the plan to conserve and maintain viable reintroduced black-footed ferret experimental SPV, the results of which prairie dog populations and the populations. Since 1991, we have will contribute to both the national ecosystems they inhabit (Underwood

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM 25JNP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 33622 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules

2007, entire). The acreage area criteria, Date’’ above). Delisting criteria for the the recommended downlisting criteria along with implementation of species include 30 populations in 9 of for Arizona and we considered it self- management plans for viable prairie dog 12 States within the species’ historical sustaining (USFWS 2013a, pp. 5, 22, populations and ferrets and their range and distributed among the ranges 77). However, the population declined habitats, will ensure that any sites of 3 prairie dog species (USFWS 2013a, significantly, for which we suspect that selected for reintroduction have p. 6). To implement this recovery plague may be a cause. The proposed sufficient quantity and quality of habitat strategy and achieve recovery criteria, SWEPA will include all potential ferret to support establishment of ferret additional successful reintroductions of habitat in Arizona and on participating populations. ferrets are necessary (USFWS 2013a, p. Tribal lands, including Hualapai Tribal 7), which establishment of the proposed lands, a portion of Hopi Tribal lands, Increased Prey Stability SWEPA will facilitate. and Navajo Nation lands in Arizona, Prairie dog populations in Arizona Participation by numerous partners New Mexico, and Utah (see ‘‘Proposed have increased from historical lows in across the ferret’s former range is critical Experimental Population’’ above). the 1960’s, and the State is managing to achieve the ferret’s delisting criteria Establishing additional populations them for long-term viability. The of multiple spatially dispersed within the proposed SWEPA will potential for continued expansion of populations and maximize species reduce the vulnerability of extirpation prairie dogs across Arizona through redundancy, representation, and of the species. Additionally, AGFD’s prairie dog conservation and disease resiliency. To achieve this strategy, for proposed widely spaced reintroduction management, coupled with past success each State in the historical range of the sites, and the potential for other of ferret reintroductions in Arizona and species, the Recovery Plan suggests reintroduction sites (e.g., on the Navajo across the species’ range, suggests that recovery guidelines for the number of Nation) will reduce the effects of ferret-occupied areas can expand ferrets and prairie dog habitat acreages localized or stochastic events on overall through additional reintroductions and (proportional to the historical amount of recovery efforts, by reducing the dispersal. Reintroduction of ferrets in prairie dog habitat) to contribute to likelihood that all individuals or all the larger proposed SWEPA would meeting recovery criteria (USFWS populations would be affected by the allow us to meet Arizona’s ferret 2013a, p. 69). We intend the recovery same event. Reintroducing viable ferret recovery goals and contribute to ferret guidelines by State to improve risk populations on the Navajo Nation in the recovery across their range. management and ensure equity of New Mexico and Utah portions of the Summary recovery responsibilities across State Navajo Nation would not only aid in boundaries (USFWS 2013a, Table 8). recovery of the species but also in The Service and our partners have Arizona has led ferret recovery efforts, meeting the recovery guidelines for considerable experience reintroducing providing one of the early ferret those States. ferrets range-wide and in Arizona. We reintroduction sites and the first in a The significant threat of plague to have criteria for selecting suitable Gunnison’s prairie dog population. ferret populations emphasizes the need reintroduction sites and developed Tribes have also played an important for several spatially dispersed protocols and plans to manage those role in ferret recovery in several areas of reintroduction sites across the widest sites. In Arizona, we have the quantity, the species’ historical range by possible distribution of the species’ quality, and distribution of habitat to providing land for about 24 percent of historical range (USFWS 2013a, p. 70), support reintroductions. Additionally, the reintroduction sites rangewide supporting the value of a statewide the causes of extirpation of ferrets in (USFWS 2013a, p. 44; USFWS 2019, approach to reintroductions. Arizona have been or are being Table 3). Establishing the proposed SWEPA will addressed; the wide-spread poisoning of The recovery plan’s State guidelines facilitate ferret reintroduction across a prairie dogs is no longer occurring, the for Arizona to contribute to ferret large geographic area and will likely Service and partners continue to downlisting and delisting criteria are 74 result in establishment of several develop plague management techniques, free-ranging breeding adult ferrets on populations that will persist over time, and the conversion of habitat into 17,000 ac (6,880 ha) of Gunnison’s thus contributing to recovery of the cropland is not occurring at a significant prairie dog-occupied habitat, and 148 species. scale. Lastly, the demonstrated success breeding adults on 34,000 ac (13,760 of existing reintroduced ferret ha). The guidelines for New Mexico and Actions and Activities That May Affect populations in Arizona indicate that Utah are 220 and 25 breeding adult the Introduced Population additional reintroduction efforts in the ferrets for downlisting, respectively, and Classes of Federal, State, Tribal, and SWEPA will be successful in 440 and 50 breeding adults for delisting private actions and activities that may establishing and sustaining additional (USFWS 2013a, Table 8). Delisting currently affect black-footed ferret black-footed ferret populations, required criteria for the entire range include five viability, directly or indirectly, across for species recovery. ferret populations in colonies of both its range are urbanization, energy Gunnison’s and white-tailed prairie development, agricultural land Effects of the SWEPA on Recovery dogs (USFWS 2013a, p. 6). About 27 conversion, range management, and Efforts for the Species percent of the Gunnison’s prairie dog recreational shooting and poisoning of The Service’s recovery strategy for the range occurs in Arizona (Seglund et al. prairie dogs (USFWS 2019, p. 13). black-footed ferret requires 2006, p. 70), so establishing additional Actions and activities that affect prairie establishment of numerous, spatially ferret populations in Gunnison’s prairie dogs may also indirectly affect ferrets disperse populations of ferrets within dog habitat within the SWEPA would given the ferret’s dependency on prairie the range of all three prairie dog species contribute to meeting this criterion. dogs as a food source and their burrows to reduce the risk of stochastic events Currently, there is only one for shelter. affecting multiple populations (e.g., population of ferrets in Arizona. As of In Arizona, land ownership within plague), increase management options, 2013, we considered the AVEPA one of the range of Gunnison’s prairie dog is and maintain genetic diversity (USFWS the four most successful reintroduced approximately as follows: Tribal–49.05 2013a, Table 7) (see ‘‘Recovery, Captive populations throughout the species’ percent; private–21.62 percent; Federal– Breeding and Reintroduction Efforts to range; it had a population that exceeded 16.80 percent; State–12.53 percent; city/

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM 25JNP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33623

county–0.01 percent (Seglund 2006, on ferret reintroduction sites (Reeve and in ferret road kills and increase human Table 3). Although urbanization may Vosburgh 2006, entire). Recreational access for prairie dog shooting (Gordon adversely affect local prairie dog shooting reduces the number of prairie et al. 2003, p. 12). However, we have no colonies, effects across the range of the dogs in a colony, thereby decreasing information to suggest that incidental species in Arizona are not significant prairie dog density (Knowles 1988, p. fatalities have a significant effect on due to the small amount of urban land, 54), occupied acreage (Knowles and ferret population viability. and the distance of urban areas from Vosburgh 2001, p. 12), and reproduction When the Service originally ferret MAs. Similarly, the amount of oil (Stockrahm and Seabloom 1979, entire). established AVEPA, we determined and gas and other types of mineral Recreational shooting also causes direct existing and foreseeable land use exploration and extraction development mortality to prairie dog-associated practices within the AVEPA to be covers less than one percent of the species such as ferrets (Knowles and compatible with sustaining ferret prairie dog range in Arizona Vosburgh 2001, p. 14; Reese and viability (61 FR 11320, March 20, 1996). (Underwood 2007, p. 10), and this Vosburgh 2006, pp. 120–121). Although development is not associated with incidental take of ferrets by prairie dog These practices include: Grazing and ferret MAs. Solar and wind energy shooters is not documented to date, related activities (including prairie dog development has expanded in recent direct ferret mortality due to accidental control), big game hunting, prairie dog years but also comprises a very small shooting is possible. Lastly, recreational shooting, and the trapping of furbearers part of the landscape. In Arizona, all shooting of prairie dogs also contributes and predators. Other land uses include solar power facilities are located in the to the environmental issue of lead transportation and rights-of-way (e.g., southern and far western part of the accumulation in wildlife food chains for utilities). Our success reintroducing State, outside the range of Gunnison’s (Knowles and Vosburgh 2001, p. 15; ferrets in the AVEPA over 25 years prairie dog (U.S. Energy Information Pauli and Buskirk 2007, entire). Killing supports that finding. Similarly, in the Administration 2020). To date, there large numbers of animals with lead Service’s establishment of the statewide have been a number of wind projects in bullets and not removing carcasses from nonessential experimental population of the range of Gunnison’s prairie dog, but the field may present potentially ferrets in Wyoming, we found that land none are currently constructed within dangerous amounts of lead to use activities currently occurring across ferret MAs, and the existing scavengers and predators of prairie that State, primarily livestock grazing infrastructure of wind projects occupies dogs, such as ferrets. Luckily, we have and associated ranch management less than 0.005 percent of the ferret’s not documented ferret ingestion of lead practices, recreation, residential potential range (USFWS 2019, p. 40). As to date (USFWS 2013a, p. 28). To development, and mineral and energy discussed above, agricultural address these recreational shooting development, are compatible with ferret development affects less than one third conservation issues, AGFD implements recovery and that there is no of one percent of the range of prairie dog shooting closures on public information to suggest that similar Gunnison’s prairie dog (Seglund 2006, lands from April 1 to June 30 to reduce future activities would be incompatible p. 16). We do not expect agricultural potential effects on prairie dog with ferret recovery (80 FR 66821, land conversion to have a measurable reproduction (USFWS 2019, p. 29). In October 30, 2015). Based on our effect on the future condition of the addition, in the event of prairie dog previous success with other ferret in Arizona based on a 20-year population declines in an active ferret experimental populations in areas analysis (USFWS 2019, p. 56). MA for any reason, the AGFD influenced by similar land use activities There are about 26 million acres of Commission may close prairie dog and actions, including the AVEPA rangeland, used predominantly for hunting until the population recovers within the proposed SWEPA, we grazing, in Arizona across Tribal, (AGFD 2016, p. 13). conclude that the effects of Federal, private, Federal, and State land (USDA, Poisoning of prairie dogs has the State, and private actions and activities 2019), and these lands represent potential to occur within both will not pose a substantial threat to potential habitat for both the prairie dog Gunnison’s and black-tailed prairie dog ferret establishment and persistence and ferret (Ernst et al. 2006, p. 91). habitat and can affect ferrets through within the SWEPA and that SWEPA Overgrazing in arid areas can alter loss of prey, and inadvertent secondary establishment will benefit the ecosystem structure, which can affect poisoning for some poisons. In recent conservation of black-footed ferrets. prairie dogs by decreasing availability of years, the extent of prairie dog forage and causing an increase in woody poisoning has been closely regulated, Experimental Population Regulation shrubs. Conversely, well-managed limited in area, and confined to specific Requirements grazing can benefit prairie dog and other needs compared to historical poisoning. Our regulations at 50 CFR 17.81(c) rodent populations by creating increases From 2013 through 2018 in Arizona, include a list of what we should provide in shortgrass species (Norris 1950, p. 4; APHIS treated prairie dogs with zinc in regulations designating experimental Smith 1958, p. 21; Koford 1958, pp. 66– phosphide at three private properties, populations under section 10(j) of the 67). Routine livestock grazing and totaling 56 acres of colonies, for ESA. We explain what our proposed ranching activities are largely livestock and property protection on regulations include and provide our compatible with maintaining occupied pasture and farmland near rural rationale for those regulations below. prairie dog habitat capable of supporting communities (C. Carrillo, pers. comm. ferrets (USFWS 2013a, p. 20). APHIS, October 23, 2019). None of these Means To Identify the Experimental Depending on intensity, recreational treatments were in or near current or Population shooting of prairie dogs can negatively proposed ferret reintroduction areas. affect local prairie dog populations Certain activities associated with all Our regulations require that we through direct mortality of individuals of the aforementioned activities (prairie provide appropriate means to identify (Vosburgh and Irby 1998, entire; Keffer dog recreational shooting and the experimental population, which et al. 2001, entire; Knowles 2002, pp. poisoning) have the potential to result may include geographic locations, 14–15), with the resulting decrease in in incidental ferret fatality. For example, number of individuals to be released, prey base negatively affecting ferrets, use and establishment of roads within anticipated movements, and other and it is likely this activity could occur prairie dog and ferret habitat may result information or criteria.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM 25JNP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 33624 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules

Identifying the Location and Boundaries ferrets for 5 years before documenting occupied acreage exists, including on of the SWEPA wild reproduction, which is necessary Tribal lands. If the Navajo Nation were The 40,905,350-ac SWEPA is located for a site to become self-sustaining. We to request to reintroduce ferrets on their in the three States of Arizona, New continued releasing ferrets until the lands, potential reintroduction sites Mexico, and Utah (see ‘‘Proposed population appeared to be self- could include the New Mexico or Utah Experimental Population’’ above), and sustaining, but then began to release portions of the Navajo Nation. Two sites in Arizona currently meet we delineate the boundaries below in ferrets again after 4 years when the or have met the minimum Gunnison’s the figure titled ‘‘Southwest population appeared to be faltering. In total, over a span of 24 years starting in prairie dog-occupied acreage Nonessential Experimental Population 1996, the Service released 466 ferrets in requirement for a population of ferrets Area (SWEPA) for the black-footed the AVEPA. In addition, we released 99 (AVEPA/Double O Ranch and Espee ferret.’’ These boundaries are based on ferrets at Espee in a span of 3 years Ranch). Arizona’s Federal and State various grasslands and parts of biotic (2007 2009), and 41 at the Double O public lands and Tribal and private communities in which grasslands are Ranch over 4 years starting in 2016. The lands currently support a large amount interspersed, with which prairie dogs Service anticipates initially releasing 20 of grasslands with varying sizes of are associated, including Plains and to 30 ferrets at new reintroduction sites Gunnison’s prairie dog colonies (AGFD Great Basin Grassland, Great Basin in the SWEPA, with the number of 2016, Figure 1). Within the ferret’s Conifer Woodland, Great Basin ferrets released subsequently similar to historical range in Arizona, the AGFD Desertscrub, and Petrane Montane other sites in Arizona. and Service have identified four Conifer Forest biotic communities additional potential reintroduction sites (AGFD 2016, pp. 8–10) (Brown et al. Actual or Anticipated Movements or Potential MAs, introduced in the 1979, entire) and represent a 184 fold Understanding ferret movement prior ‘‘Proposed Experimental increase in area from the AVEPA patterns and distances will ensure Population’’ section and discussed (USFWS 2021, p. 7 Figure 2). Within the accurate identification of ferrets further below. SWEPA are the sovereign Indian lands associated with the SWEPA. of the Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, and Researchers have documented newly Existing Reintroduction Sites (Active the Navajo Nation. State political released captive-born ferrets dispersing MAs) Within the SWEPA subdivisions include portions of up to 30 miles (49 km) (Biggins et al. (1) AVEPA/Double O Ranch—The Apache, Cochise, Coconino, Gila, 1999, p. 125), and wild-born ferrets AVEPA encompasses 221,894 ac (89,800 Graham, Mohave, Navajo, Pima, Pinal, more than 12 miles (20 km) (USFWS ha) of private, Tribal, State, and Bureau Santa Cruz, and Yavapai Counties of 2019, p. 7). AGFD first documented of Land Management (BLM) managed Arizona; Cibola, McKinley, Rio Arriba, ferrets outside the AVEPA in 2011, 15 lands and is located about 5 miles Sandoval, and San Juan Counties of years after initial releases. In the years northwest of Seligman in Coconino, New Mexico; and San Juan County, between the 2011 sightings and 2016, Yavapai, and Mohave Counties. The Utah. when the Service released ferrets onto adjacent Double O Ranch encompasses The proposed SWEPA consists of two the Double O Ranch, there were about 236,792 ac (95,828 ha) of private, State, separate areas: (1) Northeast and 10 sightings outside of the AVEPA, with and Forest Service (FS) managed lands northcentral Arizona, the southeast the farthest being about 15 miles outside south of the AVEPA. Together, these corner of Utah, and northwest New the AVEPA. These sightings were by sites contain 264,016 ac (106,846 ha) of Mexico on the Navajo Nation, and (2) AGFD personnel during surveys of grasslands. AGFD mapped an average of southeastern Arizona. selected areas and incidentally by area 52,455 ac (21,228 ha) of Gunnison’s The proposed SWEPA will encompass residents. While dispersal of ferrets will prairie dog colonies in the AVEPA and replace the AVEPA. In addition, depend on variables such as between 2007 and 2016 (AGFD 2016, p. two areas enrolled in the programmatic competition within a given population 8) (H. Hicks, AGFD, pers. comm., SHA under certificates of inclusion, the and the availability of adjacent habitat, January 26, 2018). In 2014 and 2016, Espee Allotment and Double O Ranch, we would expect a pattern of ferret respectively, Gunnison’s prairie dogs would be within the SWEPA. Although dispersal from new reintroduction sites occupied 7,074 and 6,313 known ac this proposed experimental population in the SWEPA to be similar to those (2,863 and 2,555 ha) on Double O Ranch designation can overlay SHAs, we observed in the AVEPA. Outside of the (AGFD 2016, p. 7; H. Hicks, AGFD, pers. contacted enrollees to assess interest in proposed SWEPA, the closest current comm., January 26, 2018). Plague is replacing their certificates of inclusion reintroduced population of ferrets is likely present in the AVEPA. with this 10(j) rule. If we finalize this Coyote Basin, Utah, which is about 200 (2) Espee Ranch—The Espee revised experimental population mi (320 km) away, substantially greater Allotment encompasses 145,644 ac designation, we propose phasing out the than documented ferret dispersal (58,941 ha) of private and State lands SHA certificates of inclusion following distances. Therefore, we would consider about 17 miles northeast of Seligman, in finalization of the rule to allow for a any black-footed ferret found in the wild Coconino County, Arizona. There are transition for interested landowners. As within the boundaries of the SWEPA 139,255 ac (56,356 ha) of grasslands, of a result, the Service proposes to conduct part of the nonessential experimental which Gunnison’s prairie dogs occupied all future reintroductions of ferrets population. 3,228 known ac (1,306 ha) in 2014 within the SWEPA under the proposed (AGFD 2016, pp. 8 9). Plague is present Identified Reintroduction Sites experimental population designation on Espee Ranch and is the suspected regulation. In the area of the proposed SWEPA reason for the lack of ferret observations under Arizona State jurisdiction, the despite multiple releases. Number of Anticipated Ferret Releases current goal is to reintroduce ferrets into The number of ferrets we will release suitable habitat within three to five Future Potential Reintroduction Sites at a given reintroduction site depends AGFD designated MAs (AGFD 2016, p. (Potential MAs) Within the SWEPA on multiple variables and can vary 6). We may consider additional The remaining four areas described significantly between sites. In the locations if landowners are willing to below do not currently meet the AVEPA, for example, AGFD released host ferrets where suitable prairie dog minimum necessary Gunnison’s prairie

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM 25JNP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33625

dog-occupied acreage to support ferrets. Navajo Nation also includes parts of the survival of the species in the wild’’ (50 We would need active management, States of New Mexico and Utah, within CFR 17.80(b)). The Service defines such as translocations of prairie dogs, which the Navajo Nation has sovereign ‘‘survival’’ as the condition in which a dusting for plague, or administration of authority to manage wildlife. species continues to exist in the future a plague vaccine (e.g., SPV), along with We would need surveys of prairie dog while retaining the potential for annual monitoring of prairie dog populations on Tribal lands, in addition recovery (USFWS and NMFS 1998). populations, to potentially meet the to other information such as incidence Inherent in the definition of ‘‘essential’’ minimum acreage of occupied prairie of plague, prior to considering these is the effect the potential loss of the dog habitat (AGFD 2016, p. 9). lands for ferret reintroduction. The experimental population would have on (1) Kaibab National Forest, Williams/ Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe, in the species (49 FR 33893, August 27, Tusayan Ranger Districts—These areas collaboration with Natural Heritage New 1984). cover over 613,000 ac (248,078 ha) of Mexico, conducted a remote survey of The ESA states that, prior to any National Forest System (NFS), military, Gunnison’s prairie dogs on the lands of release ‘‘the Secretary must find by private, and State managed lands both Tribes in 2010. This technique, regulation that such release will further surrounding the city of Williams in using standard photo-interpretive the conservation of the species’’ (49 FR Coconino and Yavapai Counties. There techniques to identify disturbance in 33893, August 27, 1984). were 96,954 ac (39,237 ha) of grasslands suitable habitat on digital orthophoto Reintroductions are, by their nature, with 4,984 ac (2,017 ha) of known quarter quads, estimated the area of experiments, the fate of which is Gunnison’s prairie dog-occupied area in active Gunnison’s prairie dog towns on uncertain. However, it is always our 2015 (AGFD 2016, p. 9). the Navajo Nation and Reservation of goal for reintroductions to be successful (2) CO Bar Ranch—This ranch the Hopi Tribe at 253,562 ac (102,615 and contribute to recovery. The encompasses 263,758 ac (106,741 ha) of ha) (Johnson et al. 2010, pp. iv, 18). As importance of reintroductions to private, State, BLM, and Tribal lands mentioned previously, we originally recovery does not necessarily mean and is located about 24 miles north of included some lands of the Hualapai these populations are ‘‘essential’’ under Flagstaff in Coconino County. There Tribe when we designated the AVEPA, section 10(j) of the ESA. In fact, were 184,815 ac (74,794 ha) of and the Tribe has worked cooperatively Congress’ expectation was that ‘‘in most grasslands with 870 ac (352 ha) of with AGFD on ferret recovery. The Hopi cases, experimental populations will not known Gunnison’s prairie dog-occupied Tribe, while expressing interest in ferret be essential’’ (H.R. Conference Report area in 2015 (AGFD 2016, p. 9). recovery activities on some of their No. 835 supra at 34; 49 FR 33888, (3) Petrified Forest National Park— lands (e.g., ranches and part of their August 27, 1984). The preamble to our This area encompasses 223,027 ac Reservation) requested excluding 1984 publication of implementing (90,258 ha) of NPS, State, Tribal, BLM, District 6 of their Reservation, pending regulations reflect this understanding, and privately managed lands east of review of this proposal by members of stating that an essential population will Holbrook in Navajo and Apache the Hopi Villages within District 6. If be a special case and not the general Counties. There were 214,135 ac (86,659 the Hopi Tribe, in consultation with the rule (49 FR 33888, August 27, 1984). ha) of grasslands with 87 ac (35 ha) of Hopi Villages, decides to include In our final rule establishing the known Gunnison’s prairie dog-occupied District 6 within the proposed SWEPA, nonessential experimental population in area in 2015 (AGFD 2016, p. 10). then we will revise the final rule Aubrey Valley, the Service found the (4) Lyman Lake—This area accordingly. AVEPA to be ‘‘nonessential’’ because encompasses 316,958 ac (128,271 ha) of the captive-breeding population is both private, State, AGFD, BLM, and NFS Southeastern Arizona the secure source for all reintroductions, lands south of St. Johns in Apache Black-tailed prairie dog habitat exists and the primary repository of genetic County. There were 273,227 ac (110,573 in southeastern Arizona (Cockrum 1960, diversity for the species (61 FR 11320, ha) of grasslands with 2,045 ac (828 ha) p. 76). In 2008, the AGFD reintroduced March 20, 1996). We considered all of known Gunnison’s prairie dog- this species into a small portion of its reintroduced ferrets to be in excess to occupied area in 2015 (AGFD 2016, p. historical range via translocations from the captive population, and we could 10). wild populations in New Mexico (Van replace any reintroduced animals lost Pelt 2009, p. 41, Figure 1). This new through captive breeding (61 FR 11323, Tribal Lands population occurs on the BLM- March 20, 1996). Forty-nine percent of the land within administered Las Cienegas National The Service did not anticipate the range of Gunnison’s prairie dog in Conservation Area. Surveys in 2017 changing the nonessential designation Arizona is under Tribal ownership estimated a minimum of 135 black- for the AVEPA unless the experiment (Seglund et al. 2006, Table 3). The tailed prairie dogs occupied 19 ac (7.7 failed or until the ferret recovered (61 Navajo Nation is the largest owner of ha) (H. Hicks, AGFD, pers. comm., FR 11323, March 20, 1996). However, Gunnison’s prairie dog habitat (Johnson October 3, 2017). It would likely take because we are proposing to replace the et al. 2010, p. 6). Working with the Hopi many years to reach enough black-tailed AVEPA through incorporation into the Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, and Navajo prairie dog-occupied acreage with a proposed SWEPA 10(j), an evaluation as Nation, we may be able to identify other stable population to support a to whether the new SWEPA potential sites for ferret reintroduction reintroduction of ferrets. However, experimental population is essential to on their Tribal sovereign lands. All efforts to expand black- tailed prairie the continued existence of the species in three Tribes have expressed interest in dog colony acreage would offer the wild is appropriate. working with the Service and AGFD in opportunities to re-create habitat for As discussed above, we expect the ferret recovery (Hopi Tribe 2017, entire; ferrets (USFWS 2013a, p. 51). proposed SWEPA to further the Navajo Nation 2017, entire; Hualapai conservation of the species by Tribe 2018, entire). The Hualapai and Is the proposed experimental contributing to the establishment of Hopi reservations and Hopi-owned population essential or nonessential? multiple, widespread populations that ranches coincide entirely with Arizona, Essential experimental populations will persist over time, which contribute (i.e., their lands are wholly within the are those ‘‘whose loss would be likely to achieving recovery goals for the borders of the State), whereas the to appreciably reduce the likelihood of species. However, we consider the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM 25JNP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 33626 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules

SWEPA nonessential because there are Management Restrictions, Protective Double O ranches, and other now a number of reintroduced ferret Measures, and Other Special reintroduction sites throughout the populations in the wild, across the Management range of the species (80 FR 66826, range of the species, that provide We prefer applying the experimental October 30, 2015). redundancy in case of local extirpations. population designation and regulations The AGFD, BLM, FS, NPS, Tribes, and private landowners manage sites There are 14 active reintroduction sites to the entire proposed SWEPA, because with high potential for ferret across the historical range, with a a single set of statutes and regulations establishment, and these areas receive minimum average of 340 breeding adult and a single management framework protection through the following legal ferrets, and a minimum of 254 at the 4 would then apply to all lands, non- mechanisms: most successful reintroduction sites Federal and Federal, containing suitable (Rocky Mountain Arsenal National ferret habitat within the designated Legal Mechanisms Wildlife Refuge, Colorado; Conata SWEPA boundary. This approach would (1) Federal Land Policy and Basin/Badlands, South Dakota; and also extend regulatory assurances to all Shirley Basin and Meeteetse, Wyoming) Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. areas where ferrets could potentially (USFWS 2019, Table 3). Additionally, 1701 et seq.) (FLPMA)—The BLM’s establish, including the current captive-breeding efforts continue to mission is set forth under the FLPMA, properties covered by the SHA. There support the establishment of more which mandates that BLM manage would be no significant differences populations throughout the species’ public land resources for a variety of between the terms and conditions of the range. Loss of the SWEPA would not uses, such as energy development, SHA and 10(j) regulations in terms of affect these remaining populations of livestock grazing, recreation, and timber how landowners operate their ranches ferrets in the wild. harvesting, while protecting the natural, The ferret population in Arizona, with respect to ferret recovery. cultural, and historical resources on The Service will undertake SWEPA while contributing incrementally to those lands. The BLM manages listed conservation in concert with other sites, reintroductions in cooperation with and sensitive species under guidance is a relatively small portion of the total AGFD, the Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, provided in the BLM Manual Section number and distribution of ferret Hualapai Tribe, and other landowners. 6840—Special Status Species populations needed for species Existing management plans or those that Management. The Manual directs BLM recovery. The Recovery Plan’s delisting wildlife managers develop in to conserve listed species and the criteria for ferrets calls for 30 or more cooperation with us and other partners ecosystems upon which they depend, populations, with at least 1 population and stakeholders will guide ensure that all actions authorized or in each of at least 9 of 12 States within management of ferret populations in the carried out by BLM comply with the the historical range of the species, and SWEPA (e.g., AGFD 2016). ESA, and cooperate with the recovery at least 5 populations within colonies of As discussed in the ‘‘Actions and planning and recovery of listed species. Gunnison’s and white-tailed prairie Activities that May Affect the The BLM has experience in managing dogs. About 27 percent of Gunnison’s Introduced Population’’ section, the ferret at four reintroduction sites in prairie dog range occurs in Arizona. Federal, State, Tribal, and private four States that occur at least in part on This is about 9 to 14 percent of all actions will not pose a substantial threat its lands. Therefore, we anticipate prairie dog occupied habitat (i.e., the to ferret establishment and persistence appropriate management by the BLM on range of all 3 prairie dog species) in the proposed SWEPA. This is because any future ferret reintroduction sites (USFWS 2013a, p. 24). Arizona’s land management activities, such as that include BLM lands. relative recommended contribution of agricultural land conversion, (2) National Forest Management Act habitat to ferret delisting is about seven recreational shooting of prairie dogs, of 1976, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1600 et percent (USFWS 2013a, Table 8, p. 77). poisoning of prairie dogs, urbanization, seq.)—This law instructs the FS to strive The proposed SWEPA will further the and energy development currently to provide for a diversity of plant and recovery of the ferret by opening all occurring or anticipated to occur at animal communities when managing suitable habitat in the defined SWEPA prospective reintroduction sites in NFS lands. The FS identifies species area to the establishment of multiple Arizona are very limited in scope. In listed as endangered or threatened wild populations within the species’ addition, as discussed in Addressing under the ESA, including the ferret, as historical range. However, we conclude Causes of Extirpation within the Category 1 species at risk based on loss of reintroduced ferrets within the Experimental Population Area above, rangewide and national imperilment. proposed area is not likely to we do not anticipate any change in The FS has experience managing the appreciably reduce the likelihood of prairie dog control efforts that would ferret on one reintroduction site that survival of the species in the wild. This reduce prairie dog-occupied habitat to occurs at least in part on NFS lands. is due to maintenance of the captive the extent that they would compromise Therefore, we anticipate appropriate population, the number of the viability of any potential ferret management by the FS on any future reintroduction sites and established population due to the low demand for ferret reintroduction sites that include populations in the wild rangewide, and poisoning and regulatory restrictions. NFS lands. the expected incremental contribution We also base this conclusion on our (3) Organic Act of 1916, as amended of Arizona to the recovery of the ferret experience with ferret reintroduction (16 U.S.C. 1 4)—This law requires the given Arizona has seven percent of the sites in Arizona over the past 25 years NPS to conserve National Park total range of all three prairie dog and elsewhere throughout the species’ resources, consistent with the species. Therefore, as required by 50 range. The best available information established values and purposes for CFR 17.81(c)(2), we determine the indicates that future range and ranching each park. In addition, the Organic Act proposed SWEPA experimental activities will remain compatible with instructs NPS ‘‘to conserve the scenery population is not essential to the ferret recovery because they do not limit and the natural and historical objects continued existence of the species in the essential behavior such as feeding, and the wildlife therein and to provide wild, and we propose to designate the breeding, or sheltering. We base this for the enjoyment of the same in such SWEPA experimental population as assessment on our ferret reintroduction manner and by such means as will leave nonessential. efforts at the AVEPA and Espee and them unimpaired for the enjoyment of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM 25JNP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33627

future generations.’’ NPS management activities. Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA also benefit ferret recovery: For example, the policies require them to conserve listed requires all Federal agencies to use their AGFD includes the ferret on the Species species and to prevent detrimental authorities to further the purposes of the of Greatest Conservation Need Tier 1A effects on these species. The NPS has ESA. (AGFD 2012, p. 216). The list provides experience managing the ferret at two Other Protections & Management policy guidance on management parks in South Dakota, where the NPS Restrictions priorities only, not legal or regulatory protects ferrets and their habitats from protection. The State also implements Other protections and management large-scale loss or degradation, per their prairie dog shooting closures on public restrictions and measures in the mandate. Management of these lands from April 1 to June 30. reintroduction sites would need to proposed SWEPA would include: continue regardless of the species’ (1) Incidental take: Experimental (3) Coordination with landowners and listing status. Therefore, we anticipate population special rules contain specific land managers: We discussed this appropriate management by the NPS on prohibitions and exceptions regarding proposed rule with potentially affected any future ferret reintroduction sites take of individual animals. These State and Federal agencies, Tribes, local that include NPS lands. special rules are compatible with most governments, private landowners, and (4) Navajo Nation law—Navajo Nation routine human activities in the expected other stakeholders in the expected Code (NNC), Title 17, Chapter 3, reestablishment area. Section 3(19) of SWEPA. These agencies, landowners, Subchapter 21, provides protections for the ESA defines ‘‘take’’ as ‘‘to harass, and land managers have indicated either black-footed ferrets. Title 17 NNC harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, support for, or no opposition to, the section 507 makes it unlawful for any trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to proposed revision to the AVEPA. In engage in any such conduct.’’ Under 50 person to take wildlife on either of the advance of our developing the original CFR 17.3, ‘‘harass’’ means an intentional following lists, as quoted from the code: rule for AVEPA, the AGFD determined (a) ‘‘The list of wildlife indigenous to or negligent act or omission that creates that designation of a nonessential the Navajo Nation that they determine the likelihood of injury to wildlife by experimental population was necessary to be endangered by regulation of the annoying it to such an extent as to Resources Committee of the Navajo significantly disrupt normal behavioral to achieve landowner support to make Nation Council.’’ Pursuant to Resources patterns that include, but are not limited a ferret reintroduction project viable Committee Resolution RCF 014–91, they to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. And (AGFD 2106, p. 2; 61 FR 11325, March added the black-footed ferret to the list. ‘‘harm’’ means an act that actually kills 20, 1996). To receive the same public (b) The U.S. lists of endangered native or injures wildlife, including significant support for their Management Plan, the and foreign fish and wildlife, as set forth habitat modification that actually kills AGFD proposed a statewide in section 4 of the Endangered Species or injures wildlife by significantly nonessential experimental designation Act of 1973 as endangered or threatened impairing essential behavioral patterns, for the ferret (AGFD 2016, p. 2). species, to the extent that the Resources including breeding, feeding, or (5) Public awareness and cooperation: Committee adopts these lists.’’ sheltering. The regulations further We will inform the public of the define ‘‘incidental take’’ as take that is Navajo Nation Code (17 NNC section importance of the SWEPA for the 504) also makes it unlawful for any incidental to, and not the purpose of, recovery of the ferret through this person to take or possess a fur-bearing the carrying out of an otherwise lawful proposed rule and associated public animal, which includes ferrets by activity. If we adopt the nonessential meetings, if requested. The replacement definition (17 NNC section 500), except experimental population designation as permitted by the Director, Navajo rule as proposed, it will allow most of the AVEPA to establish the SWEPA Nation Department of Fish and Wildlife. incidental take of ferrets in the under section 10(j) of the ESA as a (5) Hopi Tribal Law—Tribal experimental population area, provided nonessential experimental population Ordinance 48 (Wildlife) documents the the take is unintentional and not due to would increase reintroduction Tribe’s exclusive jurisdiction to regulate negligent conduct. However, if there opportunities and provide greater and adjudicate all matters pertaining to were evidence of intentional take, we flexibility in the management of the wildlife found on the Hopi Reservation. would refer the matter to the reintroduced ferret. The nonessential All wildlife found on the Reservation, appropriate law enforcement entities for experimental population designation whether resident or migratory, native or investigation. This is consistent with will facilitate cooperation of the State, introduced, is the property of the Hopi regulations for areas currently enrolled Tribes, landowners, and other interests Tribe, and Tribal Law provides the in the SHA and in the AVEPA where we in the affected area. times and manner of allowable take. do not allow intentional take. (6) Potential effects to other species (6) Arizona State Law—General (2) Special handling: In accordance listed under the ESA: There are four provisions of Arizona Revised Statutes, with 50 CFR 17.21(c)(3), any employee title 17, protects all of Arizona’s native or agent of the Service or of a State federally listed species with wildlife, including federally listed wildlife agency may in the course of distributions that overlap the proposed threatened and endangered species. their official duties, handle ferrets to aid SWEPA and with habitat requirements (7) Endangered Species Act—The ESA sick or injured ferrets, salvage dead that could overlap the grassland habitats would continue to provide protection to ferrets, and conduct other activities that support prairie dogs (Table 1). ferrets through section 10 by requiring consistent with 50 CFR 17.84(g), their However, we have not documented any certain management entities to obtain an section 6 work plan, and 50 CFR 17.31. of these species in current or potential enhancement of survival permit from Employees or agents of other agencies ferret reintroduction sites and/or these the Service under section 10(a)(1)(A) for would need to acquire the necessary species are unlikely to occur or compete any intentional taking of a ferret that is permits from the Service for these for resources. We do not expect ferret prohibited by section 9 of the ESA and activities. reintroduction efforts to result in not exempted through this rule. The (3) Arizona promulgation of adverse effects to these species. authorities of section 6 of the ESA, 50 regulations and other management for CFR 17.21, 50 CFR 17.31, and 50 CFR the conservation of the ferret as well as 17.84(g) cover AGFD’s management other species that, in turn, would

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM 25JNP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 33628 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1—FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES the AZA SSP® (Graves et al. 2018, for improvements in the nation’s ® IN THE PROPOSED SWEPA entire). The AZA SSP Husbandry regulatory system to promote Manual provides up-to-date protocols predictability, to reduce uncertainty, Current status in for the care, propagation, and to use the best, most innovative, Species Arizona under preconditioning, and transportation of and least burdensome tools for the ESA captive ferrets, and all participating achieving regulatory ends. The Mexican wolf (Canis lupus Nonessential ex- captive- breeding facilities use it. executive order directs agencies to baileyi). perimental. The Service may also translocate consider regulatory approaches that California condor Nonessential ex- ferrets from other reintroduction sites, reduce burdens and maintain flexibility (Gymnogyps perimental, En- provided their removal will not and freedom of choice for the public californianus). dangered. negatively affect the extant population where these approaches are relevant, Northern aplomado falcon Nonessential ex- and appropriate permits are issued in feasible, and consistent with regulatory (Falco femoralis perimental. accordance with current regulations (50 objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes septentrionalis). CFR 17.22) prior to their removal. further that regulations must be based Pima pineapple cactus Endangered. Partners will conduct population on the best available science and that (Coryphantha scheeri the rulemaking process must allow for var. robustispina). monitoring following any removals for translocation under guidance of the public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed Measures To Isolate or Contain the Service-approved management plan for this proposed rule in a manner Experimental Population From Natural the donor site. consistent with these requirements. Populations (3) Monitoring Effects to Other Listed Species and Critical Habitat: We do not There are no naturally occurring wild Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 expect adverse effects to other federally et seq.) as amended by the Small populations of black-footed ferrets. The listed species or critical habitat (see ferret is extirpated throughout its Business Regulatory Enforcement ‘‘Other Protections and Management Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C. historical range, including in Arizona, Restrictions’’ number 6, above). New Mexico, and Utah, with the 601 et seq. exception of reintroduced populations Findings Under these acts, whenever a Federal (USFWS 2017, entire) (see ‘‘Historical Based on the above information, and agency is required to publish a notice of Range’’ above). Therefore, we do not using the best scientific and commercial rulemaking for any proposed or final need any measures to isolate or contain data available (in accordance with 50 rule or revision to a rule, it must reintroduced ferrets in the SWEPA from CFR 17.81), we find that releasing prepare, and make available for public natural populations. ferrets into the proposed SWEPA will comment, a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the Review and Evaluation of the Success further the conservation of the species action on small entities (small or Failure of the SWEPA and that these reintroduced populations are not essential to the continued businesses, small organizations, and Monitoring is a required element of existence of the species. small government jurisdictions). all ferret reintroduction projects. However, these acts require no Reintroduction projects will conduct the Peer Review regulatory flexibility analysis if the head three following types of monitoring: of an agency certifies that the action will (1) Reintroduction Effectiveness In accordance with our policy, ‘‘Notice of Interagency Cooperative not have a significant economic impact Monitoring: Reintroduction partners on a substantial number of small will monitor ferret population Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities,’’ (59 FR 34270, entities. The SBREFA amended the demographics and potential sources of Regulatory Flexibility Act to require fatality, including plague, annually for 5 July 1, 1994), we will seek the expert opinion of at least three appropriate Federal agencies to provide a statement years following the last release using of the factual basis for certifying that an spotlight surveys, snow tracking, other independent specialists regarding scientific data and interpretations action will not have a significant visual survey techniques, or possibly economic impact on a substantial radio-telemetry of some individuals contained in this proposed revision. We will send copies of this proposed number of small entities. We are following AGFD’s management plan certifying that this revision will not revision to the peer reviewers (2016) or similar procedures identified have a significant economic effect on a immediately following publication in in a management plan developed for a substantial number of small entities. the Federal Register. The purpose of specific reintroduction site. Thereafter, The following discussion explains our such review is to ensure we based our partners will complete demographic rationale. surveys periodically to track population decisions on scientifically sound data, The affected area includes release status. Surveys will incorporate assumptions, and analysis. Accordingly, sites in Arizona, lands of the Navajo methods to monitor breeding success the final decision may differ from this Nation in Arizona, New Mexico, and and long-term survival rates, as proposal. Utah, and adjacent areas into which appropriate. The Service anticipates that Required Determinations ferrets may disperse, which over time AGFD and/or other participating could include significant portions of the partners will conduct monitoring, and Regulatory Planning and Review proposed SWEPA. Because of the they will include monitoring results in (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563) regulatory flexibility for Federal agency their annual reports. Executive Order 12866 provides that actions provided by the nonessential (2) Donor Population Monitoring: We the Office of Information and Regulatory experimental designation and the will acquire ferrets from the captive- Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of exemption for incidental take in the breeding population, or partners may Management and Budget will review all special rule, this revision is not translocate ferrets from another viable significant rules. OIRA has determined expected to have significant effects on reintroduction site. The Service and our that this rule is not significant. any activities on Federal, State, Tribal, partners manage ferrets in the captive- Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the or private lands in the revised area. breeding population in accordance with principles of E.O. 12866 while calling Concerning section 7(a)(2), we treat the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM 25JNP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33629

population as proposed for listing, and adverse impacts to activities on private power and responsibilities among the do not require Federal action agencies to lands in the proposed SWEPA. various levels of government. In keeping consult with us on their activities. with Department of the Interior policy, Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies we requested information from and U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) to confer (rather than consult) with the coordinated development of this Service on actions that are likely to In accordance with this act: proposed revision with the affected jeopardize the continued existence of a (1) This proposed revision will not resource agencies. Achieving the species proposed for listing. However, ‘‘significantly or uniquely’’ affect small recovery goals for this species would because a nonessential experimental governments because they would not contribute to its eventual delisting and population is, by definition, not place additional requirements on any its return to State management. We do essential to the survival of the species, city, county, or other local not expect any intrusion on State we will likely never require a municipalities. The Service determined administration or policy, change in roles conference for the ferret populations in and certifies under this act, that it will or responsibilities of Federal or State the SWEPA. Furthermore, the results of not impose a cost of $100 million or governments, or substantial direct effect a conference are advisory in nature and more in any given year on local or State on fiscal capacity. The special rule do not restrict agencies from carrying governments or private entities. operates to maintain the existing out, funding, or authorizing activities. In Therefore, this act does not require a relationship between the State and the addition, section 7(a)(1) requires Federal Small Government Agency Plan. Federal Government, and we will agencies to use their authorities to carry (2) This proposed rule is not a implement it in coordination with the out programs to further the conservation ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under State of Arizona. Therefore, this of listed species, which would apply on this act; it will not produce a Federal proposed rule does not have significant any lands in the revised area. As a mandate of $100 million or more in any federalism effects or implications to result, and in accordance with these year. The revised nonessential warrant preparation of a Federalism regulations, some modifications to experimental population area for the Assessment under the provisions of E.O. proposed Federal actions in the SWEPA ferret would not impose any additional 13132. management or protection requirements may occur to benefit the ferret, but we Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) do not expect implementing of these on the States or other entities. In accordance with E.O. 12988, the regulations to halt or substantially Takings (E.O. 12630) modify proposed projects. Office of the Solicitor has determined In accordance with E.O. 12630, the that this revision would not unduly This revision would include the same proposed revision does not have burden the judicial system and would authorization provided in the AVEPA significant takings implications. It meet the requirements of sections (3)(a) for incidental take of the ferret but over would allow for the take, as defined in and (3)(b)(2) of the Order. a larger landscape, the SWEPA. The the ESA, of reintroduced ferrets when regulations implementing the ESA such take is incidental to an otherwise Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. define ‘‘incidental take’’ as take that is legal activity, such as livestock grazing, 3501 et seq.) incidental to, and not the purpose of, agriculture, recreation (e.g., off-highway This rule does not contain any new the carrying out of an otherwise lawful vehicle use), and other activities that are collection of information that require activity such as agricultural activities in accordance with Federal, State, and approval by the Office of Management and other rural development, camping, local laws and regulations. Therefore, and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork hiking, hunting, vehicle use of roads the revision of the AVEPA to encompass Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 and highways, and other activities that a larger area, the proposed SWEPA, et seq.). OMB has previously approved are in accordance with Federal, Tribal, would not conflict with existing or the information collection requirements State, and local laws and regulations. proposed human activities or hinder associated with reporting the taking of The proposed rule would not authorize public land use. experimental populations (50 CFR intentional take for purposes other than This order does not require a takings 17.84) and assigned control number authorized data collection or recovery implication assessment because this 1018–0095 (expires 09/30/2023). We purposes. Intentional take for research proposed rule: (1) Will not effectively may not collect, or sponsor, and may or recovery purposes would require a compel a property owner to suffer a not require you to respond to a section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permit physical invasion of property, and (2) collection of information unless it under the ESA. will not deny economically beneficial or displays a currently valid OMB control The principal activities on private productive use of the land. The revision number. property in or near the revised would substantially advance a National Environmental Policy Act nonessential experimental population legitimate government interest (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) area are livestock grazing and associated (conservation and recovery of a listed ranch management practices (e.g., species) and would not present a barrier In compliance with all provisions of fencing, weed treatments, water to reasonable and expected beneficial the NEPA, the Service has analyzed the developments, and maintenance). Ferret use of private property. impact of this proposed rule. Based on presence would not affect these land this analysis and any new information uses because there would be no new or Federalism (E.O. 13132) resulting from public comment on the additional economic or regulatory In accordance with E.O. 13132, we proposed action, we will determine if restrictions imposed upon States, non- have considered whether this proposed there are any significant impacts or Federal entities, or members of the revision has significant federalism effects caused by this rule. In public due to the presence of the ferret, effects and determined we do not need cooperation with the AGFD, the Hopi and Federal agencies would only have to conduct a federalism assessment. It Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, and the Navajo to comply with sections 7(a)(1) and would not have substantial direct effects Nation, we have prepared a draft 7(a)(4) of the ESA in these areas. on the States, on the relationship environmental assessment on this Therefore, we do not expect this between the Federal Government and proposed action and have made it rulemaking to have any significant the States, or on the distribution of available for public inspection online at

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM 25JNP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 33630 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules

or Actions Concerning Regulations That Arizona Ecological Services Field Office . We solicit comments on the Distribution, or Use (E.O. 13211) INFORMATION CONTACT). draft EA as set forth above in DATES and E.O. 13211 requires agencies to Signing Authority ADDRESSES. prepare Statements of Energy Effects Government-to-Government when undertaking certain actions. We The Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Relationships With Tribes do not expect this proposed rule to have Service, approved this document and a significant effect on energy supplies, authorized the undersigned to sign and In accordance with the Executive distribution, and use. Because this submit the document to the Office of the Memorandum of April 29, 1994, action is not a significant energy action, Federal Register for publication ‘‘Government-to-Government Relations this order does not require a Statement electronically as an official document of with Native American Tribal of Energy Effects. the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Governments’’ (59 FR 22951, May 4, Clarity of This Regulation Martha Williams, Principal Deputy 1994), E.O. 13175 (65 FR 67249, E.O. 12866, E.O. 12988, and Director Exercising the Delegated November 9, 2000), and the Department Presidential Memorandum of June 1, Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and of the Interior Manual Chapter 512 DM 1998, require the Service to write all Wildlife Service, approved this 2, we have considered possible effects of actions in plain language. This means document on June 14, 2021, for the proposed revision on federally that each rule we publish must: publication. recognized Indian Tribes. We (1) Be logically organized; List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 determined that the proposed SWEPA (2) Use the active voice to address overlaps or is adjacent to Tribal lands. readers directly; Endangered and threatened species, Potential reintroduction sites identified (3) Use clear language rather than Exports, Imports, Reporting and in this revision, the CO Bar Ranch and jargon; recordkeeping requirements. Petrified Forest National Park, are near (4) Be divided into short sections and or adjacent to Tribal lands, as is the sentences; and Proposed Regulation Promulgation existing AVEPA where a reintroduced (5) Use lists and tables wherever ferret population exists. We offered possible. Accordingly, we propose to amend government-to-government consultation If you feel that we have not met these part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title to nine Tribes: The Havasupai, Hopi, requirements, send us comments by one 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Hualapai, San Carlos Apache, San Juan- of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. as set forth below: Southern Paiute, White Mountain Your comments about this proposed Apache, and Yavapai-Prescott Tribes, revision to the 1996 final rule should be PART 17—ENDANGERED AND Navajo Nation, and the Pueblo of Zuni. as specific as possible. For example, you THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS We met with the Hualapai, Hopi, and should identify the numbers of the White Mountain Apache Tribes and the sections and paragraphs that are not ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 Navajo Nation about the proposed clear, the sections or sentences that are continues to read as follows: too long, or the sections where you feel revision. Participation in ferret recovery lists and tables would be useful. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– is voluntary. If suitable habitat for ferret 1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise recovery is available on their lands, References Cited noted. Tribes may choose either not to A complete list of all references cited ■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by revising the participate, or to participate through in this proposed rule is available at entries for ‘‘Ferret, black-footed’’ under authorities under section 10(j), section http://www.regulations.gov at Docket ‘‘MAMMALS’’ in the List of Endangered 10(a)(1)(A), or the SHA (USFWS 2013b, Number FWS–R2–ES–2020–0123, or entire). If we introduce ferrets on non- upon request from the Arizona and Threatened Wildlife to read as Tribal lands adjacent to Tribal lands and Ecological Services Field Office (see follows: they disperse onto Tribal lands, the ADDRESSES). § 17.11 Endangered and threatened aforementioned authorities will provide wildlife. a more relaxed, flexible regulatory Authors situation under the ESA through The primary authors of this proposed * * * * * allowances for incidental take. rule are staff members of the Service’s (h) * * *

Listing citations and Common name Scientific name Where listed Status 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/Medi- XN 56 FR 41473, 8/21/1991; cine Bow Management Area); see 50 CFR 17.84(g).10j § 17.84(g)(9)(i)). Ferret, black-footed ...... Mustela nigripes ...... U.S.A. (parts of SD (Conata Basin/Bad- XN 59 FR 42682, 8/18/1994; lands Reintroduction Area); see 50 CFR 17.84(g).10j § 17.84(g)(9)(ii)). Ferret, black-footed ...... Mustela nigripes ...... U.S.A. (parts of MT (Northcentral Mon- XN 59 FR 42696 8/18/1994; tana Reintroduction Area); see 50 CFR 17.84(g).10j § 17.84(g)(9)(iii)).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM 25JNP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33631

Listing citations and Common name Scientific name Where listed Status applicable rules

Ferret, black-footed ...... Mustela nigripes ...... U.S.A. (parts of AZ, NM, UT (Southwest XN 61 FR 11320, 3/20/1996; Experimental Population Area), see [Federal Register CITA- § 17.84(g)(9)(iv)). TION OF FINAL RULE]; 50 CFR 17.84(g).10j Ferret, black-footed ...... Mustela nigripes ...... U.S.A. (parts of CO, UT (Northwestern XN 63 FR 52824, 10/1/1998; Colorado/Northeastern Utah Experi- 50 CFR 17.84(g).10j mental Population Area), see § 17.84(g)(9)(v)). Ferret, black-footed ...... Mustela nigripes ...... U.S.A. (parts of SD (Cheyenne River XN 65 FR 60879, 10/13/2000; Sioux Tribe Reintroduction Area), see 50 CFR 17.84(g).10j § 17.84(g)(9)(vi)). Ferret, black-footed ...... Mustela nigripes ...... U.S.A. (parts of SD (Rosebud Sioux XN 68 FR 26498, 5/16/2003; Reservation Experimental Population 50 CFR 17.84(g).10j Area), see § 17.84(g)(9)(vii)). Ferret, black-footed ...... Mustela nigripes ...... U.S.A. (most of WY (Wyoming Experi- XN 80 FR 66821, 10/30/2015; mental Population Area), see 50 CFR 17.84(g).10j § 17.84(g)(9)(viii)).

*******

■ 3. Amend § 17.84(g) by revising Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and After the first breeding season following paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(6)(iv), and Wildlife Service, Phoenix, Arizona the first year of black-footed ferret (g)(9)(iv) to read as set forth below and (telephone: 602–242–0210). release, we will consider any black- removing the fourth map (depicting the * * * * * footed ferret found in the SWEPA as Aubrey Valley Experimental Population (9) * * * part of the nonessential experimental Area) and adding in its place the map (iv) We consider the Southwest population. We would not consider a shown below: Experimental Population Area (SWEPA) black-footed ferret occurring outside of to be the area shown on a map following the Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah § 17.84 Special rules—vertebrates. paragraph (g)(12) of this section. The portions of the SWEPA a member of the * * * * * SWEPA includes the core recovery areas nonessential experimental population, (g) * * * for this species in Arizona. The and we may capture it for genetic (1) The black-footed ferret boundary of the northern section of the testing. We may dispose of the captured populations identified in paragraphs SWEPA is those parts of Apache, animal in the following ways: (g)(9)(i) through (viii) of this section are Coconino, Gila, Mohave, Navajo, and (A) If an animal is genetically nonessential experimental populations. Yavapai Counties, Arizona, that include We will manage each of these determined to have originated from the the northern area as delineated on the experimental population, we may return populations, and each reintroduction map, excluding Hopi District 6. The site in the Southwest and Wyoming it to the reintroduction area or to a northern section also includes portions captive- breeding facility. nonessential experimental populations, of Cibola, McKinley, Rio Arriba, in accordance with their respective Sandoval, and San Juan Counties, New (B) If an animal is determined to be management plans. Mexico; and San Juan County, Utah. genetically unrelated to the * * * * * The boundary of the southern section of experimental population, we will place (6) * * * the SWEPA is those parts of Cochise, it in captivity under an existing (iv) Report such taking in the Pima, Pinal, Graham, and Santa Cruz contingency plan. Southwest Experimental Population Counties, Arizona, that include the * * * * * Area (SWEPA) to the Field Supervisor, southern area as delineated on the map. BILLING CODE 4333–15–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM 25JNP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 33632 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules

US Fist1 and Wildlife Service Southwest Nonessential Experiment.al Population Area .(SWEPAJ for the black-footed ferret

~\ Nevada Colorado /

llS'l'WS ·gill• oo Wllfflllnly, expressed orlmplied, as to Ille aa:uraq,, refiallllity, or mmpleteness ofthese data. In addition, the Ii SFWS shall !ID! be hel

?mjeclioo: UTlil 12N ~ SW Nonessential Expe.rimental Population Area (SWEPA) Delllm: ~ Ni!083 - Double O Ranch SHA - Espee Ranch SHA 0 30 60 90 120 Mi Hopi District 6 (excluded) Km 0 30 60 90 120

* * * * * 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM 25JNP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 EP25JN21.010