Contact Us Search: All EPA This Area

• You are here: EPA Home
• Federal Register
• FR Years
• FR Months
• FR Days
• FR Documents
• Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants Establishment

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants Establishment

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

---

 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Establishment


[Federal Register: March 20, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 55)]
[Rules and Regulations]               

[Page 11320-11336]

>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]






DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR


Fish and Wildlife Service


50 CFR Part 17


RIN 1018-AD29

 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Establishment of a 
Nonessential Experimental Population of Black-Footed Ferrets in Aubrey 
Valley, Arizona


AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.


ACTION: Final rule.




SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in cooperation with the 
Arizona Game and Fish Department will


[[Page 11321]]

introduce black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes) into Aubrey Valley, 
Arizona. This reintroduction is a primary recovery action for this 
federally listed endangered species and will allow evaluation of 
release techniques. If conditions are acceptable, surplus captiveraised 
black-footed ferrets will be released in 1996, or later. 
Additional surplus animals will be released annually thereafter for 
several years or until a self-sustaining population is established. 
Releases will use and refine reintroduction techniques used in other 
areas. If the Aubrey Valley program is successful, a wild population 
could be established within about 5 years. The Aubrey Valley ferret 
population is designated as a nonessential experimental population in 
accordance with section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended. This population will be managed under the provisions of an 
accompanying special rule.


EFFECTIVE DATE: March 20, 1996.


ADDRESSES: You may inspect the complete file for this rule during 
normal business hours at the following office: Arizona Ecological 
Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2321 West Royal 
Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, Arizona 85021. You must make an 
appointment in advance if you wish to inspect the file.


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Austin, at the above address, 
or telephone (602) 640-2720.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:


Background


Legislative


    The Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.), was changed significantly by the Endangered Species Act 
Amendments of 1982 (Pub. L. No. 97-304). A new subsection 10(j) was 
added to the Act to allow designation of specific populations of listed 
species as ``experimental populations.'' Before this amendment, the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) was authorized to reintroduce 
populations into unoccupied portions of a listed species' historical 
range when it would foster the conservation and recovery of the 
species. However, local citizens often opposed reintroduction because 
they were concerned about restrictions and prohibitions on Federal and 
private activities. This opposition severely handicapped the 
effectiveness of reintroduction as a management tool. Under section 
10(j), the Service can designate reintroduced populations established 
outside the species' current range but within its historical range as 
``experimental.'' This designation increases the Service's flexibility 
to manage reintroduced populations of endangered species. Experimental 
populations are treated as threatened species under the Act, and the 
Service has greater discretion in devising management programs and 
special regulations. Section 4(d) of the Act allows the Service to 
adopt whatever regulations are necessary and advisable to provide for 
the conservation of a threatened species. These regulations may be less 
restrictive than those for endangered species and more compatible with 
current or planned human activities in the reintroduction area. For 
example, a person may take a black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) in 
the wild within the Aubrey Valley Experimental Population Area, 
provided the take is incidental (as defined under the Act), and any 
resulting injury or mortality is unintentional and not due to negligent 
conduct. The Act defines ``incidental take'' as take that is incidental 
to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. 
The Service will not take legal action for incidental take. However, 
the Service will refer instances of knowing, non-incidental take of 
black-footed ferrets to the appropriate authorities for prosecution.
    The Service can designate experimental populations as ``essential'' 
or ``nonessential.'' Nonessential populations are not essential to the 
continued existence of the species. The Aubrey Valley population of 
black-footed ferrets is designated as a nonessential experimental 
population in accordance with section 10(j) of the Act.
    Section 7 of the Act applies selectively to a nonessential 
experimental population located outside of the National Wildlife Refuge 
System or National Park System lands. Generally, it is treated if it 
were were proposed for listing. Section 7(a)(4) applies in that case, 
requiring Federal agencies to confer with the Service on actions that 
are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species. 
Section 7(a)(1), which requires all Federal agencies to use their 
authority to conserve listed species continues to apply, but section 
7(a)(2), which requires Federal agencies to ensure that their 
activities are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a 
listed species, does not. Section 7 only affects activities on private 
lands if they are authorized, funded or carried out by a Federal 
agency.

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires that animals used to establish 
an experimental population may be removed from a source or donor 
population only after the Service determines that the removal is not 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Removal 
also requires a permit as described in 50 CFR 17.22.


Biological


    The black-footed ferret is an endangered carnivore with a black 
face mask, black legs, and a black-tipped tail. A black-footed ferret 
is nearly 60 centimeters (2 feet) in length and weighs up to 1.1 
kilogram (2.5 pounds). It is the only ferret species native to North 
America.

    Historically, the black-footed ferret occurred over a wide area, 
but it is difficult to determine its historical abundance because it is 
nocturnal and secretive. The historical range of the species, based on 
specimen collections, includes 12 States (Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, 
Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, 
Texas, Utah, and Wyoming) and the Canadian Provinces of Alberta and 
Saskatchewan. Prehistoric evidence shows that this ferret once occurred 
from the Yukon Territory in Canada to New Mexico and Texas (Anderson et 
al. 1986).

    Black-footed ferrets depend almost exclusively on prairie dog 
colonies for food, shelter, and denning (Henderson et al. 1969, Forrest 
et al. 1985). The range of the ferret coincides with that of prairie 
dogs (Anderson et al. 1986), and breeding black-footed ferrets have 
never been documented outside of prairie dog colonies. Specimens of 
black-footed ferrets have come from the ranges of three species of 
prairie dogs--the black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus), 
white-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys leucurus), and Gunnison's prairie dog 
(Cynomys gunnisoni) (Anderson et al. 1986).
    Widespread poisoning of prairie dogs and conversion of native 
prairie to farmland drastically reduced prairie dog abundance and 
distribution in the last century. Sylvatic plague, which may have been 
introduced to North America around the turn of the century, also 
decimated prairie dog numbers, particularly in the southern portions of 
their ranges. The severe decline of prairie dogs nearly caused the 
extinction of the black-footed ferret. The ferret's decline may be 
partly due to other factors such as secondary poisoning from prairie 
dog toxicants and canine distemper. The black-footed ferret was listed 
as an endangered species on March 11, 1967.
    In 1964, a wild population of ferrets was discovered in South 
Dakota and was studied intensively. This


[[Page 11322]]

population disappeared from the wild in 1974, and its last member died 
in captivity in 1979. The species was then thought to be extinct until 
a small population was discovered in 1981 near Meeteetse, Wyoming. The 
Meeteetse population declined severely in 1985-1986 due to canine 
distemper. Eighteen survivors were taken into captivity in 1986-1987 to 
prevent the species' extinction and to serve as founder animals for a 
captive propagation program. Today, the captive population includes 
approximately 400 animals held in 7 separately maintained locations.


Recovery Efforts


    The recovery plan for the black-footed ferret (U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service 1988) establishes a national recovery objective. This 
objective is to ensure immediate survival of the species by--
    (a) increasing the captive population of ferrets to 200 breeding 
adults by 1991, which has been achieved;
    (b) establishing a prebreeding census population of 1,500 freeranging 
breeding adults in 10 or more different populations with no 
fewer than 30 breeding adults in each population by the year 2010; and
    (c) encouraging the widest possible distribution of reintroduced 
animals throughout their historic range.
    When this national objective is achieved, the black-footed ferret 
will be downlisted to threatened status, assuming that the extinction 
rate of established populations remains at or below the rate at which 
new populations are established for at least 5 years. Cooperative 
efforts to rear black-footed ferrets in captivity have been successful. 
In 8 years, the captive population has increased from 18 to over 400 
animals. In 1988, the single captive population was divided into three 
separate captive subpopulations to avoid the possibility that a single 
catastrophic event would eliminate the entire captive population. Two 
additional captive subpopulations were established in 1990 and one each 
in 1991 and 1992, for a total of seven subpopulations. Recovery efforts 
have advanced to the reintroduction phase of putting animals back into 
the wild, since a secure captive population of 240 breeding adults has 
been achieved.


Reintroduction Sites


Site Selection Process


    The Service, in cooperation with 11 western State wildlife 
agencies, has identified potential ferret reintroduction sites within 
the historical range of the black-footed ferret. So far, reintroduction 
attempts have occurred in Wyoming, Montana, and South Dakota. Utah and 
Colorado are now identifying potential reintroduction sites, while 
other western States are evaluating potential reintroduction sites. The 
Service selects reintroduction sites in coordination with the Blackfooted 
Ferret Interstate Coordinating Committee.


Northwest Arizona/Aubrey Valley Site


    On November 15, 1995, the Service proposed in the Federal Register 
(60 FR 57387) to reintroduce a nonessential experimental population of 
black-footed ferrets into the Aubrey Valley in northwestern Arizona. 
The area selected is designated the Aubrey Valley Experimental 
Population Area (AVEPA). The AVEPA includes parts of Coconino, Mohave, 
and Yavapai counties in northwestern Arizona. The AVEPA is described as 
the Aubrey Valley west of the Aubrey Cliffs. Its boundaries are as 
follows: from Chino Point, north along the crest of the Aubrey Cliffs 
to the Supai Road (Indian Route 18), southwest along the Supai Road to 
Township 26 North, then west to Range 11 West, then south to the 
Hualapai Indian Reservation boundary, then east and northeast along the 
Hualapai Indian Reservation boundary to U.S. Highway Route 66; then 
southeast along Route 66 for approximately 6 km (2.3 miles) to a point 
intercepting the east boundary of Section 27, Township 25 North, Range 
9 West; then south along a line to where the Atchison-Topeka Railroad 
enters Yampa Divide Canyon; then southeast along the Atchison-Topeka 
Railroad alignment to the intersection of the Range 9 West/Range 8 West 
boundary; then south to the SE corner of Section 12, Township 24 North, 
Range 9 West; then southeast to the SE corner Section 20, Township 24 
West, Range 8 West; then south to the SE corner Section 29, Township 24 
North, Range 8 West; then southeast to the half section point on the 
east boundary line of Section 33, Township 24 North, Range 8 West; then 
northeast to the SE corner of Section 27, Township 24 North, Range 8 
West; then southeast to the SE corner Section 35, Township 24 North, 
Range 8 West; then southeast to the half section point on the east 
boundary line of Section 12, Township 23 North, Range 8 West; then 
southeast to the SE corner of Section 8, Township 23 North, Range 7 
West; then southeast to the SE corner of Section 16, Township 23 North, 
Range 7 West; then east to the half section point of the north boundary 
line of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 7 West; then south to the 
half section point on the north boundary line of Section 26, Township 
23 North, Range 7 West; then east along section line to Route 66; then 
southeast along Route 66 to the point of origin at Chino Point. This 
area encompasses 25,598 hectares (ha) (63,253 acres) of deeded land, 
18,536 ha (45,802 acres) of State trust land, and 45,686 ha (112,839 
acres) of Hualapai Tribal land for a total of 89,820 ha (221,894 
acres). A detailed map showing the location and delineating the 
boundaries of the AVEPA accompanies this special rule.
    Surveys conducted in 1992 indicated that approximately 7,000 ha 
(17,297 acres) of prairie dog towns exist within the AVEPA. Using an 
index outlined in Biggins et al. (1989), the Service calculates that 
this area has a current black-footed ferret family rating of 35, which 
means that the AVEPA can potentially support about 53 adult blackfooted 
ferrets. The ferret family rating is a numerical value derived 
from the acreage and density of prairie dogs and is used to estimate 
ferret carrying capacity of a prairie dog complex. Since 1990, the 
Service, the Department, and a variety of cooperators have conducted 10 
surveys in the Aubrey Valley for black-footed ferrets. These surveys 
did not discover any evidence of extant black-footed ferrets, and it is 
unlikely that wild ferrets exist within the AVEPA. Consequently, the 
Service concludes that ferrets reintroduced into the AVEPA will be 
separate and distinct from other existing populations.
    The Service and the Department plan to release ferrets into a 
subportion of the AVEPA (within the area considered best for the 
release) that is designated on the accompanying map and is referred to 
in this rule as the ``Reintroduction Area.'' If this reintroduction is 
successful, black-footed ferrets will probably disperse into other 
areas of the AVEPA. Other ferrets may be released into selected 
portions of the AVEPA at a later date. Black-footed ferrets will be 
released only if biological conditions are suitable and meet the 
management framework that has been developed. The Service, in 
cooperation with the Department and other project cooperators, will 
reevaluate reintroduction efforts in the AVEPA if any of the following 
conditions occur:

    (a) Black-footed ferret habitat is not maintained sufficient to 
support more than 30 breeding adults after 5 years;
    (b) At least 90 percent of prairie dog acreage known in 1992 is not 
maintained;

    (c) A wild black-footed ferret population is found within the AVEPA 
prior to the first breeding season following the initial 
reintroduction;

    (d) Evidence of active canine distemper or other diseases known to 
be


[[Page 11323]]

detrimental to ferrets is found in or near the reintroduction area;
    (e) Fewer than 20 black-footed ferrets are available for the first 
release;

    (f) Funding is not available to implement reintroduction plans in 
Arizona; or

    (g) Land ownership changes or cooperators withdraw from the 
project.


Reintroduction Protocol


    The reintroduction protocol involves releasing approximately 20 or 
more captive-raised black-footed ferrets in the first year of the 
program, and up to 50 or more animals annually for the next 2-4 years. 
Released animals will be excess to the needs of the captive breeding 
program. Hence, any loss of released animals would not affect the 
genetic diversity of the captive animals. Since captive breeding of 
ferrets will continue, any animal lost in the reintroduction effort can 
be replaced. In future releases, it may be necessary to obtain ferrets 
from established reintroduced populations to enhance the genetic 
diversity of the population in the AVEPA.
    Two protocols (``hard'' and ``soft'' release) are available that 
have been successfully employed for releasing captive-reared ferrets 
into the wild. Release of animals shortly after arrival at the release 
site is known as a ``hard'' release. When the animals are supplied with 
food, shelter, and protection from predators for a period of time 
before being released, the release is characterized as ``soft.'' In 
either method, ferrets are released from above-ground cages with access 
to underground nest boxes. Preconditioned or nonconditioned young or 
adult animals may be released. Captive-bred ferrets may be 
preconditioned by placing them in large pens that enclose portions of 
natural prairie-dog colonies. In addition, it may be necessary to 
surround each above-ground cage with an electric fence to prevent 
damage from livestock or access by predators. The Service, in 
cooperation with the Department and other project cooperators, will 
decide what reintroduction method is best suited for the proposed 
ferret release at the AVEPA. Cooperators are jointly developing a 
specific release protocol that will become a condition of the 
endangered species permit authorizing the Arizona reintroduction. As an 
experiment to enhance reintroduction success, excess captive pregnant 
female ferrets will be shipped to large preconditioning pens and 
allowed to whelp onsite in the AVEPA. After an extended period of 
acclimation, family groups will be released together by simply opening 
the pens.

    To the extent possible, released ferrets will be vaccinated against 
diseases, including canine distemper. Measures will be taken during the 
initial reintroduction stage to reduce predation from coyotes (Canis 
latrans), badgers (Taxidea taxus), raptors, or other predators. Habitat 
conditions also will be monitored during the reintroduction phase. All 
released ferrets will be marked (e.g., with passive integrated 
transponder tags (PIT tags)). Several released ferrets may be radiotagged 
and their behavior and movements monitored. Other monitoring 
will include use of spotlight and snow tracking surveys and visual 
surveillance.

    A high percentage (perhaps as high as 90 percent) of the animals 
may die during the first year of release. Despite prerelease 
conditioning, which should improve survival, captive-bred animals are 
more susceptible to predation, starvation, and environmental conditions 
than wild-born individuals. Mortality will probably be highest during 
the first month following release. A realistic goal in the first year 
of the program is to have some ferrets survive the first month in the 
wild and at least 10 percent of the animals surviving their first 
winter.

    From 1982 to 1986, intensive studies were conducted on the 
Meeteetse population to establish baseline data to aid future 
reintroduction efforts. These baseline data have supplemented the 
biological and behavioral data obtained from the South Dakota 
population in the 1960's and 1970's. In addition, the Wyoming, South 
Dakota, and Montana reintroduction programs also have provided data 
that are useful for this and future releases.
    The goal of the Arizona reintroduction effort is the establishment 
of a free-ranging population of at least 30 adult animals within the 
AVEPA by the year 2001. The Service, Department, and cooperators will 
monitor the progress of the project on an annual basis, including all 
determinable sources of mortality. The status of the population and the 
information gained at this site will be evaluated annually for the 
first 5 years to assess future ferret management needs. The Service 
does not expect to change the nonessential designation for this 
experimental population unless it deems the experiment to be a failure 
or until the black-footed ferret is recovered.


Status of Reintroduced Population


    The Service designates the Aubrey Valley black-footed ferret 
population ``nonessential'' under section 10(j) of the Act for the 
following reasons:

    (a) The captive breeding population is the primary population of 
the species and it has been protected against the threat of extinction 
from a single catastrophic event by dividing it into seven widely 
separated subpopulations. Hence, any loss of an experimental population 
will not threaten the survival of the species as a whole.
    (b) The primary repository of genetic diversity for the species is 
now the 240 breeding adults in the captive breeding population. Animals 
selected for reintroduction purposes will not be needed to maintain the 
captive population. Hence, any loss of animals for reintroduction into 
an experimental population will not affect the overall genetic 
diversity of the species.

    (c) All animals lost during this reintroduction attempt will be 
replaced through captive breeding. Juvenile ferrets are now being 
produced in excess of the numbers needed to maintain 240 breeding 
adults in captivity.

    This will be the fourth experimental population of black-footed 
ferrets released into the wild. The other reintroduction efforts are in 
Wyoming, southwestern South Dakota, and north-central Montana. Ferret 
reintroduction is important to help recover the species to a point 
where it can be downlisted and eventually delisted. Ferrets held in 
captivity may lose behavioral traits critical to their survival in the 
wild. Consequently, it is important to release captive-held ferrets as 
soon as possible to increase the likelihood of successful 
reintroduction.

    Approximately 33 percent of the land in the AVEPA is deeded land. 
State trust lands and Reservation lands make up the remaining 22 
percent and 45 percent of the AVEPA, respectively. The nonessential 
experimental population designation will facilitate reestablishment of 
the species in the wild by alleviating landowner concerns about 
possible land use restrictions that could otherwise apply under the 
Act. The nonessential experimental designation is intended to relax 
regulations that protect reintroduced populations of endangered 
species, while promoting the conservation of these populations. The 
nonessential designation provides a more flexible management framework 
for protecting and recovering black-footed ferrets while ensuring that 
the daily activities of landowners can continue unaffected.


[[Page 11324]]


    Attempts to reintroduce ferrets into the wild (in Wyoming, South 
Dakota, and Montana) have placed emphasis on developing and improving 
reintroduction techniques. That research will advance the groundwork 
for ferret reintroduction and management protocols at future release 
sites. The data obtained from this reintroduction effort also will be 
used to improve ferret reintroduction techniques, particularly as they 
apply to reintroduction in Gunnison's prairie dog towns. All previous 
releases have occurred in black-tailed or white-tailed prairie dog 
towns.


Location of Reintroduced Population


    Section 10(j) of the Act requires that an experimental population 
be geographically separate from other nonexperimental populations of 
the same species. Since 1987, when the last members of the Meeteetse 
population were captured for inclusion in the captive population, no 
ferrets (other than those released in Wyoming, Montana and South 
Dakota) have been documented from the wild. Nevertheless, other ferrets 
may exist in the wild today. Extensive surveys were conducted for 
black-footed ferrets in the AVEPA. In addition to these surveys, many 
hours were spent surveying prairie dog colonies at the proposed 
relocation site. No ferrets or ferret sign (skulls, feces, or trenches) 
were located. Therefore, the Service finds, and administratively 
determines with this rule, that wild black-footed ferrets no longer 
exist in the AVEPA, and that ferrets reintroduced into the AVEPA will 
not overlap with wild populations of ferrets.
    The AVEPA is located in northwestern Arizona and includes the 
Aubrey Valley west of the Aubrey Cliffs. The area has substantial 
geographic features that will hinder, but may not preclude black-footed 
ferret movements outside of the AVEPA. Given the geography and the 
poorer habitat conditions found outside of the AVEPA, the Service and 
Department believe that ferret movements outside the designated area 
are highly unlikely.

    The AVEPA will be one of the core recovery areas described in the 
Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan. After the first release and before 
the first breeding season, the nonessential experimental population 
will include all marked ferrets in the AVEPA. During and after the 
first breeding season the nonessential experimental population will 
include all ferrets located in the AVEPA, including unmarked offspring 
of released ferrets. All released ferrets and their offspring are 
expected to remain in the AVEPA because of prime prairie dog habitat, 
their limited home range, and surrounding geographic barriers. The 
Service and its cooperators may capture any stray ferret that leaves 
the AVEPA and return it to the management area, translocate it to 
another reintroduction site, place it in captivity, or leave it in 
place. If a ferret leaves the reintroduction area (but remains within 
the AVEPA), the affected landowner may request its removal. The Service 
will honor landowner requests to remove straying ferrets. If a 
landowner does not object to the ferret remaining on his/her property, 
the animal will not be removed.

    All ferrets released in the AVEPA will be marked. The Service and 
its cooperators will attempt to determine the source of any unmarked 
animals found after the first release and before the first breeding 
season. Any ferret in Arizona outside the AVEPA will be considered 
endangered and may be captured for genetic testing or evidence of 
identification tags. If the animal originated from the experimental 
population, it may be returned to the AVEPA, held in captivity, 
released at another reintroduction site, or left in place. If the 
captured animal is genetically unrelated to ferrets from the 
experimental population (possibly a wild animal), it may be retained 
for use in the captive breeding program. Under an existing contingency 
plan, up to nine wild ferrets can be captured for the captive 
population. If a landowner outside the experimental population area 
wishes black-footed ferrets to remain on his or her property, the 
Service will seek a conservation agreement or easement with the land 
owner.


Management


    The Service will undertake the AVEPA reintroduction in cooperation 
with the Department, Navajo Nation, Arizona State Land Department, 
other landowners in AVEPA, and the Phoenix Zoo (in accordance with the 
Cooperative Reintroduction Plan For Black-footed Ferrets--Aubrey 
Valley, Arizona (Belitsky et al. 1994)). Specific aspects of the 
reintroduction program are discussed below.


Monitoring


    Several monitoring efforts are planned during the first 5 years of 
the program. The Service and cooperators will monitor prairie dog 
numbers and distribution, as well as sylvatic plague occurrence on an 
annual basis. Canine distemper will be monitored before the 
reintroduction and annually thereafter. Reintroduced ferrets and their 
offspring will be monitored annually using spotlight surveys and/or 
snow tracking surveys. Several ferrets may be fitted with radio 
transmitters for more intensive monitoring. If ferrets survive the 
first winter, surveys will monitor breeding success and juvenile 
recruitment for the surviving population. Ferret behavior also will be 
investigated during the reintroduction phase.
    The Service, Department, and/or authorized cooperators will monitor 
ferret populations and their habitat annually to document hazards or 
activities that would affect ferrets. When appropriate, the Service and 
the Department will develop strategies in cooperation with involved 
parties and affected landowners to minimize harm to ferrets.
    The Service, the Department, and cooperators will inform other 
agencies and the public about the presence of ferrets in the AVEPA 
through public outreach programs. Educational programs will address the 
handling of sick or injured ferrets. The Service has asked the 
Department to serve as the primary contact agency for government 
entities, private landowners, and the public within and surrounding the 
black-footed ferret reintroduction area. The Department has assigned 
its Regional Wildlife Program Manager, Kingman, Arizona, ((602) 692-
7700) as principal contact to answer any public inquiries and follow up 
on reports of injured or dead ferrets. The Department will report such 
incidents to the Service's Field Supervisor, Ecological Services, 
Phoenix, Arizona, ((602) 640-2720). The Field Supervisor will notify 
the Service's Division of Law Enforcement of any reports of dead or 
injured ferrets. The public should report injured or dead ferrets 
directly to either the Department's Regional Wildlife Program Manager 
or the Service's Field Supervisor at the phone numbers identified 
above. Any ferret carcass found should be preserved. Any individual who 
finds a dead ferret should not disturb potential evidence that may be 
used to determine cause of death.


Disease Considerations


    If canine distemper is documented in any wild mammal found near or 
within the reintroduction site, the Service will reevaluate the 
reintroduction program. At least 10 coyotes, and possibly badgers, will 
be tested for canine distemper before ferrets are released at the 
AVEPA.

    The Service and cooperators will attempt to limit potential sources 
of distemper by--


[[Page 11325]]


 Discouraging people from bringing dogs into the AVEPA,
 Encouraging residents and hunters to vaccinate pets, and
 Encouraging people to report any dead mammals or any unusual 
behavior in wild mammals within the area.
    Efforts are underway to develop an effective, permanent canine 
distemper vaccine for black-footed ferrets. Routine sampling for 
sylvatic plague within prairie dog towns will occur before and during 
reintroduction efforts.


Genetic Considerations


    Ferrets selected for the initial reintroduction will be animals not 
needed to preserve the genetic diversity of captive populations. 
Experimental populations of ferrets usually contain less genetic 
diversity than captive populations. Selecting and reestablishing 
breeding ferrets that compensate for any genetic biases in earlier 
releases can correct this disparity. The ultimate goal is to establish 
wild ferret populations with as much genetic diversity as possible.


Prairie Dog Management


    The Service will work cooperatively with landowners and land 
management agencies in the AVEPA to maintain sufficient prairie dog 
habitat to support more than 30 breeding adult ferrets, as well as to 
maintain at least 90 percent of the prairie dog habitat known in 1992. 
The Service will work cooperatively with the affected landowners and 
land management agencies to resolve any prairie dog management 
conflicts.


Mortality


    Only animals not needed for the captive breeding program will be 
used in this reintroduction attempt. The Service expects significant 
mortality since captive-reared animals must adapt to the wild. Predator 
and prairie dog management, vaccination, supplemental feeding, and/or 
improved release methods should partially offset natural mortality 
resulting from predation, a fluctuating food supply, disease, and lack 
of experience in killing prey (prairie dogs). Public education will 
reduce potential human-related mortality. The Service expects only a 
low level of mortality from incidental take since the reintroduction is 
deemed compatible with traditional land use in the area.
    The Act defines ``incidental take'' as take that is incidental to, 
and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful 
activity. A person may take a ferret in the AVEPA provided the take is 
incidental as defined under the Act, and if any resulting injury or 
mortality is unintentional, and not due to negligent conduct. Such take 
will not be considered ``knowing take'' and the Service will not take 
legal action. However, the knowing, deliberate take of a black-footed 
ferret will be referred to the appropriate authorities for prosecution. 
Any take of a black-footed ferret must be reported immediately to the 
Service's Field Supervisor (see ADDRESSES section).
    The biological opinion prepared for the reintroduction anticipates 
an annual incidental take of about 12 percent of all reintroduced 
ferrets and their offspring in the AVEPA. If this level is exceeded in 
a given year, the Service, in cooperation with the Department, 
landowners, and land managing agencies, will conduct an evaluation to 
develop and implement measures to reduce the level of incidental take.


Special Handling


    Under special regulations that apply to the experimental 
population, Service employees and their acting agents may handle blackfooted 
ferrets for various reasons--scientific purposes, relocation to 
avoid conflict with human activities, recovery efforts, relocation to 
future reintroduction sites, aiding sick, injured, or orphaned animals, 
and salvaging dead animals. Any ferret deemed unfit to remain in the 
wild will be placed in captivity. The Service also will decide the 
placement or disposition of all sick, injured, orphaned, and dead 
animals.


Coordination With Landowners and Land Managers


    The Service and Department attempted to identify issues and 
concerns associated with the ferret reintroduction in the AVEPA before 
developing the proposed rule. The reintroduction has been discussed 
with potentially affected State agencies and landowners within the 
release area. The affected State agencies and landowners/managers have 
indicated support for ferret reintroduction if the animals released in 
the AVEPA are a nonessential experimental population and if land use 
activities in the AVEPA are not constrained without the consent of 
affected landowners.


Potential for Conflict with Grazing and Recreational Activities


    Under the current management scheme for the AVEPA, the Service does 
not expect conflicts between livestock grazing and black-footed ferret 
management. The State Regional Wildlife Program Manager will coordinate 
any ferret reintroduction measure that might affect grazing patterns in 
the AVEPA, such as the placement of ferret release pens, and will 
secure the concurrence of affected landowners. Livestock graze on all 
lands in the AVEPA and existing grazing practices are not expected to 
adversely affect ferret habitat. No restrictions will apply to 
landowners regarding prairie dog control on private lands within the 
AVEPA. If prairie dog control efforts proposed for private or State 
trust lands locally affect ferret prey base within a specific area, 
State and Federal biologists will determine whether ferrets would be 
potentially impacted. The Service, Department, or authorized 
cooperators may translocate ferrets from problem areas to other areas 
of lesser conflict. Big game hunting, prairie dog shooting, and 
trapping of furbearers or predators in the AVEPA are not expected to 
affect ferrets. If private activities impede the establishment of 
ferrets, the Service and Department will work closely with landowners 
to develop appropriate responses to avoid or minimize problems.


Protection of Black-footed Ferrets


    To the extent possible and appropriate, ferrets will be released in 
a manner that provides short-term protection from natural mortality 
(predators, disease, lack of prey base) and from human-related sources 
of mortality. Improved release methods, vaccination, predator 
management, and the management of prairie dog populations will reduce 
natural mortality.

    Human causes of mortality will be minimized by releasing ferrets in 
areas with low human population densities and little development 
potential, and by working with landowners to help avoid existing or 
proposed activities that could impair ferret recovery.
    The Service has prepared a final biological opinion for the 
reintroduction of ferrets in the AVEPA. It concludes that this action 
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species.


Public Awareness and Cooperation


    An extensive educational effort will be undertaken to inform the 
public in the region and nationally about the importance of this 
reintroduction project in the overall recovery of the black-footed 
ferret. This should enhance public awareness of the significance of the 
AVEPA program and of the importance of the prairie habitats upon which 
ferrets depend.


[[Page 11326]]



Effective Date


    The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) require that at least 30 days 
must be allowed before a rule becomes effective, unless an agency has 
good reason to make it effective sooner. The success of this 
reintroduction requires that reintroduction facilities be fully 
installed and the management program in place before pregnant female 
ferrets are transported to the AVEPA, beginning in March 1996 or soon 
thereafter. The timing of the project therefore requires that this rule 
become effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register.


Conclusion


    The designation of the AVEPA population as a nonessential 
experimental population should encourage local cooperation since this 
designation will minimize recovery project impacts on normal activities 
within the release site. The Service considers the nonessential 
experimental population designation to be necessary to gain the full 
cooperation of landowners, agencies, and recreational interests in the 
affected area. Based on the above information, and utilizing the best 
scientific and commercial data available, (in accordance with 50 CFR 
17.81), the Service finds that the reintroduction of black-footed 
ferrets into the AVEPA will further the conservation and recovery of 
the species.


Summary of Comments and Recommendations


    The November 15, 1995, proposed rule and associated notifications 
requested all interested parties to submit factual reports or 
information that might contribute to the development of a final rule. 
Appropriate Federal and State agencies, county governments, scientific 
organizations, and other interested parties were contacted and 
requested to comment. Newspaper notices inviting public comment were 
published in the Williams-Grand Canyon News on November 22, 1995, the 
Kingman Daily Miner on November 26, 1995, and the Arizona Republic/
Phoenix Gazette on November 27, 1995. Sixteen written comments were 
received and are discussed below. Seven supported the action, 2 were 
opposed, and 7 were neutral on the proposed action.
    A public hearing was conducted in Seligman, Arizona, on December 
12, 1995. Seventeen people attended the hearing. Four oral comments 
were received: Three favored the proposal and one took no position.
    The Service arranged for 5 individuals knowledgeable of blackfooted 
ferret biology to review the proposal. However, they provided no 
comments.

    The following summary addresses written comments and oral 
statements presented at the public hearing and received during the 
comment period. Comments of a similar nature or point are grouped into 
general issues. These issues and the Service's response to each are 
discussed below.

    Issue 1: Historic biodiversity of species should be reestablished 
as nearly as is possible.

    Service Response: The Service agrees with this comment. 
Establishing 10 ferret populations, an identified recovery plan 
objective, will help restore historic species biodiversity.
    Issue 2: Are any reintroduction sites proposed for southern 
Arizona?

    Service Response: No appropriate sites have been identified for 
southern Arizona and none are being considered at this time. This rule 
applies only to the population of black-footed ferrets to be 
reintroduced in the Aubrey Valley of northern Arizona.
    Issue 3: Respondents expressed concern about the well-being of 
released ferrets.

    Service Response: The reintroduction of captive ferrets into the 
wild removes most protection that humans can provide. This and other 
reintroductions seek to establish self-sustaining, free-ranging 
populations of ferrets. Each reintroduction includes techniques to 
ensure long-term survival of released ferrets to the greatest extent 
possible, and provides means to evaluate the best ways to reintroduce 
and release ferrets.

    Issue 4: Are there any alternatives to release or reintroduction of 
ferrets such as adoption programs, pet stores, and so on?
    Service Response: There appears to be confusion over the 
distinction between domestic ferrets and the black-footed ferret. The 
former is an exotic species commonly raised and sold as a pet. The 
latter is a native species listed as endangered under the Act. Adoption 
programs are inappropriate and commercial trade in the species is 
illegal.

    Issue 5: Media accounts appear to be contradictory concerning the 
success of black-footed ferret reintroduction and whether the species 
is recovered.

    Service Response: The black-footed ferret is far from recovery. The 
captive breeding program has been very successful. Reintroduction 
efforts are recent, but also have achieved limited success. Blackfooted 
ferrets have survived and reproduced in the wild following 
release. However, according to the goals of the current recovery plan, 
the reintroduction effort must continue and substantially expand before 
recovery is fully achieved.

    Issue 6: There appears to be a contradiction regarding black-footed 
ferrets being affected by predators and the Service's anti-predatorcontrol 
stance. Electric fencing may be the best means of predator 
control. Controlling coyotes could lead to an influx of new coyotes and 
increase disease. The Service should disclose any previous disease data 
collected on predators from the proposed reintroduction area. Will any 
predators killed in control efforts be included in the sample of 
animals needed to monitor diseases? When can disease monitoring 
activity be discontinued?

    Service Response: Several predators prey on black-footed ferrets, 
and predators can seriously compromise ferret reintroduction success. 
Consequently, a ferret release protocol for the Aubrey Valley requires 
an adequate predator management strategy. We can reduce predation in 
several ways including some that kill the predators and others that 
deter or exclude them. The Service and Department will attempt to 
minimize ferret predation at crucial periods of reintroduction. The 
Service and Department are keenly interested in continuing development 
and application of predator management tools that would alleviate the 
need for killing predators. Electric fencing employed in the Montana 
ferret reintroduction project has shown significant promise in reducing 
coyote and badger predation on ferrets, and similar fencing for the 
Aubrey Valley project will be evaluated. However, the Service and 
Department must fully weigh whether electric fencing or other predator 
management means (including killing) are the most practical considering 
logistics, timing, and funding constraints. Although there are few 
supporting data, lethal control of coyotes, especially during pup 
dispersal, could conceivably lead to increased numbers of coyotes in 
local reintroduction areas. Since 1993, 29 coyotes from the Aubrey 
Valley/Seligman area have been collected to test for the presence of 
canine distemper. The information obtained indicates that no recent 
canine distemper outbreaks have occurred in this area. Any predators 
collected in the AVEPA for future control measures would be evaluated 
for evidence of distemper and sylvatic plague. Because these diseases 
could potentially devastate the reintroduced ferret population and 
could confound


[[Page 11327]]

subsequent releases, it is essential that a minimum number of predators 
be collected each year for the duration of the reintroduction program.
    Issue 7: Prairie dogs damage land.

    Service Response: Prairie dogs create burrows and reduce the amount 
of vegetation immediately surrounding their burrows. However, prairie 
dogs evolved on native grasslands and are an extremely important 
component of the prairie ecosystem. Prairie dogs provide the only known 
habitat for black-footed ferrets. All reintroductions so far (and the 
one to be carried out in the Aubrey Valley, Arizona) are in areas where 
prairie dogs currently exist. In fact, the presence and abundance of 
prairie dogs is the prime factor by which reintroduction sites are 
evaluated. Prairie dogs are considered a keystone species of the 
prairie environment and create and provide habitat for numerous 
wildlife species. The Service believes that landowners in the AVEPA are 
aware of both the problems associated with prairie dogs and of their 
importance to ferret recovery and the overall prairie ecosystem.
    Issue 8: A landowner requested that none of his land be designated 
as critical habitat.

    Service Response: The Service has not designated critical habitat 
for the black-footed ferret and has no plans to do so.
    Issue 9: Is the nonessential experimental designation really 
appropriate in this instance or in general? Release efforts have been 
confounded by predation, disease and other factors. There are many 
reasons why designation as essential is vital and more appropriate. An 
essential designation would provide beneficial protection, and the 
protection would not completely halt projects anyway. The captive 
breeding population was never designated as an essential population.
    Service Response: Section 10(j) of the Act authorizes the Secretary 
of Interior to designate experimental populations in order to 
facilitate recovery of threatened or endangered species. Experimental 
population provisions permit the Service to exercise flexibility in 
avoiding situations that would otherwise confound recovery activities 
because of land use restrictions potentially imposed under sections 7 
and 9 of the Act. Evaluations performed by the Department, Service, and 
their cooperators have indicated that the AVEPA represents the best 
known potential black-footed ferret habitat in Arizona. Since lands in 
the AVEPA are either privately owned or are State lands leased for 
specific land uses (principally grazing), the Service can not (and will 
not) engage in recovery activities in the AVEPA without the consent of 
landowners. Landowner consent would be impossible without the 
experimental designation, which alleviates the possibility of imposing 
land use restrictions. Nevertheless, landowners in the AVEPA have 
concurred with the project, and the Service finds existing land use 
practices and the reintroduction program mutually compatible. Because 
the distribution of potential ferret habitat in the United States 
overlays a great amount of private land, the recovery of this species 
is likely to depend on the good will and cooperation of private land 
owners. The Service must work cooperatively with potentially affected 
landowners in order to recover the ferret on private lands where the 
presence of ferrets is compatible with other activities.
    The Service's rationale for designating ferrets reintroduced to the 
AVEPA as a ``nonessential'' experimental population rather than an 
``essential'' experimental population was explained above under 
``Status of Reintroduced Population.'' Black-footed ferrets do not 
occur in the wild except in three nonessential experimental populations 
in Montana, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Moreover, the primary genetic 
repository of the species is found in the captive population, which is 
maintained at seven separate facilities. Ferrets to be released in the 
AVEPA are surplus to the captive population and are not needed to 
maintain captive population levels. Animals lost through the 
reintroduction effort can be replaced by captive breeding. 
Consequently, the Service finds that the captive breeding population of 
black-footed ferrets is essential to the survival of the species. The 
Service's finding is supported by the preamble to the final rule that 
implemented the Act's experimental population provisions (49 FR 33885, 
August 27, 1984). It explains that organisms classified as experimental 
are those to be removed from an existing source or donor population. 
``Essential experimental population''is defined, in part, in 50 CFR 
17.80(b) as ``* * * an experimental population whose loss would be 
likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival of the species 
in the wild.''

    Issue 10: The Service is too lenient or too vague about allowable 
prairie dog control (shooting, trapping, poisoning) in the area. The 
Service should clearly delineate a prairie dog control policy for lands 
in the reintroduction zone that focuses on ferret recovery.
    Service Response: The special rules clearly indicate that otherwise 
legal activities (such as prairie dog control) within the AVEPA, even 
those that may incidentally take black-footed ferrets, will not violate 
the Act. At the same time, current land use practices within the AVEPA 
are considered compatible with the viability of black-footed ferrets on 
the site. The use of the area as a reintroduction site depends on the 
cooperation of the landowners. Success of this effort also will depend 
on the cooperation of all involved entities to ensure that sufficient 
prairie dog populations are allowed to persist. The Service believes 
that prairie dog population maintenance can be achieved on a 
cooperative basis.

    Issue 11: Two comments recommended refinement of the boundaries of 
the experimental area. One requested that the southern boundary be more 
readily identifiable by legal descriptions instead of contour lines. A 
landowner, the Hualapai Tribe, requested that the northwest boundary of 
the AVEPA be expanded to include all suitable prairie dog habitat on 
the Hualapai Indian Reservation.

    Service Response: The Service contacted the Hualapai Tribe to seek 
clarification on the location of suitable prairie dog habitat on the 
Hualapai Indian Reservation. The Service concurred and the boundaries 
were modified in accordance with the recommendations of both 
commenters.

    Issue 12: When will there be an essential population designated 
``in the wild?'' Now is the time.

    Service Response: Under section 10(j) of the Act, the Secretary 
(Service) determines whether or not an experimental population is 
``essential'' to the continued existence of a species. The Service uses 
the Act's flexibility to reintroduce surplus, captive raised blackfooted 
ferrets into nonessential experimental population areas. The 
Service does not expect to draw from ferrets needed to maintain the 
captive population in order to establish experimental populations. To 
release a proportion of the ``essential'' captive population would 
reduce the number of effective breeding animals. It would also affect 
the supply of captive-reared ferrets for existing and future recovery 
efforts, and could possibly jeopardize the continued existence of the 
species.

    Issue 13: Designating a population as nonessential experimental to 
obtain additional knowledge for future reintroduction seems 
counterintuitive. The stated purpose of the Act is to conserve species 
and ecosystems. The Service should not view reintroduction of the 
black-footed ferret as an isolated event that can be adequately 
achieved through nonessential experimental designations. The action 
involves a


[[Page 11328]]

moral issue of humans playing God in designating species as 
``nonessential'' and ``experimental.''

    Service Response: The Service believes that the latitude provided 
in the Act to designate nonessential experimental populations affords a 
realistic means of achieving recovery of the black-footed ferret. A 
significant proportion of the potential habitat remaining within the 
former range of the black-footed ferret is on private land. To recover 
the ferret and preserve the prairie ecosystems on which it depends 
requires that the Service, and other Federal and State agencies, 
succeed in developing cooperative reintroduction programs with 
interested parties, especially private landowners. The designation as 
nonessential experimental does not diminish the importance the Service 
attaches to individual reintroduction projects or imply a lack of 
concern for the well-being of the ferrets involved. The Service agrees 
that the recovery of the species cannot be achieved through an isolated 
experimental reintroduction. However, such efforts are essential for 
the development of effective reintroduction techniques and the 
establishment of self-sustaining populations over several western 
prairies.

    Issue 14: If there is a problem with capacity for black-footed 
ferrets in captivity, then one solution may be to place priority on 
wild populations and decrease the level of captive breeding. Given the 
genetic redundancy in the captive breeding population, its continuation 
is unnecessary. We may want to retain the captive breeding population 
to bolster wild populations, but not as an essential population.
    Service Response: Thus far, the captive breeding program has been a 
success, and recovery goals for the black-footed ferret depend on the 
continued success of the captive breeding program. The captive 
population itself is not genetically redundant. Maintaining and 
maximizing the genetic diversity of the captive population is an 
integral part of the current recovery effort.
    Issue 15: If there are no impacts to current land uses from the 
reintroduction, why eliminate the benefit of sections 7 and 9 of the 
Act from the action? Black-footed ferrets should be reintroduced with 
full protection as endangered due to current risks they face. Such a 
reintroduction also would provide the opportunity to establish critical 
habitat in the AVEPA. There is a problem when small, local interests 
can drive reintroduction/conservation of one of the most endangered 
species on the continent. The action is very biased toward protecting 
human activities.

    Service Response: There appears to be some misunderstanding of the 
process involved in the nonessential experimental determination and the 
reintroduction process as it applies to the Aubrey Valley project. The 
Department, Service, and other cooperators evaluated much of the 
remaining prairie dog habitats in Arizona in order to find the best 
potential ferret reintroduction site. The evaluation included an 
assessment of whether existing and foreseeable land uses in the area 
were compatible with the maintenance of a ferret population. Despite 
intensive surveys, no wild black-footed ferrets were found in the 
Aubrey Valley area. Landowners in the AVEPA were approached by the 
Department and Service to solicit their support for the project. Such 
support could only be obtained through a nonessential experimental 
designation. The landowners and other cooperators who support the 
establishment of wild ferret population in the Aubrey Valley deserve 
credit for voluntary cooperation in the recovery of the ferret.
    Issue 16: Language in the rule prescribing a reevaluation of the 
reintroduction efforts in the AVEPA is too restrictive regarding 
disease factors and the minimum number of ferrets available for a 
release.

    Service Response: The final rule has been modified to address 
disease concerns relating specifically to the black-footed ferret. 
Provisions of the rule allow for flexibility to ``reevaluate'' 
reintroduction efforts in the event of an identified disease or if 
fewer than 20 animals are available. It does not require curtailment of 
the effort with discovery of a single case of disease. Other factors, 
such as the species carrying the disease, the animal's age, and the 
proximity of the animal to the release area or experimental population 
boundaries would be considered, and the Service would seek evaluations 
by experts before responding to a report of disease. The Service must 
maintain flexibility to evaluate disease circumstances as they arise 
without adopting a requirement to change management capabilities only 
after documentation of a set number of disease cases. Likewise, the 
rule does not require that the project be curtailed if only 19 animals 
are available for release. However, the Service would evaluate the 
potential benefits of an experimental release of a small number of 
ferrets against augmenting an established release with those same 
animals. The reintroduction of at least 20 ferrets is a minimum target 
release level established in previous black-footed ferret 
reintroduction projects.

    Issue 17: A canine distemper vaccine is available for black-footed 
ferrets although in short supply. The Service should not restrict 
release of ferrets if they have not been vaccinated. Vaccination should 
be done on a ``whenever possible'' basis.
    Service Response: The Service agrees, and the rule has been 
modified to specify that ferrets will be vaccinated to the extent 
possible.

    Issue 18: Genetic testing may not be necessary to determine the 
origin of a marked ferret found outside the AVEPA (i.e., whether it 
came from the AVEPA). Genetic testing may only be necessary for 
unmarked or other unidentified animals, such as dispersing young. The 
rule should state that any unmarked ferret occurring outside AVEPA will 
initially be considered endangered, but should be captured for genetic 
testing to determine the origin of the individual. It also should state 
that if the captured animal is determined to be genetically unrelated 
to ferrets from the experimental population (possibly a wild animal), 
it will be retained for use in the captive breeding program.
    Service Response: The rule has been modified to reflect that the 
origin of a ferret captured outside the AVEPA can be determined by the 
presence of identification tags. Ferrets genetically unrelated to the 
nonessential experimental population that are found outside the AVEPA 
will be considered endangered and can be retained in captivity. This 
issue is discussed in greater length below.
    Issue 19: The proposal states that at least 10 coyotes, and 
possibly badgers, will be tested for canine distemper before ferrets 
are released in the AVEPA. Setting a minimum number could delay release 
efforts if goals are not obtained before the release date. Instead, the 
rule should state that prior to the release of ferrets, an attempt will 
be made to test at least 10 coyotes, and possibly badgers, for evidence 
of canine distemper.

    Service Response: An episode of canine distemper in the AVEPA could 
have a profound affect on the management of the reintroduced ferret 
population. Consequently, the Service and Department must establish 
adequate canine distemper monitoring. The collection and evaluation of 
10 predators/each year is considered a minimally acceptable level.
    Issue 20: The term ``predator management'' should be substituted 
for ``predator control.'' Traditionally, ``control'' implies killing, 
and nonlethal


[[Page 11329]]

techniques should be evaluated before implementing any control program.
    Service Response: The Service agrees with this comment, and the 
appropriate changes have been made.

    Issue 21: The status of the Arizona State Land Department is 
unclear. Is it a landowner, cooperator, and/or land-managing agency? 
What is the difference among these terms in various contexts? The 
proposed rule is confusing as to the role of the Arizona Game and Fish 
Department, which does not have authority to make decisions for the 
Arizona State Land Department, the owner and trustee of school trust 
lands.

    Service Response: In the various contexts of the rule, the Arizona 
State Land Department is a landowner, cooperator, and land-managing 
agency. There is no distinction as to how the provisions of the rule 
are applied to any of these categories. The rule was revised to clarify 
the status of all landowners affected by this rule.
    Issue 22: The status of ferrets found outside boundaries of the 
Aubrey Valley Management Area is unclear. Ferrets introduced to the 
Aubrey Valley may migrate to other areas where prairie dogs exist. The 
commenter would oppose the reintroduction plan if such migration could 
lead to the designation of critical habitat or other consequences under 
the Act that would affect lands in the vicinity of, but outside the 
boundaries of, the Aubrey Valley Management Area.
    Service Response: Black-footed ferrets outside the boundary of the 
AVEPA will be classified as endangered under the Act. Although the 
Service cannot make a commitment that lands outside of AVEPA will never 
be designated as critical habitat, designation is extremely unlikely. A 
designation of critical habitat would require a separate rulemaking 
process that also would involve assessments of economic impacts and 
would provide for public comment and hearings. No critical habitat has 
been designated for the black-footed ferret, and no such designations 
are planned. The Service regards full cooperation with any potentially 
affected landowner, inside or outside of the AVEPA, as essential to the 
success of this and future black-footed ferret reintroduction projects. 
The Service will try to settle conflicts between ferret recovery 
concerns and land use activities to the benefit of both ferrets and 
landowners. The Service and Department do not expect black-footed 
ferrets to leave the AVEPA.

    Issue 23: What is the legal significance of the distinction between 
the ``reintroduction area,'' the ``experimental population site,'' the 
``Aubrey Valley Experimental Population Area,'' and the ``Aubrey Valley 
Management Area?'' Language in the rule should clarify the origin of 
the term ``reintroduction area.''

    Service Response: The ``reintroduction area'' is that portion of 
the AVEPA where the actual release of ferrets will occur. The 
``experimental population site'' is the AVEPA; AVEPA is an acronym for 
the Aubrey Valley Experimental Population Area. Use of these terms in 
the rule has been clarified.

    Issue 24: Will State-owned lands receive the same protection and 
treatment as ``private lands?''

    Service Response: Yes. This rule makes no distinction between and 
applies no separate conditions to State versus private lands.
    Issue 25: The proposed rule implies that ferrets will not be 
removed from lands outside the designated experimental area if they 
migrate to these areas. What justifies this distinction? Ferrets that 
leave the AVEPA should be returned upon request by an affected 
landowner.

    Service Response: The special rules allow removal of black-footed 
ferrets within the AVEPA at the request of a landowner. Ferrets outside 
of the AVEPA would have endangered status. The Service cannot remove 
endangered species solely at the request of a landowner. However, the 
Service, the Department, and/or authorized cooperators can capture 
ferrets outside of the AVEPA and would probably move ferrets that 
originated from the AVEPA back to the experimental area. Moreover, in 
the unlikely event that a ferret is found outside of the AVEPA, 
regardless of whether or not it originated in the AVEPA, the Service 
will work closely with affected landowners to ensure that applicable 
conservation measures are developed cooperatively, and to the benefit 
of both landowner and ferrets.

    Issue 26: The proposal does not clearly state under what 
circumstances the Service would reevaluate the plan, and what the 
consequences might be for State-owned lands. Is a single ``5-year 
evaluation'' contemplated, or will there be annual evaluations for the 
first 5 years of the program? If the program continues more than 5 
years after the reintroduction, when, how frequently, and under what 
circumstances will it be reevaluated? Can the Service, after the first 
5 years, reevaluate the ``nonessential experimental'' designation for 
the population in the Aubrey Valley?

    Service Response: The special rules require overall evaluation of 
the reintroduction effort at 5 years. Management efforts carried out as 
part of the reintroduction also will be evaluated on an annual basis. 
For instance, if disease substantially decreases prairie dog 
populations in a given year, the Service and Department may decide not 
to release ferrets that year. Although the rules do not specifically 
mention other evaluations, if the active reintroduction effort 
continues beyond 5 years, it will continue to be evaluated as 
appropriate. The special rules make clear that the planned 5-year 
evaluation will not include a reevaluation of the experimental 
population designation. Although the Service can technically reevaluate 
the experimental population designation at any time, a change in 
designation would have to be done with the concurrence of landowners 
for the program to continue. Any change of designation would have to be 
done through the rulemaking process, which provides for public comment 
and hearings. No changes in designation are expected or planned.
    Issue 27: Can landowners only require the Service to remove ferrets 
from their lands if the nonessential experimental status is altered? 
Can the State of Arizona require removal of ferrets from its lands if 
the status is altered, or is that right limited to ``private 
landowners?''

    Service Response: The general regulations governing nonessential 
experimental populations under the Act and this rule give State lands 
the same status as private lands. The rule has been modified to clarify 
the distinction between Federal public lands and all other landowners. 
This rule imposes no requirements for landowners to maintain ferrets on 
their properties in the AVEPA over any specified time period. The 
Service would attempt to fully accommodate any request from a 
landowner/cooperator who wishes to withdraw from the project and who 
sought to remove or exclude project facilities, personnel, and/or 
ferrets.

    Issue 28: How long will the experimental population be maintained 
in the Aubrey Valley?

    Service Response: The duration of designation of the population as 
experimental is indefinite. The reintroduction effort will continue 
until it either succeeds or fails. If recovery is achieved and the 
species is delisted, the Service will withdraw the experimental 
population designation. The entire species would then not retain any 
legal status or protection under the Act.
    Issue 29: The Arizona State Land Department is not presently named 
as a party to the Cooperative Reintroduction Plan. Is the Plan part of 
the rule? What


[[Page 11330]]

is the legal significance of references in the rule to the Plan? How 
will the rule affect landowners who are not parties to the Plan?
    Service Response: The rule refers to the Cooperative Reintroduction 
Plan. It will be used as a guiding document for actual reintroduction 
efforts; however, it has no legal basis. The rule establishes and 
adopts regulations under section 10(j) of the Act for the establishment 
of the AVEPA. It applies equally to all landowners in the AVEPA.
    Issue 30: What restrictions on land management activities are 
contemplated for any of the areas affected by the rule? What 
restrictions does the Cooperative Reintroduction Plan impose? Will 
there be any restrictions imposed other than those that a landowner has 
accepted in writing?

    Service Response: The rule and the Cooperative Reintroduction Plan 
do not impose restrictions on land management activities. The 
Cooperative Reintroduction Plan is the vehicle to guide development of 
management measures that will aid ferret reintroduction and recovery 
efforts. Landowners and cooperators involved in the Aubrey Valley 
ferret project have cooperatively developed these measures.
    Issue 31: What specific area is referred to as ``the prairie dog 
habitat known in 1992?'' What activities or conditions would result in 
a reduction of that ``prairie dog habitat?'' What happens if landowners 
eventually devote their lands to a use incompatible with use as prairie 
dog habitat?

    Service Response: The specific area encompasses all prairie dog 
colonies that were discovered by field surveys in 1992. Several 
activities or conditions could affect that habitat, such as disease, 
prairie dog poisoning, and actual disruption or destruction of lands 
occupied by prairie dogs. If large, widespread acreage of lands in the 
AVEPA were eventually devoted to uses incompatible with prairie dog and 
ferret habitat, the Service and Department would have to reconsider 
continuation of the reintroduction program in the Aubrey Valley.
    Issue 32: The application of ``take'' prohibitions and requirements 
is unclear. What is meant by ``necessary measures'' that would be taken 
if incidental take exceeds 12 percent? What will the role of landowners 
be in determining what measures will be taken and in what specific 
locations? The measures should be implemented only with the consent of 
any affected landowners.

    Service Response: The figure of 12 percent is an allowable take 
level established in the intra-Service section 7 consultation that was 
required for the planning of a nonessential experimental black-footed 
ferret population in the Aubrey Valley. The biological opinion that 
resulted from that consultation included several reasonable and prudent 
measures that must be incorporated by the Service to reduce or 
eliminate anticipated incidental take. ``Necessary measures'' can only 
include those that would be developed in cooperation with landowners 
within the AVEPA as additional means to help reduce or eliminate 
incidental take. Any such measures that could affect existing landusers 
would have to be carried out in cooperation with, and with the consent 
of, AVEPA landowners.

    Issue 33: What is the legal relationship between the Black-footed 
Ferret Recovery Plan and the rule? In the event of a conflict between 
the two with regard to the treatment of landowners, will the rule take 
priority over the recovery plan?

    Service Response: There is no legal relationship between the 
recovery plan and this rule. The recovery plan is a nonbinding document 
that includes recommended measures for recovering the black-footed 
ferret. This rule is a change in regulation that assigns a specific 
status to a particular population, and in turn provides means to manage 
that population. In the event of a conflict in intent, meaning, etc., 
the rule would prevail over the recovery plan.
    Issue 34: The rule should state that, when appropriate, strategies 
and contingencies to minimize harm to ferrets will be included in the 
management plan and, with the consent of any affected landowners, will 
be implemented by the Service. Objectives to maintain prairie dog 
habitat should be negotiated through written agreements with affected 
landowners. No restrictions should be placed on landowners without 
their written consent.

    Service Response: This rule places no restrictions on landowners. 
Affected landowners have already reviewed and approved a reintroduction 
plan that incorporates strategies and contingencies to manage ferrets. 
The Service and Department intend for that plan to be dynamic, and any 
measures necessary to maintain prairie dog habitat will be carried out 
in cooperation with affected landowners.
    Issue 35: What does the Service consider to be ``negligent'' 
conduct, or intentional conduct, that would constitute a take 
violation? The last sentence of special rule (g)(5) should be changed 
to read, ``Intentional take that is not `incidental take' as defined in 
this rule will be referred to the appropriate authorities for 
prosecution. Otherwise lawful land use activities, including the 
alteration of prairie dog and ferret habitat, whether or not such 
activities are intentional or `negligent,' shall not be considered to 
be an unlawful take under the Act unless they are contrary to the 
provisions of a cooperative agreement between the Service and an 
affected landowner.''

    Service Response: The legal limits of ``negligence'' related to the 
incidental take of ferrets are difficult to prescribe. The suggestion 
to modify the rule to authorize ``intentional'' or ``negligent'' 
incidental take in the course of an otherwise legal activity is beyond 
the scope of this rule and would require a change in the Act and 
implementing regulations. Inadvertent take by persons engaged in 
otherwise lawful activities (e.g. operating vehicles) without a 
knowing, intentional effort to do so, would be considered incidental 
and would not be subject to punishment under the Act. A reason for 
adopting a nonessential experimental designation is to allow management 
of ferrets in the AVEPA without affecting existing land uses or other 
human activities. Special rule (g)(5) has been applied to all previous 
former black-footed ferret reintroduction sites and has been thoroughly 
reviewed by the Service and by Department of the Interior solicitors. 
The take prohibition of the Act cannot be modified through this special 
rule and cannot be governed by specifications of a separate cooperative 
agreement not authorized through regulation.
    Issue 36: The rule should state that affected landowners will 
support the reintroduction if ferrets located in or dispersing or 
migrating from the AVEPA are considered to be a nonessential 
experimental population and if the reintroduction does not constrain 
otherwise lawful land use activities, such as grazing, without the 
consent of the affected landowner.

    Service Response: This rule only establishes experimental 
population status for ferrets in the AVEPA. Any change in status of 
ferrets outside the AVEPA would have to be accomplished through 
additional rules. It should be noted that the Service and Department 
believe that ferrets are extremely unlikely to move out of the 
experimental area.

    Issue 37: The next to last sentence of special rule (g)(9)(iv) 
should be changed to read: ``A black-footed ferret occurring outside 
the experimental area in Arizona would be considered as endangered but 
could be captured for


[[Page 11331]]

genetic testing or removed and relocated upon the request of the 
affected landowner.''

    Service Response: Any black-footed ferret occurring outside the 
AVEPA would be classified as endangered. The Service cannot delegate 
the decision to remove an endangered species to the owners of lands 
that would be potentially occupied by the species (see Service Response 
to Issues 22 and 25.)

    Issue 38: The second and subsequent sentences of special rule 
(g)(12) should be changed to read as: ``Should the Service determine 
that a substantial modification to black-footed ferret management on 
non-Federal lands is required, any landowner who consented * * *.''
    Service Response: The part of the special rule referred to relates 
to change in the designation or status of the nonessential experimental 
population. The Service has modified the language of the rule to 
clarify the applicability of this provision to all non-Federal 
landowners.

    Issue 39: Part of Township 28 North, Range 7 West (south of the 
railroad tracks) is being developed as home sites, with road 
development, power lines and septic systems. It should be noted that 
the reintroduction area is in a developed or developing area.
    Service Response: Township 28 North is not south of the railroad 
tracks at the southern boundary of the AVEPA. However Township 23 North 
is, and this may be the township to which the commenter intended to 
refer. The special rule, including (g)(5), which covers take of blackfooted 
ferrets incidental to otherwise lawful activities, also would 
apply to any development within the AVEPA. In addition, that portion of 
Township 23 North that is south of the railroad tracks is at the edge 
of the AVEPA and in habitat that is marginal for ferrets. The actual 
reintroduction of ferrets will occur some distance away.
    Issue 40: By Resolution No. RCF-030-94, the Navajo Nation supports 
the proposed black-footed ferret reintroduction in the Aubrey Valley. A 
representative of the Arizona Zoological Society and the Phoenix Zoo 
stated they have been actively involved in the propagation and rescue 
of the species for an extended period of time and encourage favorable 
consideration for active reintroduction in the State of Arizona. An 
employee of the Phoenix Zoo stated that the captive breeding program is 
very strong, but the point has been reached where more individuals need 
to be reintroduced to the wild. Reintroduction in Aubrey Valley, where 
reacclimation and preconditioning can teach these animals to behave 
more like wild ferrets than captives, is essential for the success of 
the program.

    Service Response: The Service appreciates this support and agrees 
with these comments.

    Issue 41: Imagine the cost to taxpayers to collar, track and survey 
these ferrets. In other reintroductions, 24 percent of the ferrets 
found were suspected of falling victim to coyote predation. 
Reintroduction is just another attempt to make unneeded work and 
complete an agenda for extremists.

    Service Response: Surveys, monitoring, or any other management work 
deemed appropriate for specific releases are necessary to ensure blackfooted 
ferret reintroduction success, and ultimately the recovery of 
the species. Much of the tracking and monitoring efforts will provide 
data needed to improve reintroduction efficacy, including how best to 
respond to such detriments as coyote predation. The Act directs all 
Federal agencies, and primarily the Service, to recover listed species. 
Unfortunately, the populations of some species are in such dire 
condition that reintroduction and other intensive management efforts 
are needed to achieve recovery.


National Environmental Policy Act


    The Service has prepared an environmental assessment as defined 
under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 
It is available from the Service office identified in the ADDRESSES 
section.


Required Determinations


    The Department of the Interior has reviewed this rule under 
Executive Order 12866 and has determined that it will not have a 
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Based on 
the information discussed in this rule concerning public projects and 
private activities within the AVEPA, it will not cause significant 
economic impacts. This rule will impose no direct costs, enforcement 
costs, information collection, or record keeping requirements on small 
entities, and the rule contains no record keeping requirements as 
defined under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13).


References Cited


Anderson, E., S.C. Forrest, T.W. Clark, and L. Richardson. 1986. 
Paleobiology, biogeography, and systematics of the black-footed 
ferret (Mustela nigripes) (Audubon and Bachman), 1851. Great Basin 
Naturalist Memoirs 8:11-62.

Belitsky, D.W., W.E. Van Pelt, and J.D. Hanna. 1994. A cooperative 
reintroduction plan for black-footed ferrets, Aubrey Valley, 
Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. 33 pp.
Biggins, D., B. Miller, L. Hanebury, B. Oakleaf, A. Farmer, R. 
Crete, and A. Dood. 1989. A system for evaluating black-footed 
ferret habitat. Unpubl. Rept. for the Black-footed Ferret Interstate 
Coordinating Committee. USFWS, Fort Collins, Colorado. 25 pp.
Forrest, S.C., T.W. Clark, L. Richardson, and T.M. Campbell III. 
1985. Black-footed ferret habitat: some management and 
reintroduction considerations. Wyoming Bureau of Land Management, 
Wildlife Technical Bulletin, No. 2. 49 pp.
Henderson, F.R., P.F. Springer, and R. Adrian. 1969. The blackfooted 
ferret in South Dakota. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish 
and Parks, Tech. Bull. 4:1-36.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Black-footed ferret recovery 
plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 154 pp.


Author


    The primary authors of this rule are William Austin and Mike 
Lockhart (see ADDRESSES section).


List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17


    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, and Transportation.


Regulations Promulgation


    Accordingly, 50 CFR chapter I is amended as set forth below:


PART 17--[AMENDED]


 The authority citation for Part 17 continues to read as follows:


    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.


    2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by revising the existing entries for 
the ``Ferret, black-footed'' under ``MAMMALS'' to read as follows:



Sec. 17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.


 * * * *

    (h) * * *


[[Page 11332]]



                      Species                                                Vertebrate                                                                 
----------------------------------------------------                      population where                                        Critical     Special  
                                                       Historic range      endangered or        Status          When listed       habitat       rules   
          Common name              Scientific name                           threatened                                                                 


            Mammals                                                                                                                                     

Ferret, black-footed...........  Mustela nigripes..  Western U.S.A.,     Entire, except     E.............  1, 3, 433, 545,              NA           NA
                                                      Western Canada.     where listed as                    546, 582.                                  
                                                                          an experiental                                                                
                                                                          population                                                                    
                                                                          below..                                                                       

    Do.........................  ......do..........  ......do..........  U.S.A. (specified  XN............  433, 545, 546, 582           NA     17.84(g)
                                                                          portions of WY,                                                               
                                                                          MT, SD, and AZ)..                                                             
                                                                                                                                                        
                 *                  *                  *                    *                  *                  *                    *                




    3. Section 17.84 is amended by revising the text of paragraph (g) 
preceding the maps and by adding a new map following the existing maps 
at the end of paragraph (g) to read as follows:



Sec. 17.84  Special rules--vertebrates.


 * * * *

    (g) Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes).
    (1) The black-footed ferret populations identified in paragraphs 
(g)(9)(i), (g)(9)(ii), (g)(9)(iii), and (g)(9)(iv) of this section are 
nonessential experimental populations. Each of these populations will 
be managed in accordance with their respective management plans.
    (2) No person may take this species in the wild in the experimental 
population areas except as provided in paragraphs (g)(3),(4),(5), and 
(10) of this section.

    (3) Any person with a valid permit issued by the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (Service) under Sec. 17.32 may take black-footed 
ferrets in the wild in the experimental population areas.
    (4) Any employee or agent of the Service or appropriate State 
wildlife agency, who is designated for such purposes, when acting in 
the course of official duties, may take a black-footed ferret from the 
wild in the experimental population areas if such action is necessary:
    (i) For scientific purposes;

    (ii) To relocate a ferret to avoid conflict with human activities;
    (iii) To relocate a ferret that has moved outside the 
Reintroduction Area when removal is necessary to protect the ferret, or 
is requested by an affected landowner or land manager, or whose removal 
is requested pursuant to paragraph (g)(12) of this section;
    (iv) To relocate ferrets within the experimental population areas 
to improve ferret survival and recovery prospects;
    (v) To relocate ferrets from the experimental population areas into 
other ferret reintroduction areas or captivity;
    (vi) To aid a sick, injured, or orphaned animal; or
    (vii) To salvage a dead specimen for scientific purposes.
    (5) A person may take a ferret in the wild within the experimental 
population areas, provided such take is incidental to and not the 
purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity and if 
such ferret injury or mortality was unavoidable, unintentional, and did 
not result from negligent conduct. Such conduct will not be considered 
``knowing take'' for purposes of this regulation, and the Service will 
not take legal action for such conduct. However, knowing take will be 
referred to the appropriate authorities for prosecution.
    (6) Any taking pursuant to paragraphs (g)(3), (4)(vi) and (vii), 
and (5) of this section must be reported immediately to the appropriate 
Service Field Supervisor, who will determine the disposition of any 
live or dead specimens.

    (i) Such taking in the Shirley Basin/Medicine Bow experimental 
population area must be reported to the Field Supervisor, Ecological 
Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, Cheyenne, Wyoming, telephone (307) 
772-2374.

    (ii) Such taking in the Conata Basin/Badlands experimental 
population area must be reported to the Field Supervisor, Ecological 
Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, Pierre, South Dakota, telephone 
(605) 224-8693).

    (iii) Such taking in the north-central Montana experimental 
population area must be reported to the Field Supervisor, Ecological 
Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, Helena, Montana, telephone (406) 
449-5225.

    (iv) Such taking in the Aubrey Valley experimental population area 
must be reported to the Field Supervisor, Ecological Services, Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Phoenix, Arizona, telephone (602) 640-2720.
    (7) No person shall possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, ship, 
import, or export by any means whatsoever any ferret or part thereof 
from the experimental populations taken in violation of these 
regulations or in violation of applicable State fish and wildlife laws 
or regulations or the Endangered Species Act.
    (8) It is unlawful for any person to attempt to commit, solicit 
another to commit, or cause to be committed any offense defined in 
paragraphs (g) (2) and (7) of this section.
    (9) The sites for reintroduction of black-footed ferrets are within 
the historical range of the species.

    (i) The Shirley Basin/Medicine Bow Management Area is shown on the 
attached map of Wyoming and will be considered the core recovery area 
for this species in southeastern Wyoming. The boundaries of the 
nonessential experimental population will be that part of Wyoming south 
and east of the North Platte River within Natrona, Carbon, and Albany 
Counties (see Wyoming map). All marked ferrets found in the wild within 
these boundaries prior to the first breeding season following the first 
year of releases will constitute the nonessential experimental 
population during this period. All ferrets found in the wild within 
these boundaries during and after the first breeding season following 
the first year of releases will comprise the nonessential experimental 
population thereafter.

    (ii) The Conata Basin/Badlands Reintroduction Area is shown on the 
attached map for South Dakota and will be considered the core recovery 
area for this species in southwestern South Dakota. The boundaries of 
the nonessential experimental population area will be north of State 
Highway 44 and BIA Highway 2 east of the Cheyenne River and BIA Highway 
41, south of I-90, and west of State Highway 73 within Pennington, 
Shannon, and Jackson Counties, South Dakota. Any black-footed ferret 
found in the wild within these boundaries will be considered part of 
the nonessential experimental population after the first breeding 
season following the first year of releases of black-footed ferrets in 
the


[[Page 11333]]

Reintroduction Area. A black-footed ferret occurring outside the 
experimental population area in South Dakota would initially be 
considered as endangered but may be captured for genetic testing. 
Disposition of the captured animal may take the following action if 
necessary:

    (A) If an animal is genetically determined to have originated from 
the experimental population, it may be returned to the Reintroduction 
Area or to a captive facility.

    (B) If an animal is determined to be genetically unrelated to the 
experimental population, then under an existing contingency plan, up to 
9 black-footed ferrets may be taken for use in the captive-breeding 
program. If a landowner outside the experimental population area wishes 
to retain black-footed ferrets on his property, a conservation 
agreement or easement may be arranged with the landowner.
    (iii) The North-central Montana Reintroduction Area is shown on the 
attached map for Montana and will be considered the core recovery area 
for this species in north-central Montana. The boundaries of the 
nonessential experimental population will be those parts of Phillips 
and Blaine Counties, Montana, described as the area bounded on the 
north beginning at the northwest corner of the Fort Belknap Indian 
Reservation on the Milk River; east following the Milk River to the 
east Phillips County line; then south along said line to the Missouri 
River; then west along the Missouri River to the west boundary of 
Phillips County; then north along said county line to the west boundary 
of Fort Belknap Indian Reservation; then further north along said 
boundary to the point of origin at the Milk River. All marked ferrets 
found in the wild within these boundaries prior to the first breeding 
season following the first year of releases will constitute the 
nonessential experimental population during this period. All ferrets 
found in the wild within these boundaries during and after the first 
breeding season following the first year of releases will thereafter 
comprise the nonessential experimental population. A black-footed 
ferret occurring outside the experimental area in Montana would 
initially be considered as endangered but may be captured for genetic 
testing. Disposition of the captured animal may be done in the 
following manner if necessary:

    (A) If an animal is genetically determined to have originated from 
the experimental population, it would be returned to the reintroduction 
area or to a captive facility.

    (B) If an animal is determined not to be genetically related to the 
experimental population, then under an existing contingency plan, up to 
nine ferrets may be taken for use in the captive breeding program.
    (iv) The Aubrey Valley Experimental Population Area is shown on the 
attached map for Arizona and will be considered the core recovery area 
for this species in northwestern Arizona. The boundary of the 
nonessential experimental population area will be those parts of 
Coconino, Mohave, and Yavapai Counties that include the Aubrey Valley 
west of the Aubrey Cliffs, starting from Chino Point, north along the 
crest of the Aubrey Cliffs to the Supai Road (State Route 18), 
southwest along the Supai Road to Township 26 North, then west to Range 
11 West, then south to the Hualapai Indian Reservation boundary, then 
east and northeast along the Hualapai Indian Reservation boundary to 
U.S. Highway Route 66; then southeast along Route 66 for approximately 
6 km (2.3 miles) to a point intercepting the east boundary of Section 
27, Township 25 North, Range 9 West; then south along a line to where 
the Atchison-Topeka Railroad enters Yampa Divide Canyon; then southeast 
along the Atchison-Topeka Railroad alignment to the intersection of the 
Range 9 West/Range 8 West boundary; then south to the SE corner of 
Section 12, Township 24 North, Range 9 West; then southeast to SE 
corner Section 20, Township 24 West, Range 8 West; then south to the SE 
corner Section 29, Township 24 North, Range 8 West; then southeast to 
the half section point on the east boundary line of Section 33, 
Township 24 North, Range 8 West; then northeast to the SE corner of 
Section 27, Township 24 North, Range 8 West; then southeast to the SE 
corner Section 35, Township 24 North, Range 8 West; then southeast to 
the half section point on the east boundary line of Section 12, 
Township 23 North, Range 8 West; then southeast to the SE corner of 
Section 8, Township 23 North, Range 7 West; then southeast to the SE 
corner of Section 16, Township 23 North, Range 7 West; then east to the 
half section point of the north boundary line of Section 14, Township 
23 North, Range 7 West; then south to the half section point on the 
north boundary line of Section 26, Township 23 North, Range 7 West; 
then east along section line to route 66; then southeast along route 66 
to the point of origin at Chino Point. Any black-footed ferrets found 
in the wild within these boundaries will be considered part of the 
nonessential experimental population after the first breeding season 
following the first year of releases of ferrets into the reintroduction 
area. A black-footed ferret occurring outside the experimental area in 
Arizona would be considered as endangered but may be captured for 
genetic testing. Disposition of the captured animal may take the 
following action if necessary:

    (A) If an animal is determined to have originated from the 
experimental population, either genetically or through tagging devices, 
it may be returned to the reintroduction area or to a captive facility. 
If a landowner outside the experimental population area wishes to 
retain black-footed ferrets on his property, a conservation agreement 
or easement may be arranged with the landowner.
    (B) If an animal is determined to be genetically unrelated to the 
experimental population, then under an existing contingency plan, up to 
nine ferrets may be taken for use in the captive-breeding program. If a 
landowner outside the experimental population area wishes to retain 
black-footed ferrets on his property, a conservation agreement or 
easement may be arranged with the landowner.
    (10) The reintroduced populations will be continually monitored 
during the life of the project, including the use of radio-telemetry 
and other remote sensing devices, as appropriate. All released animals 
will be vaccinated against diseases prevalent in mustelids, as 
appropriate, prior to release. Any animal that is sick, injured, or 
otherwise in need of special care may be captured by authorized 
personnel of the Service or appropriate State wildlife agency or their 
agents and given appropriate care. Such an animal may be released back 
to its respective reintroduction area or another authorized site as 
soon as possible, unless physical or behavioral problems make it 
necessary to return the animal to captivity.
    (11) The status of each experimental population will be reevaluated 
within the first 5 years after the first year of release of blackfooted 
ferrets to determine future management needs. This review will 
take into account the reproductive success and movement patterns of 
individuals released into the area, as well as the overall health of 
the experimental population and the prairie dog ecosystem in the above 
described areas. Once recovery goals are met for delisting the species, 
a rule will be proposed to address delisting.
    (12) This 5-year evaluation will not include a reevaluation of the 
``nonessential experimental'' designation for these populations. The 
Service does not foresee any likely


[[Page 11334]]

situation which would call for altering the nonessential experimental 
status of any population. Should any such alteration prove necessary 
and it results in a substantial modification to black-footed ferret 
management on non-Federal lands, any landowner who consented to the 
introduction of black-footed ferrets on their lands will be permitted 
to terminate their consent, and at their request, the ferrets will be 
relocated pursuant to paragraph (g)(4)(iii) of this section.

 * * * *


BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
      


[[Page 11335]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR96.018





[[Page 11336]]


 * * * *

    Dated: March 13, 1996.

George T. Frampton, Jr.,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 96-6732 Filed 3-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
 

Local Navigation

• FR Home
• About the Site
• FR Listserv
• FR Search
• Contact Us
• Selected Electronic Dockets
• Regulatory Agenda
• Executive Orders
• Current Laws and Regulations

• EPA Home
• Privacy and Security Notice
• Contact Us