[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11320-11336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6732]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 captive-
raised 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 free-
ranging 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 Black-
footed 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 black-
footed 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 radio-
tagged 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]]
1. Discouraging people from bringing dogs into the AVEPA,
2. Encouraging residents and hunters to vaccinate pets, and
3. 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 black-
footed 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 black-
footed 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. Black-
footed 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-predator-
control 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 black-
footed 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 black-
footed 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 black-
footed 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 black-
footed 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]
1. 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 black-
footed 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
