94-20037. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Black-Footed Ferrets in North- Central Montana; Final Rule

[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 159 (Thursday, August 18, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-20037]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: August 18, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Department of the Interior





_______________________________________________________________________



Fish and Wildlife Service



_______________________________________________________________________



50 CFR Part 17




Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Establishment of a 
Nonessential Experimental Population of Black-Footed Ferrets in North-
Central Montana; Final Rule
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17 
RIN 1018-AB96 
 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Establishment of a 
Nonessential Experimental Population of Black-footed Ferrets in North-
Central Montana 
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), in cooperation 
with the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, will 
reintroduce black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes) into the 11,061 
km\2\ (4,237 mi\2\) North-central Montana Black-footed Ferret 
Experimental Population Area in north-central Montana. This 
reintroduction will implement a primary recovery action for this 
endangered species and also allow evaluation of release techniques. 
Provided conditions are acceptable, a minimum of 20 surplus captive-
raised ferrets will be released in 1994 and annually thereafter for 2 
to 4 years, or until a wild population is established. Releases will 
test ferret reintroduction techniques and, if fully successful, will 
result in a wild population within 5 years. The north-central Montana 
population is designated a nonessential experimental population in 
accordance with section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended. This population will be managed in accordance with the 
provisions of the accompanying special rule.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 19, 1994.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the 
following Service offices:

--Regional Office, Ecological Services, 134 Union Boulevard, Lakewood, 
Colorado, [phone].
--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Billings Suboffice, Ecological 
Services, 1501 14th Street West, Suite 230, Billings, Montana, (406) 
657-6750.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: PMr. Ronald Naten, [phone], at 
the Colorado address or Mr. Dennis Christopherson, [phone], at 
the Montana address above. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
Background 
    The background information included in this rule has been reduced 
from what was published in the proposed rule to reduce publishing 
costs. Please refer to the proposed rule published in the Federal 
Register on April 13, 1993 (58 FR 19220), for more detailed 
information.
    The black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) is an endangered 
carnivore with a black face mask, black legs, and a black-tipped tail. 
It is nearly 60 cm (2 ft) long and weighs up to 1.1 kg (2.5 lbs). It is 
the only ferret native to North America.
    Though the black-footed ferret was found over a wide area 
historically, it is difficult to make a conclusive statement on its 
historical abundance due to its nocturnal and secretive habits. The 
black-footed ferret's historical range included 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. There is prehistoric evidence of 
this species from Yukon Territory, Canada, to New Mexico and Texas 
(Anderson et al. 1986). Although there are no specimen records for 
black-footed ferrets from Mexico, prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.) inhabit 
Chihuahua (Anderson 1972) and were present as far back as the Late 
Pleistocene-Holocene Age (Messing 1986). Black-footed ferrets depend 
almost exclusively on prairie dogs and prairie dog towns for food and 
shelter (Henderson et al. 1969, Forrest et al. 1985), and ferret range 
is coincident with that of prairie dogs (Anderson et al. 1986). No 
documentation exists of black-footed ferrets breeding outside prairie 
dog colonies. Consequently, it is probable that black-footed ferrets 
were historically endemic to northern Mexico.
    Black-footed ferrets prey primarily on prairie dogs and use their 
burrows for shelter and denning. There are specimen records of black-
footed ferrets from the ranges of three species of prairie dogs: black-
tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus), white-tailed prairie dogs 
(Cynomys leucurus), and Gunnison's prairie dogs (Cynomys gunnisoni) 
(Anderson et al. 1986).
    Widespread poisoning of prairie dogs and agricultural cultivation 
of their habitat 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 populations, particularly in the southern 
portions of their range. The severe decline of prairie dogs resulted in 
a concomitant and near-fatal decline in black-footed ferrets, though 
the latter's decline may be partially attributable to other factors 
such as secondary poisoning from prairie dog toxicants (e.g., 
strychnine) or high susceptibility to 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 for several years; this population 
became extinct in 1974, its last member dying in captivity in 1979. 
Afterwards, some believed that the species was probably extinct, until 
another wild population was discovered near Meeteetse, Wyoming, in 
1981. The Meeteetse population underwent a severe decline between 1985 
and 1986 due to canine distemper, which is fatal to infected ferrets. 
Eighteen survivors were taken into captivity in 1986 and 1987 to 
prevent extinction and to serve as founder animals in a captive 
propagation program aimed at eventually reintroducing the species into 
the wild.
    In 6 years, the captive population has increased from 18 to over 
300 black-footed ferrets. In 1988, the single captive population was 
split into three separate captive subpopulations to avoid the 
possibility that a single catastrophic event could wipe out the entire 
known population. Two additional captive subpopulations were 
established in 1990, and one additional captive subpopulation was 
established in 1991 and again in 1992, making a total of seven captive 
subpopulations. A secure population of 200 breeding adults was achieved 
in 1991, allowing initiation of ferret reintroductions into the wild.
    Section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), allows the Fish and Wildlife Service 
(Service) to designate certain populations of federally listed species 
that are released into the wild as ``experimental populations.'' The 
circumstances under which this designation can be applied are: (1) The 
population is wholly separate geographically from nonexperimental 
populations of the same species (e.g., the population is reintroduced 
outside the species' current range but within its historical range); 
and (2) the Service determines that the release will further the 
conservation of the species. This designation can increase the 
Service's flexibility to manage a reintroduced population, because 
under section 10(j) an experimental population can be treated as a 
threatened species regardless of its designation elsewhere in its 
range, and, under section 4(d) of the Act, the Service has greater 
discretion in developing management programs for threatened species 
than for endangered species.
    Section 10(j) of the Act requires, when an experimental population 
is designated, that a determination be
made by the Service whether that population is essential or 
nonessential to the continued existence of the species. Nonessential 
experimental populations located outside national wildlife refuge or 
national park lands are treated, for purposes of section 7 of the Act, 
as if they are proposed for listing. Thus, only two provisions of 
section 7 would apply outside National Wildlife Refuge System and 
National Park System lands: section 7(a)(1), which requires all Federal 
agencies to use their authorities to conserve listed species; and 
section 7(a)(4), which requires Federal agencies to confer with the 
Service on actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of a proposed species. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act, which 
requires Federal agencies to insure that their activities are not 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species, would 
not apply except on National Wildlife Refuge System and National Park 
System lands. Activities undertaken on private lands are not affected 
by section 7 of the Act unless they are authorized, funded, or carried 
out by a Federal agency.
    However, pursuant to section 7(a)(2), individual animals comprising 
the designated experimental population may be removed from an existing 
source or donor population only after it has been determined that such 
removal is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the 
species. Moreover, removal must be conducted under a permit issued in 
accordance with the requirements in 50 CFR Sec. 17.22.
    Forty-nine black-footed ferrets were reintroduced as a nonessential 
experimental population to the Shirley Basin/Medicine Bow (Shirley 
Basin) area in southeastern Wyoming in September and October 1991. 
Subsequent surveys during November 7-14, 1991, found nine individual 
ferrets. Snow surveys conducted during March 1992 revealed sign of six 
to eight ferrets. Spotlight surveys conducted during July and August 
1992 confirmed the presence of a minimum of four adult black-footed 
ferrets and two litters. One litter contained two young and the second 
contained four young ferrets. During September and October 1992 an 
additional 90 black-footed ferrets were released at the Shirley Basin 
site. Spotlight surveys in July 1993 confirmed the presence of a 
minimum of nine adults and four litters. Forty-eight ferrets were 
released at the Shirley Basin site in September and October 1993. 
Currently, the only known populations of black-footed ferrets are the 
experimental population at the Shirley Basin site and those animals in 
captivity.
    In addition to this reintroduction, the Service and state wildlife 
agencies in 11 western states currently are identifying potential 
black-footed ferret reintroduction sites within the species' historical 
range. Potential reintroduction sites have been identified in Wyoming 
(two sites), Montana (one site), South Dakota (one site), Colorado (one 
site), Utah (one site), and Arizona (one site).
    On April 13, 1993, the Service published a proposed rule in the 
Federal Register (58 FR 19220) to introduce black-footed ferrets into 
the North-central Montana Black-footed Ferret Experimental Population 
Area (Experimental Population Area) as a nonessential experimental 
population. This area is located in portions of Phillips and Blaine 
Counties, Montana, and was historically occupied by black-footed 
ferrets. Numerous ferret surveys conducted in the Experimental 
Population Area have resulted in no evidence of ferrets currently 
inhabiting the area (Reading 1991). The latest physical evidence of 
black-footed ferrets in the Experimental Population Area was a skull 
collected in 1984.
    To the best of our knowledge, any reintroduced population of 
ferrets in the Experimental Population Area would be wholly separate 
and distinct from other ferret populations.
    Experimental Population Site: The Experimental Population Area 
encompasses 11,016 km\2\ (4,237 mi\2\) and consists of 36 percent 
private land, 5 percent State trust land, 28 percent federally managed 
land (outside national wildlife refuges), 9 percent national wildlife 
refuge land, and 22 percent Fort Belknap Indian Reservation 
(Reservation) land. Except for the Little Rocky Mountains, the majority 
of the land area is actual or potential prairie dog habitat. Mapping 
conducted in 1988 and 1990 indicated that 19,223 hectares (46,886 
acres) of prairie dog towns existed in the Experimental Population 
Area, with an estimated potential prey biomass to support 561 black-
footed ferret families.
    Reintroduction, habitat management, and intensive ferret management 
will occur in a smaller, specifically-delineated area called the North-
central Montana Reintroduction Area (Reintroduction Area), which occurs 
within the Experimental Population Area. Specifics on the location and 
boundaries of the Reintroduction Area are provided in the accompanying 
special rule. The Reservation contained 8,572 hectares (20,907 acres) 
of prairie dog towns in 1990, and occurs entirely within the designated 
Experimental Population Area but is not included within the 
Reintroduction Area.
    Mapping of prairie dog towns completed during fall and summer of 
1991 and 1992 showed a 52 percent reduction in prairie dog acreage 
within the Reintroduction Area from 1988 to fall 1992. Sylvatic plague 
is active in the complex and is believed to be the primary factor in 
the reduction of occupied acreage. Prairie dog colonies in the 
Reintroduction Area within 20 km (12.4 mi) of the release site will be 
resurveyed in the summer of 1994 prior to the release of black-footed 
ferrets.
    The UL-Bend National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), adjacent to and 
administered by the Charles M. Russell NWR, is the primary release site 
(hereafter in this document this entire area will be referred to as the 
Charles M. Russell NWR to avoid confusion). If reintroduction is 
successful, ferrets will eventually disperse from the release site into 
other portions of the Reintroduction Area. If a ferret were to disperse 
outside the Reintroduction Area and/or to the Reservation, the affected 
landowner or the Fort Belknap Tribal Council has the option to request 
its removal. Even without such a request, authorized personnel could 
relocate the ferret to the Reintroduction Area or to captivity, if 
necessary.
    Ferrets will be released into the Reintroduction Area only if 
biological conditions are suitable, and under a management framework 
determined to be acceptable to the State of Montana, the Service, 
private landowners, and other land managers in the area. Reintroduction 
will be re-evaluated if one or more of the following conditions occur:
    (1) The black-footed ferret habitat rating index (Biggins et al. 
1993) for the Reintroduction Area falls below 50 percent of the 1988 
level. This habitat rating index is based on abundance of prairie dogs 
and estimates the number of ferret families a prairie dog complex can 
support.
    (2) Failure to acquire or maintain a nonessential experimental 
population designation for the Reintroduction Area through the Federal 
rulemaking process.
    (3) Wild black-footed ferret populations are found within the 
Experimental Population Area prior to the first breeding season 
following the first reintroduction.
    (4) Active cases of canine distemper are diagnosed within the 
Reintroduction Area within 6 months prior to release.
    (5) Fewer than 20 black-footed ferrets are available for the first 
release.
    (6) Funding is not available to implement the reintroduction 
program.
    Reintroduction protocol: In general, the reintroduction protocol 
will involve releasing a minimum of 20 ferrets in the first year of 
reintroduction and releasing ferrets annually thereafter, as needed, 
for 2 to 4 years or until a wild population is established. Captive 
animals selected for release will be as genetically redundant as 
possible with the gene pool in the captive breeding population; hence, 
any loss of released animals is unlikely to appreciably affect existing 
genetic diversity in the species. Moreover, because breeding ferrets in 
captivity is not a problem, any animals lost in the reintroduction 
effort could be replaced. To enhance genetic diversity in the 
reintroduced population, it may be necessary to release ferrets from 
other established, reintroduced nonessential populations (e.g., the 
Shirley Basin site).
    Several strategies for releasing captive-raised black-footed 
ferrets will be utilized during the reintroduction: (1) Hard release 
with no pre-release conditioning (i.e., release without an acclimation 
period); (2) soft release (release with an acclimation period and 
gradual reduction in supplied food and shelter); and (3) pre-release 
conditioning in a quasi-natural environment followed by hard release 
(this technique may be used when sufficient numbers of black-footed 
ferrets are available). Ferrets will be released in September and 
October, when wild juvenile ferrets typically become independent and 
exhibit dispersal tendencies, and are physically capable of killing 
prey, avoiding predators, and adjusting to environmental extremes.
    The hard release with no pre-release conditioning will utilize 
neither release cages or any preconditioning in a contained prairie dog 
colony. Ferrets will be transported to the release site and held for a 
minimum of 12 hours to ensure general health. Subsequently, the ferrets 
will be released into the prairie dog colonies from the transport 
container and will receive no supplementary care.
    Soft release involves raising juveniles in captivity with little 
exposure to the physical and environmental demands experienced in the 
wild. These juvenile ferrets will then be placed into release cages 
with buried nest boxes at the Reintroduction Site. It may be desirable 
to surround each cage with an electric fence to prevent damage by 
cattle or big game. Ferrets will be held and fed in the release cages 
for 10 days while acclimating to the cage and immediately surrounding 
area. After 10 days, the doors to the release cages will be opened and 
the ferrets will be allowed access to the prairie dog colonies; 
however, food will continue to be provided while the ferrets learn to 
kill prey in the prairie dog colony. This soft release design is 
similar to release protocol used at the Shirley Basin reintroduction 
site, except the Montana site is located in black-tailed prairie dog 
colonies, instead of white-tailed prairie dog colonies.
    Pre-release conditioning prior to hard release will utilize black-
footed ferrets raised from birth in a large, seminatural, enclosed 
prairie dog colony. In this design, the captive environment should 
allow a natural expression of genetically influenced behaviors, or, if 
behaviors are learned, the captive environment should provide 
appropriate stimuli to learning during the critical period. Presenting 
juvenile captive animals with stimuli resembling those prevalent in 
their natural environment may help individuals retain efficient use of 
adaptive traits and, subsequently, increase post-release survival by 
reinforcing inherent survival skills in natural ways at natural periods 
of development.
    Regardless of release technique, it is expected that ferrets will 
be placed in separate burrow systems 200 meters (219 yards) apart 
within the same prairie dog colony. Ferrets will be released 
sequentially over a period of 3-8 weeks because all animals will not 
reach the proper age for release at once, and because it would be 
difficult to intensively monitor all radio-tagged animals if they are 
released simultaneously. The proposed rule stated that all ferrets 
released would be young-of-the-year. This final rule removes that 
language in an effort to broaden the Service's flexibility and options 
in managing the release and analyzing of reintroduction techniques. The 
Service believes removal of this language to be minor in nature and 
does not affect the intention of this rulemaking.
    Prior to release, ferrets will be vaccinated against disease, as 
appropriate, including canine distemper if an effective vaccine is 
developed for ferret use by that time (an experimental distemper 
vaccine is now being tested). Preventative and, where necessary, 
corrective measures to reduce ferret predation by coyotes (Canis 
latrans), badgers (Taxidea taxus), raptors, or other predators will be 
undertaken in the initial phases of the release, but should not be 
necessary in the long term. Habitat conditions will be monitored 
continually during the reintroduction effort. If the ferret habitat 
rating index (Biggins et al. 1993) drops to unacceptable levels, 
ferrets will be released in another biologically suitable prairie dog 
complex in the Reintroduction Area, translocated to another release 
site, released at the next scheduled site, or returned to captivity. 
Cooperative management actions will be taken to maintain overall 
prairie dog populations at 1988 levels in the Reintroduction Area.
    All black-footed ferrets released will be appropriately marked 
[e.g., with a Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tag or non-toxic 
paints]. Some ferrets (up to a maximum of 50) may be radio-tagged in 
the first year, while smaller samples may be radio-tagged in later 
years. Radio-tagged ferrets will be intensively monitored. Other 
ferrets will be monitored using spotlight, snow surveys, or visual 
sighting techniques.
    It is unlikely that released ferrets or their offspring will 
emigrate outside of the Experimental Population Area. This is because 
the Experimental Population Area is essentially a large island of 
excellent ferret habitat (i.e., prairie dog colonies), while the 
surrounding area to the north, east, and west is relatively devoid of 
prairie dog colonies, and the Missouri Breaks and Missouri River on the 
southern edge of the Experimental Population Area are physiographic 
obstacles to migration. Given the large size of the Experimental 
Population Area, current knowledge of ferret mobility gained from 
radio-telemetry studies at Meeteetse between 1982 and 1986 (less than 7 
km or 4.3 mi/night) and 1991 studies at the Shirley Basin site (17 km 
or 10.5 mi/night), and significantly better prey base and colonization 
opportunities within the Experimental Population Area, it is unlikely 
that ferrets will disperse outside of the Experimental Population Area.
    Experimental reintroduction designs will be tested and possibly 
modified at this and/or upcoming reintroduction sites. The Montana 
release will be limited by the number of captive ferrets available in 
excess of captive population objectives, needs of the Shirley Basin 
reintroduction site, and the needs of other ferret reintroduction sites 
initiated in the future. However, the 20 to 56 ferrets available for 
release in Montana in 1994 are considered sufficient to begin testing 
the proposed release techniques and to monitor results.
    Realistically, the Service and the Montana Department of Fish, 
Wildlife and Parks (Department) expect high mortality rates (up to 90 
percent) among released ferrets in the first year of release. Despite 
pre-release conditioning, captive-bred animals will be relatively naive 
in terms of avoiding predators, securing prey, and withstanding 
environmental rigors. Mortality is expected to be highest within the 
first month of release. A realistic goal for the first year, based on 
experience at the Shirley Basin site, would be for 20 percent of 
released ferrets to survive at least 1 month after release, with 
perhaps 10 percent of released animals surviving the winter.
    Intensive studies conducted on the wild Meeteetse population 
between 1982 and 1986, and in 1991 and 1992 at the Shirley Basin 
reintroduction site will provide a natural baseline against which the 
Montana reintroduction effort can be compared to determine how well the 
experiments are proceeding. Ferrets have a high level of natural 
mortality in the wild, based on studies at Meeteetse. Population data 
presented by Forrest et al. (1988) was used for computer simulation 
modeling by Harris et al. (1989), and indicated juvenile mortality 
rates of a stable population of approximately 78.5 percent. Since 
young-of-the-year ferrets will be used in the reintroduction program 
initially, these data will provide a basis of comparison. Additionally, 
these baseline data will be supplemented with baseline biological and 
behavioral data gathered in the 1960's and 1970's from the South Dakota 
population.
    If successful, this reintroduction effort is expected to result in 
the establishment of a free-ranging population of at least 50 adult 
black-footed ferrets within the Reintroduction Area by a target date of 
1998. The Service and Department will evaluate progress of the 
reintroduction annually, including sources of mortality. The biological 
status of the population at the site will be re-evaluated within the 
first 5 years to determine future management needs. However, the 5-year 
review will not include an evaluation to determine whether the 
nonessential experimental designation for the Montana ferret population 
should be changed. The Service anticipates that this designation will 
not be changed for the Montana ferret population unless the experiment 
is determined to be a failure (and this rulemaking is terminated) or 
until the species is determined to be recovered (and is delisted). Once 
recovery goals are met for delisting the species, a proposed rule to 
delist will be prepared.
    The revised Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan (Recovery Plan) 
(USFWS 1988) establishes objectives and outlines steps for recovery 
that, when accomplished, will provide for viable black-footed ferret 
populations in captivity and within its historical range. These 
objectives include:
    (1) Increasing the captive population of black-footed ferrets to a 
census size of 200 breeding adults by 1991 (this recovery goal 
subsequently was changed to 240 and has been achieved);
    (2) Establishing a pre-breeding census population of 1,500 free-
ranging black-footed ferret breeding adults in 10 or more populations 
with no fewer than 30 breeding adults in any population by the year 
2010; and
    (3) Encouraging the widest possible distribution of reintroduced 
black-footed ferret populations.

Status of Reintroduced Population

    The north-central Montana black-footed ferret population will be 
designated a nonessential experimental population according to the 
provisions of section 10(j) of the Act. The basis for this designation 
is explained below. The 1988 Recovery Plan states as one of its goals 
the development of a captive population containing a minimum of 200 
animals. This number was chosen to maintain maximum genetic variability 
and to ensure enough animals to protect the species from a stochastic 
event; however, it has since been revised to 240 by the Species 
Survival Plan Group of the American Zoological and Aquarium 
Association, which manages the captive ferret population. To date, the 
captive program contains over 300 black-footed ferrets separated 
geographically into 7 different breeding facilities. With the recovery 
goal of 240 animals achieved, the captive population can now supply 
surplus animals for reintroduction efforts. As described in the Wyoming 
final rule published in the Federal Register on August 21, 1991 (56 FR 
41473), the captive population will be the donor population from which 
surplus ferrets will be taken for reintroduction activities. Without 
the protection of the donor or captive population, reintroduction 
efforts could not occur. Therefore, the captive donor population is 
essential to the recovery of the species by supplying surplus ferrets 
for reintroduction.
    The ``experimental population'' designation means the reintroduced 
ferret population will be treated as a threatened species rather than 
an endangered species. Under section 4(d) of the Act, this designation 
enables the Service to develop special regulations for management of 
the population that are less restrictive than the mandatory 
prohibitions covering endangered species. Thus, the experimental 
designation allows the management flexibility needed to ensure that 
reintroduction is compatible with current or planned human activities 
in the reintroduction area and to permit biological manipulation of the 
population for recovery purposes.
    Experimental populations can be determined as either ``essential'' 
or ``nonessential.'' An essential experimental population means a 
population ``whose loss would be likely to appreciably reduce the 
likelihood of the survival of the species in the wild'' [50 CFR 17.80 
(Subpart H--Experimental Populations)]. All other experimental 
populations are treated as ``nonessential.'' For purposes of section 
7(a)(2) of the Act, nonessential experimental populations are treated 
as though they are proposed for listing (except on National Wildlife 
Refuge System and National Park System lands, where they are treated as 
a species listed as threatened under the Act).
    The captive black-footed ferret population is the primary species 
population. It has been protected against the threat of extinction from 
a single catastrophic event by splitting the captive population into 
seven widely separated subpopulations.
    The primary repository of genetic diversity for the species is the 
approximately 240 adult breeders in the captive population. Animals 
selected for reintroduction purposes will be as genetically redundant 
as possible with the captive population. Hence, any loss of 
reintroduced animals in the Montana experimental population would not 
significantly impact species survival or the goal of preserving maximum 
genetic diversity in the species.
    All animals lost during the reintroduction attempt can be readily 
replaced through captive breeding, as demonstrated by the rapid 
increase in the captive population over the past 6 years. Based on 
current population dynamics, 100 juvenile ferrets will likely be 
produced each year in excess of numbers needed to maintain 240 breeding 
adults in captivity.
    The concept of experimental populations and classifying them as 
nonessential was amended into the Act by Congress in 1982 to make it 
easier to reintroduce individuals of an endangered or threatened 
species in areas where there was local opposition to the 
reintroduction. This is discussed in greater detail later in this 
document under Issue 1.
    The Experimental Population Area does not currently contain 
ferrets; the proposed nonessential experimental population will include 
all ferrets taken from captivity and released into the Experimental 
Population Area and all their progeny.
    This reintroduction effort will be the Service's second attempt to 
reintroduce the black-footed ferret into the wild. The biological and 
logistical problems of reintroducing and recovering this species that 
remain to be addressed are significant. However, reintroduction 
attempts must continue or the captive population may become overly 
adapted to captivity. In the long run, exclusive captivity likely would 
increase the risk of ferrets losing important wild survival instincts 
and reduce the likelihood of successful reintroduction and ultimately 
recovery of the species.
    Fifty-eight percent of the land in the Experimental Population Area 
is privately managed or on the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation. The 
nonessential experimental population designation will facilitate 
reestablishment of this species in the wild by easing landowner 
concerns about the effects on their activities of protection measures 
for reintroduced ferrets. The experimental population designation is 
less restrictive than the ``endangered'' designation and provides a 
more flexible management framework for protecting and recovering black-
footed ferrets, thereby reassuring non-Federal landowners that they may 
continue their current lifestyles.
    Resource management plans for U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 
lands within the Reintroduction Area provide for prairie dog management 
for black-footed ferrets while maintaining traditional multiple uses 
such as prairie dog shooting, grazing, oil and gas development, etc. 
The Charles M. Russell NWR, the primary ferret release site, will serve 
as a refugium where land management conflicts can be avoided. 
Management plans for the refuge allow for prairie dog expansion but 
does not allow prairie dog shooting; cattle grazing is either 
restricted or absent.
    First attempts to reintroduce black-footed ferrets into the wild 
(including the Shirley Basin and Montana reintroductions) will place 
great emphasis on developing and improving reintroduction techniques. 
This applied research will lay the groundwork for a general black-
footed ferret reintroduction and management protocol for other 
reintroduction sites, which the Service, together with other State and 
Federal authorities, expects to develop after initial reintroductions. 
Thus, an inability to establish a Montana population in the first few 
years of effort will not be considered to ``appreciably reduce the 
likelihood of the survival of the species in the wild'' (50 CFR 17.80), 
because the knowledge and data obtained during this reintroduction 
effort in black-tailed prairie dog colonies will be used to improve 
reintroduction techniques, thereby enhancing the probability of 
successful future reintroductions at other sites.
    As ferret reintroduction efforts progress, the Service will 
evaluate each potential reintroduction site to determine whether 
subsequently released populations should be proposed as nonessential 
experimental or essential experimental populations or should retain 
their endangered status. The Service believes that at least 10 
individual wild populations are needed to ensure the immediate survival 
and downlisting of this species to threatened status (U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service 1988).

Location of Reintroduced Population

    Under section 10(j) of the Act, an experimental population must be 
wholly separate geographically from nonexperimental populations of the 
same species. Since the last known member of the original Meeteetse 
ferret population was captured for inclusion in the captive population 
in 1987, no ferrets other than those released in Wyoming in 1991, 1992, 
and 1993 have been confirmed anywhere in the wild. There is a chance 
that ferrets may still exist in the wild outside the Shirley Basin 
site. However, thousands of hours of ferret survey and habitat 
evaluation work have been conducted in the general vicinity of the 
proposed Montana reintroduction site and no wild ferrets have been 
found. Based on these data, the Service does not believe that the 
reintroduced population will overlap with any wild population of the 
species.
    The Experimental Population Area lies between the Milk River on the 
north and the Missouri River on the south in Phillips and Blaine 
Counties. The eastern boundary is the Phillips/Valley County line. The 
west boundary follows the west edge of the Reservation to the 
southwestern corner, then extends south to the Missouri River along the 
Phillips/Blaine County line.
    Since 1978, 175 ferret surveys at 138 different prairie dog 
colonies covering over 14,351 hectares (35,463 acres) have been 
conducted in the Experimental Population Area. Wildlife biologists 
spent approximately 14,122 hours on all prairie dog colonies within the 
area performing activities related to ferrets, prairie dogs, or species 
associated with prairie dogs, and local residents were extensively 
contacted and solicited for ferret observations. No live ferrets were 
located. Based on this survey work, it is reasonable to conclude that 
wild black-footed ferrets no longer exist in the area encompassed by 
the Experimental Population Area boundary. Consequently, barring strong 
evidence to the contrary (such as a wild ferret being found in the 
Experimental Population Area before the first breeding season), the 
Service with this final rulemaking administratively determines that 
wild ferrets no longer exist in the Experimental Population Area prior 
to this release.
    The Reintroduction Area will serve as the core recovery area for 
the north-central Montana experimental population; i.e., efforts to 
maintain ferret and prairie dog populations will focus on the 
Reintroduction Area. The Reintroduction Area covers 206,000 hectares 
(502,000 acres) composed of approximately 40 percent BLM-administered 
lands, 30 percent private lands, 20 percent National Wildlife Refuge 
System lands, and 10 percent lands managed by the Corps of Engineers, 
the Bureau of Reclamation, or the Montana Department of State Lands. 
Within the Reintroduction Area are approximately 6,201 hectares (15,068 
acres) of prairie dog colonies: 2,718 BLM hectares (6,604 acres); 1,851 
Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge hectares (4,500 est. 
acres); 349 Department of State Land hectares (848 acres); and 1,282 
private hectares (3,116 acres). Under this final rule, ferrets that 
move to habitat outside the Reintroduction Area, including habitat on 
the Reservation, could be returned to the Reintroduction Area.
    Prior to the first breeding season following the first ferret 
releases in Montana, all marked ferrets inhabiting the Experimental 
Population Area will comprise the nonessential experimental population. 
During and after the first breeding season, all ferrets inhabiting the 
Experimental Population Area, including all progeny of released 
animals, will comprise the nonessential experimental population.
    There are significant barriers to ferret movement within and 
bordering the Experimental Population Area. These barriers are the 
Missouri River and, most importantly, the paucity of significant 
prairie dog colonies outside the Experimental Population Area. These 
movement barriers are expected to impede ferret dispersal within and 
outside the Experimental Population Area.
    All ferrets released in the Reintroduction Area will be 
appropriately marked (e.g., with radio collars, PIT tags, or non-toxic 
paints). In the unlikely event that an unmarked ferret is found in the 
Experimental Population Area before the first breeding season 
(February-May 1995) following the fall 1994 release, a concerted effort 
will be initiated to find the location of the source wild population. 
This search will determine whether a wild population exists; if such a 
population is confirmed, authorities will take appropriate cooperative 
action for its conservation. These actions would be guided by a ``Final 
Contingency Plan for Disposition of Black-footed Ferrets Found in the 
Wild in Montana,'' developed by the Montana Department of Fish, 
Wildlife and Parks (MDFWP 1987); this plan calls for notification of 
Service and Department officials and affected landowners. If a wild 
ferret population was found, up to nine male and/or nonlactating female 
ferrets would be removed and transported to captive breeding 
facilities. The impact of the ongoing establishment of a nonessential 
experimental population in the Reintroduction Area on any newly found 
population would also be evaluated and appropriate action taken. In 
addition, any unmarked black-footed ferrets found outside the 
Experimental Population Area following the first breeding season will 
be ``DNA fingerprinted'' to determine if the individual(s) emigrated 
from the Experimental Population Area. If so, they would be returned to 
the Reintroduction Area or to captivity and become part of the captive 
breeding colony.

Management

    The Montana ferret reintroduction project will be undertaken by the 
Service and the Department in accordance with the North-central Montana 
Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction and Management Plan (Management 
Plan) (MDFWP 1992). Copies may be obtained from the Montana Department 
of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, 1420 East Sixth Avenue, Helena, Montana 
59620 (telephone [phone]). This Management Plan will be updated as 
necessary. Details on the monitoring of prairie dogs and black-footed 
ferrets were discussed extensively in the proposed rule (58 FR 19220) 
but are not repeated here.
    The Service will assist in ensuring that governmental agencies and 
the public are informed about the presence of ferrets in the affected 
area via public information and education programs and media. These 
programs also will address the precautions and care that should be 
taken in handling sick and injured ferrets. This will enhance effective 
treatment and care in handling specimens and, if dead ferrets are 
located, will ensure proper preservation of ferret remains. The finder 
or investigator will be requested to ensure that evidence intrinsic to 
the specimen is not unnecessarily disturbed.
    The Service will require that persons who take a ferret or who 
locate a dead, injured, or sick ferret immediately notify the State 
Supervisor, Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Helena, 
Montana.
    1. Disease considerations: Reintroduction will be reevaluated if an 
active case of canine distemper is documented in any wild mammal within 
6 months prior to the scheduled reintroduction. Samples from 
approximately 20 coyotes will be obtained prior to reintroduction to 
determine if active canine distemper exists in the reintroduction area. 
Visitors and biologists will be discouraged from bringing dogs into the 
Reintroduction Area. Residents and hunters will be encouraged to 
vaccinate pets and report unusual wildlife behaviors and dead animals. 
Efforts are continuing to develop an effective long-term canine 
distemper vaccine for ferrets.
    Ferrets will not be released into the Reintroduction Area or those 
already released will be relocated from the Reintroduction Area if the 
ferret habitat rating index (Biggins et al. 1993) falls below 
acceptable minimum levels as a result of sylvatic plague. Sylvatic 
plague has been documented in the proposed reintroduction area; 
therefore, monitoring will occur on a regular basis prior to and during 
the reintroduction effort. To the extent possible, strategies will be 
developed to enhance prairie dog recovery in areas impacted by plague.
    2. Prairie dog management: The Service and Department will work 
cooperatively with landowners and land management agencies in the 
Reintroduction Area to: (a) Maintain an objective of 10,660 hectares 
(26,000 acres) of prairie dog habitat of mixed ownership, and (b) 
manage the prairie dog acreage at release sites at or below the 1988 
survey level before ferrets are released (prairie dogs could be subject 
to control measures if their numbers exceed 1988 levels). Specific 
measures for managing the prairie dog ecosystem in the Reintroduction 
Area are described in the Management Plan. The Department, in 
cooperation with the Service, will coordinate prairie dog management 
programs, agendas, and the roles of participating agencies and 
individuals. A local Citizens Steering Committee will be used to assist 
the Department with this task. In areas where prairie dogs become a 
problem for the landowner, control techniques compatible with ferret 
recovery objectives could be implemented--e.g., through Environmental 
Protection Agency registered toxicants, nonlethal control methods 
(barriers, mechanical land treatment, water development, or grazing 
management) and shooting.
    3. Mortality: Though efforts will be made to minimize ferret 
mortality during the reintroduction, significant mortality will 
inevitably occur as captive-raised animals adapt to the wild. Natural 
mortality from predators, fluctuating food availability, disease, 
hunting inexperience, etc., will be reduced though predator and prairie 
dog management, vaccination, soft release, supplemental feeding, and 
pre-release conditioning. Human-caused mortality will be reduced 
through information and education efforts directed at landowners and 
land users and review and cooperative management (where necessary) of 
human activities in the area.
    A low level of mortality from ``incidental take'' (defined under 
the Act as take that is the result of, but not the purpose of, an 
otherwise lawful activity) is expected during the reintroduction 
because the program has been designed to work within the context of 
traditional land uses in the Reintroduction Area, such as grazing and 
ranching activities.
    Incidental take (e.g., ferret injury or mortality) will be required 
to be reported immediately to the Service. The Service will investigate 
each case. If it is determined that a ferret injury or mortality was 
unavoidable, unintentional, and did not result from negligent conduct 
lacking reasonable due care, such conduct will not be considered 
``knowing take'' for the purpose of this regulation. Therefore, the 
Service will not seek legal action for such conduct. However, knowing 
take will be referred to the appropriate authorities for prosecution.
    The biological opinion prepared on the reintroduction anticipates 
an incidental take level of 12 percent/year. If this level of 
incidental take is exceeded at any time within any year, the Service, 
in cooperation with the Department, will conduct an evaluation of 
incidental take and cooperatively develop and implement with landowners 
and land users measures to reduce incidental take.
    Even if all released animals were to succumb to natural and human-
caused mortality factors, this would not threaten the continued 
existence of the species, because the captive population is the 
species' primary population and could readily replace any animals lost 
in the reintroduction effort. This is consistent with the design of the 
reintroduced population as a nonessential experimental population. The 
choice for wildlife managers is either to risk the loss of surplus 
captive-bred ferrets during reintroduction efforts designed to re-
establish the species in the wild, or to keep all ferrets in the 
relative safety of captivity. The Service believes the long-term 
benefits to the species of establishing individual wild ferret 
populations outweighs the relatively minor risks associated with losses 
of surplus ferrets during reintroduction efforts.
    4. Special handling: Under the special regulation [promulgated 
under authority of section 4(d) of the Act] that will accompany the 
experimental population designation, Service and Department employees 
and agents would be authorized to handle ferrets for scientific 
purposes (such as replacing radio collars); relocate ferrets to avoid 
conflict with human activities; relocate ferrets that have moved 
outside the Reintroduction Area when removal is necessary or requested; 
relocate ferrets within the Experimental Population Area to improve 
ferret survival and recovery prospects; relocate ferrets to future 
reintroduction sites; aid animals which are sick, injured, or orphaned; 
and salvage dead ferrets. If a ferret is determined to be unfit to 
remain in the wild, it would be returned to captivity. The Service 
would determine the disposition of sick, injured, orphaned, or dead 
ferrets.
    5. Coordination with landowners and land management agencies: The 
Montana ferret reintroduction program was discussed with potentially 
affected State and Federal agencies in the proposed Reintroduction 
Area. A scoping effort to identify issues and concerns associated with 
the reintroduction was conducted prior to the development of the 
proposed rule, and a North-central Montana Working Group (Working 
Group) consisting of representatives from the Department, the Service, 
and BLM was assembled. The Working Group was instrumental in developing 
the reintroduction program and has acted as a recovery implementation 
group; it helped locate a suitable reintroduction area, defined the 
boundaries of the Experimental Population Area, identified issues and 
concerns, developed release protocols and research objectives, and made 
written recommendations. The Working Group's recommendations were 
incorporated into the Management Plan (MDFWP 1992).
    The Working Group received assistance from the North-central 
Montana Black-footed Ferret Advisory Committee. This committee was 
established by the State of Montana and consisted of two 
representatives from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 
three from business, three landowners, the county agent for Phillips 
County, and representatives from the Montana Department of State Lands, 
the Montana Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
the National Wildlife Federation, the Fort Belknap Tribe, and the Yale 
School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. In addition, affected 
private land managers in the area were consulted and offered the 
opportunity to participate in development of the Management Plan. 
Public meetings concerning the proposed Montana ferret reintroduction 
were held in Missoula, Malta, Fort Belknap, Billings, and Miles City, 
Montana, in December 1991 to offer the general public in Montana the 
opportunity to learn about and comment on the reintroduction proposal. 
Although support for the reintroduction was expressed at the Miles 
City, Billings, and Missoula meetings, local residents within the 
Reintroduction Area did not support the project.
    6. Potential for conflict with oil and gas and mineral development 
activities: Because all existing oil, gas, and mineral leases in the 
Reintroduction Area do not occur in prairie dog habitat, and the 
probability of new bentonite or oil and gas development is considered 
low, it is unlikely that oil and gas development in the Reintroduction 
Area would preclude establishment of a viable wild population of 
ferrets, even assuming full development of current oil and gas leases. 
If new oil or gas fields were developed in the Reintroduction Area, the 
Service, the Department, and BLM would work with affected companies to 
develop mutually agreeable means to avoid or mitigate potential adverse 
impacts from oil and gas activities on ferrets or their habitat. In 
addition, the Service is currently developing oil and gas guidelines 
for new leases and oil and gas projects proposed in prairie dog 
ecosystems managed for black-footed ferret recovery.
    7. Potential for conflict with grazing and recreational activities: 
All BLM administered lands in the Reintroduction Area are included in 
grazing allotments. However, conflicts between grazing and ferret 
management are not anticipated on Federal lands, because current BLM 
rangeland management systems provide for prairie dog populations in 
grazed areas. No additional grazing restrictions will be placed on BLM 
lands with grazing allotments in the Reintroduction Area as a result of 
ferret reintroduction.
    No restrictions in addition to existing requirements will be placed 
on prairie dog control activities by private landowners. Under the 
Management Plan, landowners can readily control prairie dogs on their 
lands. Elimination of prairie dogs on private or State lands within the 
Reintroduction Area would not prevent establishment of a self-
sustaining ferret population, because sufficient prairie dog numbers to 
support such a population exist on Federal lands.
    Recreational activities currently practiced in the Reintroduction 
Area (e.g., antelope hunting, prairie dog shooting, furbearer or 
predator trapping, and off-road vehicle recreation) are either unlikely 
to impact ferrets or, if negative impacts to ferrets are demonstrated, 
will be managed to avoid or minimize such impacts.
    8. Protection of ferrets: Released ferrets will initially need 
protection from natural sources of mortality (predators, disease, 
inadequate prey, etc.) and from human-caused sources of mortality. 
Natural mortality will be reduced through pre-release conditioning, 
soft release, vaccination, predator control, management of prairie dog 
populations, etc. Human-caused mortality will be minimized by placing 
ferrets in an area with low human population density and relatively low 
development; by informing and working with local landowners, Federal 
land managers, developers, and recreationists to develop methods for 
conducting existing and planned activities in a manner compatible with 
ferret recovery; and by conferring with developers on proposed actions 
and providing recommendations that will reduce likely adverse impacts 
to ferrets.
    A final biological opinion was prepared on this action to 
reintroduce ferrets into the Experimental Population Area and concluded 
that this action is not likely to jeopardize any listed species.
    9. Overall: The designation of the north-central Montana ferret 
population as a nonessential experimental population and its associated 
management flexibility should encourage local acceptance of and 
cooperation with the reintroduction effort. The Service and Department 
consider the nonessential experimental population designation and 
accompanying special rule, the Management Plan, and the commitment to 
accommodate cooperatively planned oil, gas, and mineral exploration and 
development necessary to receive the cooperation of affected 
landowners, agencies, and citizens, and oil and gas, minerals, grazing, 
and recreational interests in the area.
    10. Effective date: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), this rule will 
take effect 30 days after publication. It is essential to the success 
of the reintroduction effort that ferret releases commence in the fall 
of the year, when wild young ferrets typically would become independent 
of natal care and disperse. The Service hopes to begin initial ferret 
releases in the Montana Reintroduction Area in late September 1994.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the April 13, 1993, proposed rule and associated notifications, 
all interested parties were invited to submit comments or 
recommendations concerning any aspect of the proposed rule that might 
contribute to the development of a final rule. Appropriate State 
agencies, county governments, Federal agencies, business and 
conservation organizations, and other interested parties were contacted 
and requested to comment. On April 22, 1993, the Service mailed letters 
notifying 368 persons and organizations of the proposed rule and 
solicited their comments. Of these 368 persons and organizations 
notified, all were provided copies of the proposed rule, and 350 were 
provided with a list of 8 offices where copies of the draft 
environmental assessment and Management Plan could be obtained. A 
detailed legal notice inviting public comment was published in the 
Phillips County News on April 28, 1993; the Billings Gazette on April 
29, 1993; and the Great Falls Tribune on April 30, 1993. On April 19, 
1993, a news release was mailed to 74 newspapers, 4 television 
stations, and 4 radio stations in Montana. Eight government offices 
(seven in Montana, one in Colorado) were identified as distribution 
points where one could obtain copies of the rule, draft Management 
Plan, and the draft environmental assessment. A public hearing on the 
proposed rule was held on May 24, 1993, in the Malta City Hall, Malta, 
Montana.
    The Service received letters and/or oral comments from 41 
commenters, including 2 State agencies, 3 county or local government 
offices, 7 businesses or business organizations, 10 conservation 
groups, and 19 individuals. Fifteen commenters supported a nonessential 
experimental reintroduction; six commenters opposed reintroduction; six 
commenters supported reintroduction under full protection of the Act; 
six commenters supported an essential experimental reintroduction; and 
two commenters did not support reintroduction but wanted a nonessential 
experimental designation if black-footed ferret reintroduction went 
forward. Comments of a similar nature or point are grouped into a 
number of general issues. These issues, and the Service's response to 
each, are discussed below:
    Issue 1: Should the reintroduced population be designated as a 
nonessential experimental population? Fifteen commenters supported the 
nonessential experimental designation, and 12 commenters supported a 
more restrictive designation based on their belief that a nonessential 
experimental designation was not justified and/or did not offer 
adequate protection to reintroduced ferrets or ferret habitat. Two 
commenters indicated that using the captive breeding population as the 
only essential population violates the Act. One commenter believed the 
Service should designate at least one wild population of black-footed 
ferrets as essential to the continued existence of the species in the 
wild.
    Response: The Service's rationale for designating the Montana 
ferret reintroduction as a nonessential experimental population was 
explained above under ``Status of Reintroduced Population.'' 
Establishment of a wild population in the Experimental Population Area 
is not essential to the continued existence of the species in the wild. 
The donor captive population, which is the population whose loss would 
appreciably affect the likelihood of survival of the species in the 
wild, is secure and other reintroduction sites are being identified and 
readied.
    The captive population is the primary species population. It has 
been protected against the threat of extinction from a single 
catastrophic event through splitting the captive population into seven 
widely separated subpopulations. Hence, loss of the experimental 
population would not threaten the species' survival.
    The primary repository of genetic diversity for the species is the 
240 adult breeders in the captive population. Animals selected for 
reintroduction purposes will be as genetically redundant as possible 
with the captive population; hence, any loss of reintroduced animals in 
this experimental population will not significantly impact the goal of 
preserving maximum genetic diversity in the species.
    All animals lost during the reintroduction attempt can readily be 
replaced through captive breeding, as demonstrated by the rapid 
increase in the captive population over the past 6 years. Based on 
current population dynamics, 100 juvenile ferrets will likely be 
produced each year in excess of numbers needed to maintain 240 breeding 
adults in captivity.
    There are no known populations of ferrets in the wild except for 
the nonessential experimental population reintroduced into the Shirley 
Basin area in Wyoming. The only other ferrets known to exist are in 
captive breeding facilities. Because the breeding program has been so 
successful, there are more ferrets in captivity than are needed for the 
breeding program or for ensuring the survival of the species. Ferrets 
that are the subject of this rule are surplus animals that the Service 
has determined are not needed for these purposes. Having a sufficient 
number of black-footed ferrets in the breeding program means that the 
Service will be able to continue to produce surplus ferrets for 
reintroductions and thus bring about the survival of the species in the 
wild.
    Consequently, the captive breeding population is the population 
that is essential to the survival of the species in the wild. The 
nonessential designation is based on the Service's conclusion that 
those ferrets to be removed from captivity and reintroduced into the 
wild are not needed for the survival of the species in the wild. If the 
released animals are lost, they can be replaced with other black-footed 
ferrets produced in captivity.
    Issue 2: Some commenters argued that because captive ferrets would 
be released into the wild, and there are no nonexperimental ferrets 
currently in the wild, and the only other ferrets in the wild are 
nonessential, therefore the loss of ferrets to be reintroduced into 
Montana would appreciably reduce the survival of the species in the 
wild. This criticism centers on the issue of whether the species will 
survive ``in the wild.''
    Response: These commenters mistakenly focus on ferrets after they 
have been reintroduced instead of focusing on the donor population of 
ferrets in captive breeding facilities. The former are the ferrets 
which are being reclassified from endangered to nonessential 
experimental and which the Service has determined are not needed for 
the survival of the species in the wild. It is the black-footed ferrets 
in the breeding program that are essential to the survival of the 
species in the wild, because these are producing surplus animals that 
can be used for reintroductions to establish wild populations. Without 
the captive ferret population, no additional ferret reintroductions 
could occur and the outlook for survival of the species in the wild 
would be extremely uncertain at this time.
    The Service's position is supported by the preamble to the final 
rule for establishing experimental populations (August 27, 1984; 49 FR 
33885). It explains that the organisms that will be reclassified as 
experimental are those which are to be removed from an existent source 
or donor population. Additionally, a comment on the proposed rule that 
preceded the final rule on experimental populations was that no species 
classified as endangered could have populations biologically 
nonessential to their survival. In its final rule, the Service 
disagreed with this comment and stated `` * * * there can be situations 
where the status of the extant population is such that individuals can 
be removed to provide a donor source for reintroduction without 
creating adverse impacts upon the parent population. This is especially 
true if the captive propagation efforts are providing individuals for 
release into the wild.''
    Furthermore, the Service referred to the Conference Report, which 
is especially significant because the definition of ``essential 
population'' in the final rule is virtually identical to the language 
in the Conference Report. Congress explained, `` * * * (T)he level of 
reduction necessary to constitute `essentiality' is expected to vary 
among listed species and, in most cases, experimental populations will 
not be essential'' [H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 835, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., 34 
(1982)].
    The Senate report explains that the special regulations designating 
experimental populations are to be designed to address the ``particular 
needs'' of each experimental population and that the Secretary is 
``granted broad flexibility'' in promulgating the special regulations 
[S. Rep. No. 97-418, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 8 (1982)].
    It also is important to recognize that one reason Congress amended 
the Act in 1982 was to provide for experimental populations. The House 
Report is instructive on this point. It states that reintroduction 
efforts had encountered strong opposition from the States and areas 
where species were to be reintroduced. Opponents were concerned that if 
introduced species were to be fully protected under the Act, then 
conflicts with existing uses would result and new development would be 
curtailed. Congress amended the Act to mitigate and alleviate such 
fears.
    Issue 3: One commenter stated that the Service's position that only 
black-footed ferrets in the captive population will be fully protected 
by the Act is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to the intent of 
Congress to work affirmatively for conservation of the species in the 
wild.
    Response: The Service has not decided that black-footed ferrets in 
captivity are the only ferrets that will ever receive full protection 
under the Act. However, as discussed under Issue 1, the Service 
maintains that it has the authority under section 10(j) of the Act to 
designate released populations as ``nonessential experimental'' if such 
action will further the conservation of the species, and if the 
decision is based on the best scientific and commercial data available.
    Issue 4: One commenter indicated that it is not appropriate to 
consider the captive population the essential population when the 
intent of the Act is the recovery of a given species in the wild rather 
than in captivity.
    Response: The Service agrees that the intent of the Act is to 
achieve recovery of the species in the wild. However, as explained 
under Issue 1 and Issue 2, it is appropriate to consider the captive 
ferret population as the essential population, since reintroductions at 
this time depend on the surplus ferrets produced by captive animals. 
Reintroducing surplus animals from the captive population into north-
central Montana as a nonessential experimental population, together 
with other future reintroductions, is expected to result in recovery of 
the species in the wild. The revised Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan 
requires that 10 ferret populations be established before downlisting 
the species to threatened status can occur, and the captive population 
is necessary to establish these populations through the reintroduction 
process. Thus, the captive ferret population is essential to recovery 
of the species in the wild.
    Issue 5: Two commenters stated that an ``essential'' designation 
provides greater protection for ferrets from impacts such as grazing, 
trapping, prairie dog hunting, and oil and gas development. Three 
commenters suggested that section 7 consultation provisions of an 
essential designation should be provided for black-footed ferret 
reintroductions in Montana.
    Response: The Service agrees that an essential designation would 
provide for a more stringent review of these types of activities under 
section 7 of the Act than the planned nonessential designation. 
However, the Service is part of the Working Group that developed the 
Management Plan that will guide how these activities are carried out 
within the Experimental Population Area. Thus, the Service contributed 
substantially to the Management Plan and believes it provides adequate 
protection for ferrets during these activities and will lead to 
establishment of a black-footed ferret population in north-central 
Montana.
    Issue 6: One commenter stated that no formal definition is given in 
the ruling or in Service regulations as to what constitutes a 
nonessential population. In light of extreme susceptibility of black-
footed ferrets and prairie dogs to disease and other natural and human-
caused threats, a population of genetically redundant individuals does 
not automatically make that population nonessential.
    Response: The Service's final rule that established regulations for 
experimental populations (49 FR 33885) defines an essential 
experimental population as `` * * * an experimental population whose 
loss would be likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of the 
survival of the species in the wild.'' All other experimental 
populations are to be classified as nonessential (i.e., one whose loss 
would not be likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of the 
survival of the species in the wild). As explained under Issue 1, the 
loss of the nonessential experimental population in north-central 
Montana will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival of 
the species in the wild because other surplus black-footed ferrets in 
captivity could be used to reestablish this population or create 
additional populations in the wild. This is based on the success of the 
captive breeding program and expected availability of captive-bred 
offspring for current and future reintroductions. The Service agrees 
that a population of genetically redundant individuals does not 
automatically make that population nonessential but believes in this 
case the designation is appropriate.
    Issue 7: One commenter believed that the Service should at least 
recognize the portion of ferret population on Federal lands as 
essential.
    Response: As explained under Issue 1, the Service considers the 
captive ferret population to be the population which is essential to 
the survival of the species in the wild, because it produces the 
surplus animals needed for currently proposed reintroduction efforts. 
Failure or loss of the captive population would jeopardize all future 
reintroductions and the survival of the species itself. However, 
failure of the Montana reintroduced population would not directly 
affect the captive population or future ferret reintroductions. Thus, 
the Service sees little justification for designating a portion of the 
Montana population (in this case, the portion on Federal land) as 
essential experimental, since that portion would not be biologically 
segregated from the balance of the population, nor would it be 
essential to the survival of the species in the wild.
    Issue 8: One commenter indicated that the nonessential experimental 
designation is being proposed only to counter local opposition to 
black-footed ferret recovery and that this opposition is really 
countered by the majority of Americans' support for recovery of all 
endangered species.
    Response: As explained under Issue 2, Congress incorporated the use 
of experimental populations into the Act in 1982 for the specific 
purpose of providing the Service with flexibility in reintroducing 
endangered or threatened species back into their historical habitat for 
the purpose of conservation of such species. The Service appreciates 
this flexibility, for in this case as in others it allows recovery to 
proceed at a faster pace than would be possible if the Service had to 
overcome the opposition to reintroducing the animals as endangered. 
Furthermore, because sufficient safeguards are built into 
reintroduction and management plans, the Service believes that emphasis 
is better placed on reintroducing captive animals into the wild to 
establish populations and bring about recovery as soon as possible, 
than on arguing about the term under which the animals will be 
reintroduced.
    The Service agrees that there is a high degree of support from the 
American public for the recovery of endangered species. However, 
opposition to the reintroduction of an endangered or threatened species 
is often most pronounced from residents of the area in which a 
reintroduction will occur. As discussed earlier, it was this opposition 
that persuaded Congress to amend the Act in 1982 to allow for 
experimental populations.
    Issue 9: One commenter stated that the captive population has kept 
this species from extinction but reintroduction to the wild is 
necessary for long-term survival and successful reintroduction cannot 
be accomplished with a nonessential designation.
    Response: Because no wild ferret populations have been found since 
the last individuals in the Meeteetse, Wyoming, population were taken 
into captivity in 1986 and 1987 to save them from canine distemper, the 
captive population may indeed have saved the species from extinction. 
Reintroduction is certainly necessary to bring about long-term survival 
in the wild. However, the Service believes that successful 
reintroduction can be accomplished with a nonessential designation, 
based on the Management Plan and the accompanying special rule. The 
1988 Recovery Plan states as one of its recovery goals, the development 
of 10 populations. The recovery plan does not state under what 
designation those populations must be.
    Issue 10: One commenter pointed out that the proposed rule states 
that, ``As additional wild populations become established, the captive 
population will diminish in relative importance and wild populations 
will increase in relative importance in the overall species recovery 
effort.'' This places an increased importance on the Montana 
population, thus making it all the more essential to recovery of the 
species ``in the wild.''
    Response: The Service agrees that as wild populations become 
established, and the number of animals available in the wild increases, 
the captive population will diminish in relative importance to survival 
of the species in the wild. However, at this time loss of the captive 
population would be catastrophic, since few wild ferrets (those at the 
Shirley Basin site) would be available to re-establish the captive 
population. Furthermore, the captive population will remain important 
until establishment of the 10 wild populations needed for recovery is 
accomplished, both as a source of animals for reintroduction and as 
insurance against stochastic environmental events in wild populations. 
Conversely, the planned Montana population can be readily established 
or re-established from the captive population. Thus, the Service 
considers the captive population to be far more important to the 
survival of the species in the wild than the planned Montana 
population. Whether the Montana population is essential to recovery of 
the species ``in the wild'' was discussed under Issue 2.
    Issue 11: One commenter indicated that (1) continued captivity 
increases the risk of animals losing important wild survival instincts 
and reduces the likelihood of successful reintroduction and recovery; 
(2) the ability for black-footed ferrets within a wild population to 
maintain their instinctive skills highlights the importance of wild 
populations; and (3) the added protection of essential designation 
would better allow animals the freedom to practice these skills.
    Response: The Service agrees that it is important to move ahead 
with the reintroduction of black-footed ferrets produced in captivity 
as soon as possible to decrease the risk of ferrets losing important 
survival skills. However, the Service also believes that sufficient 
protection has been built into the Management Plan and the accompanying 
special rule in this document to allow a sufficient number of animals 
to survive to utilize these skills.
    Issue 12: Two commenters suggested that full protection of the Act 
is necessary so the opportunity to designate the Experimental 
Population Area as critical habitat is provided.
    Response: The Service recognizes that critical habitat can be 
designated for an endangered or essential experimental population, but 
not for a nonessential experimental population. However, the Service 
believes that the Management Plan and the accompanying special rule in 
this document provides sufficient protection for this nonessential 
experimental population. Furthermore, the Service knows from past 
experience that the designation of critical habitat often faces 
significant local opposition. As discussed under Issue 2, the 
experimental population designation was amended into the Act by 
Congress in 1982 to alleviate opposition to the reintroduction of 
species listed under the Act.
    Issue 13: One commenter questioned how the Service can declare the 
black-footed ferret recovered in 10-15 years if all populations in the 
wild are ``nonessential experimental.'' Will reintroduced ferret 
populations in other states have full endangered species status? Two 
commenters objected that the Service did not indicate under what 
circumstances black-footed ferret populations will be considered 
``essential'' in the future. They believed the Service should discuss 
biological and social parameters that, when met, will move reintroduced 
populations from nonessential to essential.
    Response: Perhaps the issue of how population designation and 
recovery goals relate to each other should be clarified. Under the 
revised Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan, the species may be 
downlisted from endangered to threatened when 10 ferret populations, 
each with at least 30 breeding adults, are established. Thus, 
downlisting is based on biological parameters (e.g., ferret numbers, 
density, survival, recruitment, habitat quality and quantity, etc.) and 
population stability. The Recovery Plan makes no distinction as to how 
these populations are designated; once biological criteria are 
satisfied, each reintroduced population will count toward recovery 
whether it is designated as endangered, essential experimental, or 
nonessential experimental. Furthermore, it is erroneous to assume that 
a nonessential experimental population is unprotected. While the 
special rule under section 4(d) of the Act will allow management 
flexibility for the planned Montana reintroduction, it also maintains 
many of the essential protections of the Act. With respect to the 
second portion of the question, whether black-footed ferret populations 
reintroduced into other states will have full endangered status or be 
designated as essential experimental populations remains to be 
determined and will be based on the circumstances of each 
reintroduction.
    Issue 14: One commenter indicated that a historic precedent will be 
set if the Service establishes that once a species has been declared 
extinct in the wild, and only exists in captive breeding facilities, 
that it will never again receive full protection of the Act when it is 
reintroduced into the wild.
    Response: The Service disagrees that a historic precedent is being 
set. The Service has not declared the black-footed ferret extinct in 
the wild, nor has it said that the species will never again receive 
full protection of the Act when it is reintroduced into the wild. The 
designation of future reintroductions of ferrets and other species will 
depend on the specifics of those situations and not on how the Service 
designated the Shirley Basin or Montana ferret reintroduced 
populations.
    Issue 15: One commenter suggested that the rule does not address 
how the Service plans to address long-term viability of ferrets in the 
wild. The commenter also stated that until then, all reintroductions 
should be essential.
    Response: The Service has addressed the long-term viability of 
ferrets in the wild through recovery goals and objectives described in 
the 1988 revised Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan. This plan 
identifies objectives that must be met to downlist the species to 
threatened, which in turn would ensure the long-term viability of the 
species in the wild. The revised recovery plan reflects current 
information and recovery objectives, and outlines steps for recovery 
that, when accomplished, will provide for viable black-footed ferret 
populations in captivity and within its historical range. These 
objectives include:
    (1) Increasing the captive population of black-footed ferrets to a 
census size of 200 breeding adults by 1991 (this goal was subsequently 
changed to 240 and has been achieved);
    (2) Establishing a prebreeding census population of 1,500 free 
ranging black-footed ferret breeding adults in 10 or more populations 
with no fewer than 30 breeding adults in any population by the year 
2010; and
    (3) Encouraging the widest possible distribution of reintroduced 
black-footed ferret populations.
    It is the Service's opinion that the Recovery Plan will continue to 
be revised to reflect future requirements and direction to ensure 
recovery of the black-footed ferret in the wild. In addition, the 
Service plans to develop a national strategy for implementing the 
ferret reintroduction program, based in part on initial reintroduction 
efforts. This strategy would outline the specific methods and means 
necessary to achieve recovery objectives cited in the Recovery Plan. 
See Issue 1 and Issue 2 for a further discussion of essential and 
nonessential experimental designations.
    Issue 16: One commenter suggested that the Service develop an 
overall strategy regarding ferret reintroduction, which would include 
criteria for reintroduced population designations and a programmatic 
plan to implement reintroductions.
    Response: The Service agrees. As explained in Issue 15, it is 
working toward a national reintroduction strategy that will address 
specific procedures for reaching objectives outlined in the Service's 
Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan first developed in 1978 and revised 
in 1988.
    Issue 17: One commenter stated that the Service has not adequately 
considered what effect potential loss of the experimental population 
will have on the species as a whole.
    Response: The Service stated in the proposed rule that even if all 
ferrets released in the Montana reintroduction were to succumb to 
natural or human-caused mortality factors, this would not threaten the 
continued existence of the species. Unless the biological status of the 
captive ferret population changes significantly, it is the species' 
primary population and could readily replace any animals lost in the 
reintroduction effort. This is consistent with the designation of the 
Montana ferret reintroduction as a nonessential experimental population 
and remains the Service's position with respect to the captive 
population and planned Montana population.
    Issue 18: Does the nonessential experimental designation and/or the 
Management Plan for the north-central Montana reintroduction provide 
adequate protection of ferret habitat? One commenter stated that it did 
not. Another commenter suggested the nonessential experimental 
designation appears to be an attempt to avoid restrictions on the kinds 
of human activities that led to loss of black-footed ferrets in the 
first place. Two commenters expressed concern that prairie dog 
shooting, predator trapping, off-road vehicle use, lead shot poisoning, 
and accidental trapping will adversely affect black-footed ferrets.
    Response: The Service and the Department have worked with 
landowners and land users to develop a management system wherein black-
footed ferrets and human activities can coexist. This does not compare 
to human activities in black-footed ferret habitat in the past, which 
were relatively unregulated. If mixed-ownership sites can be used 
successfully for reintroduction, this is likely to increase local 
acceptance at future reintroduction sites, augment the number of sites 
deemed potentially suitable for reintroduction purposes, and increase 
the species' chances for recovery.
    The Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge will serve as a 
refugium in the Reintroduction Area where prairie dog shooting, off-
road vehicle use, predator trapping, and trapping will be prohibited. 
On BLM lands, these activities are addressed in the Judith-Valley-
Phillips Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 
(JVP-RMP/EIS) (BLM 1991). BLM is committed to managing existing prairie 
dog towns and distribution on its lands for black-footed ferrets and 
associated species. BLM plans to designate prairie dog towns on BLM 
land within identified reintroduction areas as Areas of Critical 
Environmental Concern. BLM also plans to manage prairie dog shooting 
before and after ferret reintroduction; prairie dog shooting may 
temporarily be prohibited in prairie dog towns where black-footed 
ferret reintroduction is occurring, and would be managed in towns 
subsequently occupied by ferrets.
    Issue 19: Has there been adequate coordination with the affected 
public during planning and consideration of this ferret reintroduction? 
One commenter questioned this and suggested that the Department of the 
Interior should increase local and State involvement before embarking 
on a project of this magnitude. Another commenter recommended that a 
Citizen's Steering Committee be part of black-footed ferret 
reintroduction efforts in the future.
    Response: The North-central Montana Working Group first introduced 
the concept of ferret recovery to the general public at an open meeting 
in southern Phillips County in 1985. BLM subsequently initiated efforts 
to identify and address concerns of the public through the formation of 
a Prairie Dog/Black-footed Ferret Coordinated Resources Management 
Planning Group as part of the ongoing JVP-RMP/EIS. Additionally, during 
the period of July 15 to October 5, 1990, the Proposed Action was 
discussed with 53 ranchers having private land and/or BLM-administered 
grazing leases within the Reintroduction Area. Information regarding 
the JVP-RMP/EIS process and the black-footed ferret reintroduction 
proposal was provided to ranchers by Department, BLM, and Service 
biologists. Public meetings in Montana were held in Missoula on 
December 2, 1991; Malta on December 9; Fort Belknap on December 10; 
Billings on December 11; and Miles City on December 12. These meetings 
offered the general public an opportunity to review and comment on the 
reintroduction proposal.
    Procedures the Service used to disseminate notice of the 
reintroduction and copies of the proposed rule to designate the Montana 
ferret population as a nonessential experimental population, together 
with the draft environmental assessment, were described earlier. Copies 
of the final rule, Management Plan, and final environmental assessment 
will be provided to landowners, land users, and others requesting 
copies.
    The Department and the Service intends to develop reasonable 
measures to accommodate landowners and land users still concerned about 
possible negative impacts to their operations as a result of ferret 
reintroduction.
    As the Montana black-footed ferret reintroduction progresses, the 
Service will utilize recommendations from the Working Group to help 
guide the reintroduction. In addition, the Department has formed a 
local Steering Committee to assist in implementing the Management Plan. 
The Steering Committee consists of representatives of landowner, 
business, and other interest groups.
    Issue 20: Will the government change the nonessential experimental 
designation sometime in the future? This concern was expressed by one 
commenter.
    Response: Once this final rule goes into effect, changing the 
nonessential experimental designation of the north-central Montana 
ferret population would require a new rulemaking process, which would 
include a proposed rule, a public comment period, public meetings, 
National Environmental Policy Act compliance, and other documentation 
before a final rule to change the designation could be published. Under 
the experimental population regulations (50 CFR 17 Subpart H), any rule 
designating an experimental population must provide ``* * * a process 
for periodic review and evaluation of the success or failure of the 
release and the effect of the release on the conservation and recovery 
of the species.'' The 5-year evaluation noted in section 17.84(g)(10) 
of the proposed rule is intended to be a milestone in this required 
periodic review and evaluation process, and will be a review of the 
biological success of the reintroduction effort. If determined to be 
less than successful, the Service and the Department will modify the 
reintroduction protocol and/or the strategies within the Management 
Plan to improve ferret survival and/or recruitment, with the 
involvement of affected landowners and land managers. If the experiment 
is extremely unsuccessful, the Service and Department may consider a 
temporary hold on releasing ferrets into the Reintroduction Area until 
better release or management techniques are developed. The 5-year 
evaluation will not include an evaluation to determine whether the 
population should be reclassified.
    The Service does not foresee any likely situation, except for 
eventual delisting of the species, that would call for altering the 
nonessential experimental status of the Montana ferret population. 
Should any such alteration prove necessary, however, it is possible 
that it would not change ferret management on private lands. If the 
designation changes and it is necessary to substantially modify ferret 
management on private lands, any private landowner who consented to 
ferret reintroduction on his lands would be permitted to terminate his 
consent and the ferrets would, at such request, be relocated.
    Issue 21: Should the final rule incorporate specific management 
guidance regarding implementation of the experimental population? One 
commenter recommended that this should be done and suggested that 
guidance covering prairie dog shooting; leghold traps and snares; use 
of zinc phosphide, strychnine, and fumigants for prairie dog control; 
animal damage control; and incidental take provisions be included. 
Three commenters suggested that ranchers must have control of prairie 
dogs to prevent them from becoming an economic burden and that control 
of prairie dogs that move from Federal to private lands should be 
provided.
    Response: Guidance addressing these management issues is included 
in the Management Plan. The Management Plan is referenced in the 
accompanying special rule as the document under which the nonessential 
experimental population will be managed. However, because the 
Management Plan will be dynamic in nature and updated as necessary, the 
rule refers to the Management Plan in a general sense rather than 
incorporating extensive management guidance. This will allow revision 
of management practices without undertaking a new rulemaking.
    Issue 22: Should the agreements between the Service and private 
landowners contain provisions to require removal of ferrets at the 
landowners' request and an ``escape clause'' to allow landowners to 
terminate agreements? One commenter suggested that any agreement should 
contain these provisions, as well as provisions regulating access to 
private property. Two commenters suggested that the reintroduction 
could adversely affect private property rights through land use 
restrictions under the Act.
    Response: The designation of the reintroduced population as 
nonessential experimental, the accompanying special rule, and the 
Management Plan provide a means and system to reintroduce black-footed 
ferrets without affecting use of private lands. The Management Plan 
[Land Management Issues, section 1.(a)] states that black-footed ferret 
reintroduction does not supersede or reduce the right of private 
landowners to manage their property and that management actions will be 
implemented on private lands only with landowner approval. Section 
1.(d) states that black-footed ferrets on private land in the 
Experimental Population Area will always be relocated if the affected 
landowner so requests.
    Section 17.81(d) of the experimental population regulations (50 CFR 
17, Subpart H) states, ``Any regulation promulgated pursuant to this 
section shall, to the maximum extent practicable, represent an 
agreement between the Fish and Wildlife Service, the affected State and 
Federal agencies and persons holding any interest in land which may be 
affected by the establishment of an experimental population.'' The 
Service believes that this special rule acts in part as an agreement 
between the Service and affected parties. The Department may choose to 
enter into separate agreements with landowners during implementation of 
the Management Plan.
    The Service and the Department will continue to work directly with 
affected parties within the framework of the experimental population 
designation and special rule and the Management Plan to make ferret 
recovery compatible with landowner and land user needs.
    Issue 23: Should oil and gas guidelines be finalized before the 
north-central Montana nonessential experimental population is 
designated? One commenter urged that this be done. Another commenter 
was concerned that private lands that overlay Federal mineral, oil, and 
gas rights may be subject to section 7 consultation requirements. (The 
term ``oil and gas guidelines'' in this question refers to guidelines 
being developed by the Service, in cooperation with BLM and the oil and 
gas industry, to ensure that oil and gas development is compatible with 
ferret reintroduction).
    Response: The draft oil and gas guidelines do not need to be 
finalized before an initial ferret reintroduction attempt is made at 
the Montana site. Based on the projected low to moderate oil and gas 
development potential in the Reintroduction Area, and the siting of 
primary ferret release areas on the Charles M. Russell NWR, the Service 
believes there will be no significant conflicts between ferret recovery 
and ongoing oil and gas development. A general process for dealing with 
oil and gas development is outlined in the Management Plan, and 
mitigation measures will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis if a 
development proposal has the potential to adversely impact ferrets or 
their habitat.
    Issue 24: One commenter was concerned as to whether any action that 
could be deemed a ``taking'' of a black-footed ferret will result in 
prosecution with civil or criminal penalties.
    Response: The Service agrees that this is a legitimate concern and 
has included a provision in the special rule to allow for the 
``incidental take'' of ferrets (i.e., take that results from, but is 
not the purpose of, the carrying out of otherwise lawful activities). 
Discussion regarding incidental take is included earlier in this rule 
in the Management section under ``Mortality.''
    Issue 25: Are the boundaries of the Experimental Population Area 
appropriate? Three commenters were concerned that the Experimental 
Population Area was too large. Another commenter thought the 
Experimental Population area was too small and that released black-
footed ferrets would leave the area. Another questioned whether black-
footed ferrets ever occurred within the Experimental Population Area.
    Response: Black-footed ferrets were historically found throughout 
eastern Montana. Forty-four specimens collected between 1887 and 1984 
were from Montana, which includes Phillips County. In 1983, a black-
footed ferret skull was found within the Experimental Population Area 
on the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation.
    The Experimental Population Area boundaries were drawn to include 
all potential black-footed ferret habitat (prairie dog colonies) within 
the North-central Montana Prairie Dog Complex. The Service believes 
that the lack of suitable habitat (i.e., contiguous prairie dog 
colonies or complexes) on the north, east, and west and the Missouri 
River on the south should deter the movement and establishment of 
black-footed ferrets outside the Experimental Population Area.
    Section 17.84(9)(ii) of this rule describes disposition of black-
footed ferrets found outside the Experimental Population Area in 
Montana.
    Issue 26: Should the primary purpose of the Montana reintroduction 
be to test release techniques or to establish a viable black-footed 
ferret population? One commenter suggested that the primary purpose of 
the reintroduction should be to establish a black-footed ferret 
population, and two commenters thought offspring of reintroduced black-
footed ferrets should be used for future reintroductions. One commenter 
also disagreed with the use of radio-telemetry to monitor ferrets, 
suggesting that radio collars adversely affect ferret behavior, thus 
increasing early mortality. This commenter also suggested that lack of 
predator monitoring would confound the meaning of predation-caused 
mortality data, that sufficient data already exists to demonstrate 
expected behavior of cage-reared ferrets, and that other, less 
obtrusive techniques than radio collars are available to monitor the 
reintroduction effort. The commenter also believed the only difference 
between hard and soft release is that one group of ferrets will be held 
127 days and another group 136 days. One commenter thought that 
telemetry could be used as a tool to increase ferret survival by 
returning ferrets to the release colony as soon as they leave the site.
    Response: The purpose of the reintroduction is to implement a 
primary recovery action for the black-footed ferret and to evaluate 
release techniques. The Montana release will test ferret reintroduction 
techniques and, if fully successful, will result in a wild population 
within 5 years.
    Releases of black-footed ferrets are considered experimental, both 
by legal definition and according to the chronological sequence of 
technique development described in the revised Black-footed Ferret 
Recovery Plan. The Recovery Plan (section 413) stresses identification 
of variables that could affect the outcome of release and measurement 
of the effect of those variables. The Recovery Plan also suggests 
employing valid statistical design for the experiments. Sections 42 and 
43 detail experimental release needs and suggest reliance on mark/
recapture and radio-telemetry. Section 44 describes operational 
reintroduction of ferrets. The recovery plan suggests that the first 
three releases should evaluate reintroduction success and release 
techniques. The Service does not interpret this to mean that ferret 
populations cannot become established during the initial releases, or 
even that the probability of establishment of a population will be 
lower. It does mean that learning about the process has a high priority 
in the Montana release. Testing rearing methodology and release 
techniques and establishing a viable black-footed ferret population are 
not mutually exclusive goals.
    Testing of manipulative research methods on black-footed ferrets 
has historically generated much discussion. A cursory review of the 
literature turned up 11 papers (representing 10 authors in the period 
1968-1974) suggesting increased use of manipulative methods on ferrets. 
Suggestions for this type of research came during a period when the 
black-footed ferret was regarded as nearly extinct; consequently, the 
risk/reward evaluation must have been greatly influenced by the 
perceived high value of each individual animal. Currently, genetically 
redundant black-footed ferrets are being produced in captivity. 
Nevertheless, manipulative research may be more valuable during the 
experimental reintroduction phase of the recovery program than at any 
previous time or at any time in the future. Problems identified at this 
time can be corrected and reintroduction strategies for future 
reintroductions can be refined.
    One problem identified during the Wyoming ferret release was 
retaining animals at or near the reintroduction site. Loss of ferrets 
during this release was primarily due to long distance dispersal and 
death, with the latter mostly due to predation. Pre-release 
conditioning methods show promise in reducing dispersal, and a 
variation of pre-release conditioning is a proposed part of the 
experimental design of the Montana reintroduction. Soft-releases (i.e., 
providing cages, an acclimation period, and post-release food supply) 
have been used exclusively in past ferret releases at considerable 
effort and expense. There has been little assessment of the benefits of 
soft release, because such assessments must be comparative and no other 
release techniques have been tested. The experimental design for the 
Montana release includes the traditional soft release and a hard 
release (no acclimation period and no supplemental food). The 
contention that the survival of black-footed ferrets may be enhanced by 
holding animals for 10 days at the release site to allow for 
acclimation and orientation is one of the elements being tested and is 
part of the experimental design. Ultimately, the goal is to compare 
efficiency of the three techniques (soft release, hard release, and 
hard release with pre-release conditioning) in terms of ferret 
establishment and survival at the reintroduction site relative to 
costs. In a more immediate sense, statistical null hypotheses being 
tested relate to lack of significant differences between the three 
groups in terms of several measurable behaviors. If sufficient black-
footed ferrets are available, another group of black-footed ferrets 
will be released in an identical manner but without being radio-
collared. Spotlighting, snow tracking and mark/recapture methods will 
be used to monitor mid- and long-term survival of both groups of 
animals.
    Black-footed ferret releases in Montana will be the first 
reintroduction of this species in black-tailed prairie dog towns. The 
Service believes it is worthwhile to obtain as much detailed data as 
possible on black-footed ferret behavior, dispersal, and mortality 
within this habitat type. Radio-telemetry will provide the most 
detailed data. One of the recognized tradeoffs when using radio-
telemetry is potential additional risk to the collared animals. Actual 
risk has not been assessed, but no mortality due to radio collars has 
been documented in 5 years of field studies on black-footed ferrets or 
5 additional years of work on Siberian ferrets in Asia and the United 
States. Problems with radio collars (e.g., mud accumulation and 
degradation of material) have been greatly reduced during years of 
development and testing, and observations of telemetered ferrets in 
captivity and in the wild has not shown that radio collars adversely 
affect behavior.
    Radio-telemetry also has been used to rescue and/or identify 
dispersing animals that may benefit by returning them to the release 
site. A radio-tagged black-footed ferret in Wyoming that was 
rehabilitated and relocated in 1991 was one of the two females that 
reproduced the following year.
    Issue 27: One commenter suggested that all black-footed ferrets be 
released on Federal lands. Another suggested that, because private 
lands encompass 36 percent of the Experimental Population Area, private 
landowners are essential to the reintroduction program. A third 
suggested that endangered species protection can be better achieved by 
providing incentives to landowners rather than instituting land-use 
restrictions.
    Response: The initial release of black-footed ferrets is being 
planned on Charles M. Russell NWR (Federal land). The Service also 
envisions that future releases would most likely be on national 
wildlife refuge land or Federal lands administered by the BLM. Black-
footed ferrets would not be released on private lands without the 
support and permission of the landowner. The Service agrees that 
cooperation of private landowners is an essential part of the Montana 
black-footed ferret reintroduction program. The stated goal of the 
Management Plan is ``To promote the recovery and delisting of the 
black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) by reintroducing and 
establishing a free-ranging, cooperatively managed, black-footed ferret 
population in the North-central Montana Complex in a way that is 
compatible with existing local economies and lifestyles and to maintain 
a positive working relationship with the local landowners.'' Strategies 
formulated in the Management Plan avoid conflicts with landowner 
operations. Black-footed ferret reintroduction does not supersede or 
reduce the right of private landowners to manage their property. 
Cooperative management of black-footed ferret habitat (prairie dog 
colonies) on private rangelands is encouraged. However, the use of 
private lands is not necessary for this black-footed ferret 
reintroduction.
    Issue 28: One commenter expressed concern about the apparent 
linkage of the Montana rule to the Wyoming rule. The respondent 
understood that each reintroduction would be evaluated separately and a 
separate rulemaking would be completed for each site.
    Response: The Service agrees. However, to conserve printing costs 
during the annual updating of title 50 of the U.S. Code of Federal 
Regulations, provisions common to both reintroductions are combined 
together and stated only once rather than repeating them for each 
Experimental Population Area in the accompanying special rule. But, 
provisions specific only to the Montana Experimental Population Area 
are presented in section 17.84(g)(9)(ii) of the special rule.
    Issue 29: Four commenters questioned the Federal government's use 
of Pyreone dust to treat prairie dog burrows in an attempt to manage an 
active sylvatic plague epizootic. One commenter supported the effort.
    Response: The Service and the BLM, after reviewing data on changes 
occurring since 1988 in prime black-footed ferret habitat on national 
wildlife refuge lands and public rangelands within the Experimental 
Population Area, implemented a program during June 1993 to treat fleas 
in prairie dog burrows on two potential black-footed ferret release 
sites. Data collected in 1992 showed a 52 percent reduction in total 
prairie dog acreage within the Reintroduction Area and elimination of 
three of five potential release sites as result of documented sylvatic 
plague. The treatment of prairie dog burrows was implemented on Federal 
lands as part of the Federal government's commitment to manage prairie 
dog populations at 1988 population levels. An environmental assessment 
was completed and a Finding of No Significant Impact and Record of 
Decision were signed by the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge 
Manager on May 20, 1993, and the BLM, Lewistown District Manager on May 
24, 1993.
    Issue 30: One commenter believed there is no documented evidence 
that conservation of black-footed ferrets will be promoted through 
reintroduction and suggested that further reintroduction be delayed 
until reintroductions in Wyoming are proven to be a success. An 
alternate position was taken by two commenters who were concerned that 
black-footed ferrets in the captive population may be euthanized 
because breeding facilities are nearing capacity, and recommended that 
additional black-footed ferrets be released in the wild rather than 
establishing another captive facility.
    Response: The Service disagrees that conservation of black-footed 
ferrets will not be promoted through reintroduction into the wild. The 
Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan was updated in 1988 to provide a more 
up-to-date blueprint for actions to recover the species. Among other 
changes, the species' recovery goal was updated to include 
establishment of 10 or more black-footed ferret populations, each with 
at least 30 breeding adults (see Issue 15).
    The Service is actively pursuing these recovery goals by 
encouraging establishment of cooperatively developed reintroduction 
sites, and results from black-footed ferret reintroduction in Wyoming 
in 1991 and 1992 are encouraging. Delays in re-establishing black-
footed ferrets in the wild would not be in the long-term interest of 
recovery of this species in the wild.
    The Service's intent is to secure sufficient release sites so that 
black-footed ferrets in excess of the captive population needs can be 
released in the wild. The Service does not envision that the captive 
population will produce black-footed ferrets in excess of those needed 
for the reintroduction program, scientific purposes and display, and 
has no plans to euthanize animals in captivity.
    Issue 31: Should the Service use a 50 percent reduction in the 
ferret habitat rating (Biggins et. al. 1993) as a criteria for re-
evaluation of the Montana reintroduction program?
    Response: The Service believes that re-evaluation of the program 
when a 50 percent reduction in the black-footed ferret family rating 
has occurred is appropriate. A 50 percent reduction in the black-footed 
ferret habitat rating index does not mean the Reintroduction Area would 
not be a viable reintroduction site, only that the quality of remaining 
habitat and viability of the site should be reassessed. Black-footed 
ferret habitat in the Reintroduction Area is currently being surveyed 
and the black-footed ferret habitat rating index will be determined 
using the 1994 data. If a 50 percent reduction in black-footed ferret 
family rating has occurred, the viability of the site will be 
reevaluated prior to the scheduled 1994 release.
    Issue 32: Should the reintroduction protocol section in the 
proposed rule be discussed in more detail? One commenter suggested it 
should be.
    Response: The Service does not believe it is necessary to provide 
more detail in the special rule. The referenced section describes the 
anticipated release strategy and techniques that will be used. Site 
specific details will be modified annually prior to each year's release 
and will utilize information obtained from previous releases. Detailed 
release methods for each year's release in the Montana program will be 
included in a protocol prepared prior to each release.
    Issue 33: One commenter suggested that the following language be 
added to the rule: ``There will be no loss of livestock AUM's [Animal 
Unit Months] on BLM land in the reintroduction area due to ferret 
reintroduction.''
    Response: Part 7 of the Supplementary Information section of this 
rule addresses grazing on public lands, stating: ``No additional 
grazing restrictions will be placed on BLM lands with grazing 
allotments in the Reintroduction Area as a result of ferret 
reintroduction.''
    Issue 34: One commenter disagreed with the statement in the rule 
that, ``Decreased animal unit months for livestock would not benefit 
prairie dog populations and would not be recommended as a tool for 
ferret management.''
    Response: Grazing by livestock does not in itself adversely affect 
prairie dog populations. Conversely, livestock grazing can create 
conditions that enhance black-tailed prairie dog populations by 
reducing grass cover and increasing the distance across which prairie 
dogs can spot and escape predators.
    Issue 35: Four commenters were opposed to the money being spent on 
ferret reintroduction and suggested that the money could better be 
spent on access roads or recreation sites on the Charles M. Russell 
National Wildlife Refuge. Four persons suggested the reintroduction 
will affect the economic stability of Phillips County and did not 
support changes in current recreation, grazing, prairie dog shooting, 
hunting, or potential bentonite mining activities.
    Response: The Service is responsible under the Act for recovering 
the black-footed ferret. Because there are no known natural wild 
populations, reintroductions are necessary to recover the species.
    The Service disagrees that the economic stability of Phillips 
County will be affected as a result of the black-footed ferret 
reintroduction. Some increase in visitor use of the Reintroduction Area 
by researchers and members of the public interested in observing or 
photographing black-footed ferrets is anticipated when ferrets are 
reintroduced. The level of this increase cannot be determined nor can 
the consequences to the local economy, though economic impacts of 
increased visitor use is likely to be beneficial rather than adverse. 
No significant changes in recreation, grazing, prairie dog shooting, 
hunting, or potential mining activities have been projected. The 
Management Plan addresses how each of these activities will be managed 
within the Reintroduction Area.
    Issue 36: Two commenters felt that black-footed ferrets should be 
given full protection under the Act as a means of conserving the long-
term viability of the entire prairie dog grassland ecosystem.
    Response: Although conserving the long-term viability of the entire 
prairie dog grassland ecosystem may be an admirable goal, the purpose 
of this nonessential experimental population is to implement a recovery 
action for the black-footed ferret. The reasons for not providing 
reintroduced ferrets full protection under the Act are discussed 
earlier in this rule.
    Issue 37: One commenter suggested that more than one black-footed 
ferret probably died from the plague in Wyoming.
    Response: To the best of the Service's knowledge, only one black-
footed ferret died of sylvatic plague in Wyoming.
    Issue 38: One commenter expressed support for the Baucus-Chafee 
Endangered Species Act reauthorization bill. The commenter also 
supported changes in the Act that would include economic and social 
impact studies to determine the extent of adverse economic effects 
resulting from listing of threatened and endangered species.
    Response: This rulemaking does not address reauthorization of the 
Act.

National Environmental Policy Act

    A final environmental assessment as defined under the authority of 
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 has been prepared and is 
available to the public at the Service offices identified in the 
ADDRESSES section. This assessment formed the basis for the decision 
that the planned Montana black-footed ferret reintroduction is not a 
major Federal action which would significantly affect the quality of 
the human environment within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Required Determinations

    This final rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget 
review under Executive Order 12866. The rule 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.). Also, no 
direct costs, enforcement costs, information collection, or 
recordkeeping requirements are imposed on small entities by this action 
and the rule contains no record-keeping requirements, as defined in the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule 
does not require a Federalism assessment under Executive Order 12612 
because it would not have any significant federalism effects as 
described in the order.

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.
Anderson, S. 1972. Mammals of Chihuahua-taxonomy and distribution. 
Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 148(2):280-281.
Biggins, D., B. Miller, L. Hanebury, R. Oakleaf, A. Farmer, R. 
Crete, and A. Dood. 1993. In press. A system for evaluating black-
footed ferret habitat. In Oldemeyer, J.L., D.E. Biggins, B.J. 
Miller, and R. Crete, Eds. Proceedings of the Workshop on the 
Management of Prairie Dog Complexes for Black-footed Ferret 
Reintroductions. USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 
93(13). 94 pp.
Forrest, S.C., D.E. Biggins, L. Richardson, T.W. Clark, T.M. 
Campbell III, K.A. Fagerstone, and E.T. Thorne. 1988. Population 
attributes for the black-footed ferret at Meeteetse, Wyoming, 1981-
1985. J. Mammology 69:261-273.
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.
Harris, R.B., T.W. Clark, and M.L. Shaffer. 1989. Estimating 
extinction probabilities for black-footed ferret populations. Pages 
69-82 in Seal, U.S., E.T. Thorne, M.A. Bogan, and S.A. Anderson, 
eds. Conservation Biology and the Black-footed Ferret. Yale 
University Press, New Haven and London.
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, Technical Bulletin 4:1-36.
Messing, H.J. 1986. A late Pleistocene-Holocene fauna of Chihuahua, 
Mexico. The Southwestern Naturalist 31(3):277-288.
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 1987. Final 
contingency plan for the disposition of black-footed ferrets found 
in the wild in Montana. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and 
Parks, Helena. 2 pp.
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 1992. North-central 
Montana black-footed ferret reintroduction and management plan. 
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena. 59 pages.
Reading, R.P. 1991. Biological considerations for designating the 
North-central Montana prairie dog complex an experimental population 
area for black-footed ferrets. Bureau of Land Management, Malta, 
Montana. 23 pp.
U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 1991. Judith-Valley-Phillips 
resource management plan and environmental impact statement. July 
1991 Draft. Montana State Office, Helena.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Revised black-footed ferret 
recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 154 
pages.

Authors

    The principal authors of this rule are Dennis Christopherson and 
Ronald Naten (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 
U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, 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 two entries 
for ``Ferret, black-footed'' under ``MAMMALS'' to read as shown below:


Sec. 17.11   Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Species                                                  Vertebrate population                                                    
---------------------------------------------------      Historic range         where endangered or      Status    When listed    Critical     Special  
       Common name             Scientific name                                       threatened                                   habitat       rules   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Mammals                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                      * * * * * * *                                                                     
Ferret, black-footed....  Mustela nigripes........  Western U.S.A., Western   Entire, except where     E            1, 3, 433,           NA           NA
                                                     Canada.                   listed as an                           543, 544                          
                                                                               experimental                                                             
                                                                               population below.                                                        
Do......................  ......do................  ......do................  U.S.A. (specific         XN            433, 543,           NA     17.84(g)
                                                                               portions of Wyoming,                        544                          
                                                                               Montana, and South                                                       
                                                                               Dakota).                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                      * * * * * * *                                                                     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Section 17.84 is amended by revising the text 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), and (g)(9)(iii) 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).
    (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 and will be considered the core recovery area for the 
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 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 
nine 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.
    (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 which is sick, injured, or 
otherwise in need of special care may be captured by authorized 
personnel of the Service or the Department 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 re-
evaluated 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 re-evaluation of the 
``nonessential experimental'' designation for these populations. The 
Service does not foresee any likely 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 private landowner who consented to the introduction of black-footed 
ferrets on his lands will be permitted to terminate his consent and the 
ferrets will be, at his request, relocated pursuant to paragraph 
(g)(4)(iii) of this rule.
* * * * *
    4. Section 17.84 is amended by adding a map to follow the existing 
two maps at the end of paragraph (g).

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TR18AU94.002


BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    Dated: August 9, 1994.
Robert P. Davison,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 94-20037 Filed 8-17-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P