3086 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

For reasons set forth in the preamble, PART 1611—ELIGIBILITY ■ 2. Revise appendix A to part 1611 to the Legal Services Corporation amends read as follows: 45 CFR part 1611 as follows: ■ 1. The authority citation for part 1611 Appendix A to Part 1611— Income continues to read as follows: Level for Individuals Eligible for Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2996g(e). Assistance

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION 2018 INCOME GUIDELINES *

48 Contiguous States and the Size of household District of Alaska Hawaii Columbia

1 ...... $15,175 $18,975 $17,450 2 ...... 20,575 25,725 23,663 3 ...... 25,975 32,475 29,875 4 ...... 31,375 39,225 36,088 5 ...... 36,775 45,975 42,300 6 ...... 42,175 52,725 48,513 7 ...... 47,575 59,475 54,725 8 ...... 52,975 66,225 60,938 For each additional member of the household in excess of 8, add: ...... 5,400 6,750 6,213 * The figures in this table represent 125% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines by household size as determined by HHS.

REFERENCE CHART—200% OF FEDERAL POVERTY GUIDELINES

48 Contiguous States and the Size of household District of Alaska Hawaii Columbia

1 ...... $24,280 $30,360 $27,920 2 ...... 32,920 41,160 37,860 3 ...... 41,560 51,960 47,800 4 ...... 50,200 62,760 57,740 5 ...... 58,840 73,560 67,680 6 ...... 67,480 84,360 77,620 7 ...... 76,120 95,160 87,560 8 ...... 84,760 105,960 97,500 For each additional member of the household in excess of 8, add: ...... 8,640 10,800 9,940

Dated: January 18, 2018. (=Felis) concolor couguar) to be extinct, Complex, Ecological Services Maine Stefanie K. Davis, based on the best available scientific Field Office, 306 Hatchery Road, East Assistant General Counsel. and commercial information. This Orland, Maine 04431, and on the [FR Doc. 2018–01138 Filed 1–22–18; 8:45 am] information shows no evidence of the Eastern Cougar website at: http:// BILLING CODE 7050–01–P existence of either an extant www.fws.gov/northeast/ecougar. reproducing population or any FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: individuals of the eastern puma Martin Miller, Northeast Regional subspecies; it also is highly unlikely DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office, telephone 413–253–8615, or that an eastern puma population could Mark McCollough, Maine Field Office, Fish and Wildlife Service remain undetected since the last telephone 207–902–1570. Individuals confirmed sighting in 1938. Therefore, who are hearing or speech impaired 50 CFR Part 17 under the authority of the Endangered may call the Federal Relay Service at 1– Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended, 800–877–8337 for TTY assistance. [Docket No. FWS–R5–ES–2015–0001; we remove this subspecies from the 50120–1113–000] General information regarding the Federal List of Endangered and eastern puma and the delisting process RIN 1018–AY05 Threatened Wildlife. may also be accessed at: http:// DATES: This rule is effective February www.fws.gov/northeast/ecougar. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 22, 2018. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and Plants; Removing the Eastern ADDRESSES: This final rule is available Puma (=Cougar) From the Federal List Executive Summary of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife on the internet at http:// www.regulations.gov under Docket No. Why we need to publish a rule— AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS–R5–ES–2015–0001. Comments Under the Act, a species warrants Interior. and materials received, as well as protection through listing if it is ACTION: Final rule. supporting documentation used in rule endangered or threatened. Conversely, a preparation, will be available for public species may be removed from the SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and inspection, by appointment, during Federal List of Endangered and Wildlife Service (Service), determine normal business hours at the Service’s Threatened Wildlife (List) if the Act’s the eastern puma (=cougar) (Puma Maine Fish and Wildlife Service protections are determined to be no

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Jan 22, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM 23JAR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 3087

longer required based on recovery, August 17, 2015. The comment period undertake a comprehensive assessment original data error, or extinction. for the proposed rule was subsequently of North American puma taxonomy in Removing a species from the List can be reopened on June 28, 2016 (81 FR our status assessment for the Florida completed only by issuing a rule. This 41925). For more information on panther, and will determine whether to rule finalizes the removal of the eastern previous Federal actions concerning the accept a single North American puma (=cougar) (Puma (=Felis) concolor eastern puma, refer to the proposed rule subspecies taxonomy. Since couguar) from the List due to extinction, available at: http://www.regulations.gov determining whether an entity is listable as proposed on June 17, 2015 (80 FR under Docket No. FWS–R5–ES–2015– is relevant only to extant species, such 34595). 0001. a comprehensive treatment is The basis for our action—Our unnecessary for the eastern puma, but Species Information decision to remove the eastern puma will be necessary for completing the from the List due to extinction is based Here we summarize the biological and status assessment for the Florida on information and analysis showing legal basis for delisting the eastern panther. In the absence of a that the eastern puma likely has been puma. For more detailed information, comprehensive analysis concluding that extinct for many decades, long before its refer to the proposed rule and the Young and Goldman (1946) listing under the Act. Eastern puma supplemental documents available at: taxonomy is no longer the best available sightings have not been confirmed since http://www.regulations.gov under information on taxonomy, we evaluate the 1930s, and genetic and forensic Docket No. FWS–R5–ES–2015–0001. for purposes of this rule the status of the testing has confirmed that recent The eastern puma (Puma (=Felis) listed entity—the eastern puma validated puma sightings in the East, concolor couguar) is federally listed as subspecies—and whether or not it has outside Florida, were animals released a subspecies of puma. The puma is the become extinct. or escaped from captivity, or wild most widely distributed native wild pumas dispersing eastward from land mammal in the New World. At the Biology and Life History western North America. time of European contact, it occurred There is little basis for believing that Peer review and public comment— through most of North, Central, and the ecology of eastern pumas was During two comment periods on the South America. In North America, significantly different from puma proposed rule (June 17 through August breeding populations still occupy ecology elsewhere on the continent. 17, 2015 [80 FR 34595, June 15, 2015]; approximately one-third of their Therefore, in lieu of information and June 28 through July 28, 2016 [81 historical range but are now absent from specific to eastern pumas, our biological FR 41925, June 28, 2016]), we sought eastern regions outside of Florida. The understanding of this subspecies relies review from the public and from puma was documented historically in a on puma studies conducted in various independent scientific experts to ensure variety of eastern habitats from the regions of North America and, to the that our final determination responds to Everglades in the Southeast to temperate extent possible, from eastern puma public concerns and is based on forests in the Northeast. Aside from historical records and museum scientifically sound data, assumptions, presence reports, few historical records specimens. This information is detailed and analyses. We received comments exist regarding the natural history of the in the 2011 status review for the eastern from the public on several substantive eastern puma subspecies. puma (USFWS 2011, pp. 6–8). issues, including the basis for delisting, Taxonomy Historical Range, Abundance, and the likelihood that any undetected Distribution population of eastern puma continues to The eastern puma has a long and exist, the potential for restoring pumas varied taxonomic history, as described Details regarding historical eastern to Eastern North America, and in the Service’s 5-year status review of puma abundance and distribution are protection of nonlisted pumas occurring this subspecies (USFWS 2011, pp. 29– provided in USFWS 2011 (pp. 8–29, 36– within the eastern puma’s historical 35). Until recently, standard practice 56). Although records indicate that the range. We also received peer review was to refer to the puma species as eastern puma was formerly wide- comments from scientists with expertise Puma concolor (Linnaeus 1771) and the ranging and apparently abundant at the in puma population ecology, eastern puma subspecies as Puma time of European settlement, only 26 management, demographics, concolor couguar. The taxonomic historical specimens from seven eastern conservation, and population genetics. assignment of puma subspecies is now States and one Canadian province reside Expert comments focused primarily on under question; at issue is whether in museums or other collections. Based the likelihood of eastern puma North American pumas constitute a on this evidence, Young and Goldman extinction and on North American single subspecies or multiple (1946) and the 1982 recovery plan for puma taxonomy. In preparing the final subspecies. As discussed in detail in our the eastern cougar (USFWS 1982, pp. 1– rule, we considered all comments and response to comment 4 (see Summary of 2) generally described the eastern information received during both Comments and Responses, below), the puma’s historical range as southeastern comment periods. The proposed rule Service acknowledges the broad Ontario, southern Quebec, and New and other materials relating to this final acceptance within the scientific Brunswick in Canada, and a region rule can be accessed at: http:// community of a single North American bounded from Maine to Michigan, www.regulations.gov under Docket No. subspecies, identified as Puma concolor Illinois, Kentucky, and South Carolina FWS–R5–ES–2015–0001. couguar (applying the scientific in the Eastern United States. The most nomenclature that has been used to refer recently published assessment of the Previous Federal Actions to the eastern puma subspecies to all eastern puma in Canada, conducted by The eastern puma (=cougar) was North American pumas), based on the Committee on the Status of originally listed as an endangered genetic analysis. However, the Service Endangered Wildlife in Canada species on June 4, 1973 (38 FR 14678). has not yet conducted a comprehensive (COSEWIC), described the subspecies’ On June 17, 2015, the Service published assessment of all available scientific range as Ontario, Quebec, and eastern a proposed rule (80 FR 34595) to remove information pertinent to North Canada (Scott 1998, pp. v, 10, 29–30). the eastern puma from the List, with a American puma taxonomy, including Scott (1998, p. v, 29) indicated that comment period extending through any potential subspecies. We will ‘‘Manitoba is the easternmost part of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Jan 22, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM 23JAR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES 3088 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

Canada for which there is objective have been shown to be either western (NCWRC) concurred with our finding evidence of the virtually uninterrupted puma dispersers, as in Missouri, or that pumas are extirpated from the State survival of a cougar population from released or escaped animals, as in of North Carolina. Based on that finding European settlement to the present. Newfoundland. and its consideration of the Service’s Genetically, this population must have Although habitat conditions now 2011 status review, the NCWRC been closely related to, if not identical appear to be suitable for puma presence indicated there is sufficient evidence to with, the original eastern cougars in in various portions of the historical remove the eastern puma from the List. western Ontario, and less closely related range described for the eastern puma, Our response: We agree with the to the original cougars in Quebec and the many decades of both habitat and NCWRC. the Maritimes.’’ Note, however, our prey losses belie the sustained survival (2) Comment: The Commonwealth of response to comment 11 (see Summary and reproduction of this subspecies over Virginia Department of Game and of Comments and Responses), which that time. A more detailed discussion of Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) supports indicates that despite the persistent the historical status, current confirmed delisting of the eastern puma consistent presence of pumas in Manitoba, we and unconfirmed puma sightings, with our 2011 finding (USFWS 2011) cannot infer from the available evidence potential habitat, and legal protection of that all known populations have been that puma occurrence there represents the eastern puma in the States and extirpated from their former range. The an extant puma population. provinces is provided in the 5-year VDGIF believes that any wild pumas The historical literature indicates that status review (USFWS 2011, pp. 8–26). which may appear in the future will puma populations were considered prove to be dispersers from western largely extirpated in Eastern North Summary of Changes From the populations. America (except for Florida and perhaps Proposed Rule Our response: We agree with the the Smoky Mountains) by the 1870s and We have not made substantive VDGIF. in the Midwest by 1900. Their changes from the proposed rule (80 FR Public Comments disappearance was attributed primarily 34595, June 17, 2015). In this final rule, to persecution stemming from fear of we have added or corrected text to (3) Comment: Several commenters large predators, competition with game clarify information and respond to input expressed concern that delisting would species, and occasional depredation of received during the public and peer prevent the Service from reestablishing livestock. Other causes of eastern puma review comment periods regarding the or reintroducing pumas in Eastern North losses during the late 1800s included proposal. These changes have been America where suitable habitat and prey declining habitat conditions and the incorporated into this final rule as populations now occur. As a top-level near-extirpation of their primary prey presented below. carnivore, pumas are needed to restore base, white-tailed deer. By 1929, eastern balance to ecosystems in Eastern North Summary of Comments and Responses pumas were believed to be ‘‘virtually America, where this role in biotic extinct,’’ and Young and Goldman In the proposed rule (80 FR 34595, communities has been missing for over (1946) concurred that ‘‘they became June 15, 2015), we requested that all a century. Some commenters cited extinct many years ago.’’ interested parties submit written Cardoza and Langlois (2002) and Maehr Conversely, puma records from New comments on the proposal by August et al. (2003), who encouraged proactive Brunswick in 1932 and Maine in 1938 17, 2015. We also solicited peer review leadership on the part of government suggest that a population may have of the scientific basis for the proposal by agencies to assess the possibility of persisted in northernmost New England reopening the comment period on June reintroducing pumas to Eastern North and eastern Canada. In the Service’s 28, 2016 (81 FR 41925). As appropriate, America. 1976 status review (Nowak 1976), R.M. Federal and State agencies, tribes, In commenting on the ecological Nowak professed his belief that the large scientific organizations, and other importance of pumas as apex predators, number of unverified sightings of pumas interested parties were contacted several reviewers noted that ungulate constituted evidence that some directly and invited to comment on the populations (like white-tailed deer) populations had either survived or proposal. Press releases inviting general have overpopulated in their absence. become reestablished in the central and public comment were widely Ungulate overpopulation may cause eastern parts of the continent and may distributed, and notices were placed on overbrowsing, ‘‘trophic cascades,’’ and have increased in number since the Service websites. reduced biodiversity (Goetch et al. 1940s. Similarly, R.L. Downing, as We did not receive any requests for a 2011). It may also lead to declines in stated in the Eastern Cougar Recovery public hearing. During the two public mast production (McShea et al. 2007), Plan (USFWS 1982, pp. 4, 7), had comment periods, a total of 75 letters understory recruitment of certain tree thought it possible that a small submitted from organizations or species, and reduced ground-nesting population may have persisted in the individuals addressed the proposed bird habitat (Rawinsky 2008) across the southern Appalachians into the 1920s; delisting of the eastern puma. Attached eastern deciduous forest. In addition to however, his investigations during to one letter was an appeal containing maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem preparation of the recovery plan led him 2,730 names and addresses of functioning (Ripple et al. 2014), to conclude that ‘‘no breeding cougar individuals opposed to removing the restoring pumas would reduce risk to populations have been substantiated eastern puma from the List. Many letters the public from vehicle collisions with within the former range of F.c. couguar contained applicable information, deer and other large ungulates (Gilbert since the 1920s’’ (USFWS 1982, p. 6). which has been incorporated into this et al. 2016) and would reduce human This analysis and conclusion were final rule as appropriate. Substantive health issues associated with deer ticks shared by F. Scott in his COSEWIC public comments and peer review as a vector for Lyme disease (Kilpatrick review (Scott 1998, entire). comments, with our responses, are et al. 2014). Some commenters noted Thus, the most recent confirmed summarized below. that restoring pumas to unoccupied eastern puma sightings date from the portions of their historical range would mid-1800s to around 1930. Confirmed Comments From the States be similar to the Service’s restoration of reports of pumas in Eastern North (1) Comment: The North Carolina wolves to unoccupied portions of their America (outside Florida) since then Wildlife Resources Commission historical range.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Jan 22, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM 23JAR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 3089

Finally, some commenters argued that which endangered and threatened to data error, we must withdraw the the reestablishment or reintroduction of species depend may be conserved, the proposed rule and publish a new other puma subspecies into the Act gives the Service the authority to proposal explaining our rationale. historical range of the eastern puma pursue ecosystem conservation only to Finally, some commenters suggested should not be considered until the the extent necessary to recover listed that, to resolve these taxonomic status of the eastern puma as extinct is species. Thus, the Service cannot questions, the Service should conduct a officially recognized through removal of maintain the extinct eastern puma complete taxonomic review and the subspecies from the List. They subspecies on the List for the purpose analysis of the subspecies status of indicated that delisting the eastern of facilitating restoration of other, North American pumas, including puma could eliminate complications nonlisted puma subspecies, whether to genetic, morphological, ecological, and associated with Federal listing and open address overpopulation of deer and behavioral considerations, prior to the door for State restoration projects. other ungulates or to achieve any other making a listing determination. Our response: The Service objective. Our response: The 5-year review in acknowledges the science concerning Delisting the eastern puma 2011 recommended that the Service the important ecological role that pumas subspecies, in and of itself, would not propose delisting the eastern puma, and and other large carnivores serve as apex foreclose future opportunities to that recommendation was based on predators (e.g., Kunkel et al. 2013, reestablish pumas in Eastern North extinction (p. 57) and not on taxonomy. Ripple et al. 2014, Wallach et al. 2015) America. Although extinction of the We note that delisting the eastern puma as well as the ecological consequences eastern puma obviously precludes based on either extinction or original of high populations of ungulates (e.g., reintroduction of this particular data error would lead to the same Russell et al. 2001, Ripple and Beschta subspecies, we concur that officially outcome, that is, the eastern puma’s 2006, McShea et al. 2007, Rossell et al. recognizing the eastern puma as extinct removal from the Federal List of 2007, Baiser et al. 2008, Rawinsky 2008, by removing it from the List could Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Beschta and Ripple 2009, Goetsch et al. eliminate any perceived complications The 2011 status review recognized 2011, Brousseau et al. 2013, Cardinal et associated with the establishment of that more-recent genetic information al. 2012a, Cardinal et al. 2012b). We other, nonlisted puma populations into introduced ‘‘significant ambiguities’’ in agree that ecological science supports the historical range of the eastern puma. the species taxonomy that Young and the contention that healthy populations We note that authority over the Goldman had outlined in 1946. of large carnivores can maintain balance establishment of nonlisted puma However, rather than recommending in ecosystems and ameliorate adverse populations resides with the States. delisting as a result of those ambiguities, effects such as damage to native (4) Comment: Several commenters the status review recommended that a vegetation from grazing ungulates (e.g., questioned the conclusions in the full taxonomic analysis be conducted to Ripple et al. 2010) and population Service’s 2011 status review (pp. 29–35) determine whether the taxonomy increases of small carnivores (e.g., regarding the taxonomy of the eastern should be revised (p. 35). Since LaPoint et al. 2015). We also puma subspecies. One individual asked completion of our eastern puma status acknowledge the potential value of why the Service concluded that ‘‘Young review in 2011, there appears to have puma recolonization associated with and Goldman’s (1946) taxonomy of been increasing acceptance of scientific reducing vehicle-deer collisions (Gilbert cougars was inadequate, even by the nomenclature indicating a single et al. 2016). standards of their time . . .’’ yet subspecies, Puma concolor couguar The Service recognizes that within the incorporated this flawed taxonomy into (Kerr 1792), in North America. For historical range of the eastern puma its delisting recommendation. Several example: there are large, intact areas of habitat reviewers indicated that the published • The Smithsonian Institution’s with suitable prey resources and little range maps of the subspecies were Museum of Natural History documents human disturbance that could support vague and poorly defined, and that the current taxonomy (http:// puma populations (USFWS 2011, pp. 8, locations of specimens used to vertebrates.si.edu/msw/mswcfapp/msw/ 11–25). Scientific articles published determine these ranges were not taxon_browser) and recognizes a single before and after our 2011 review depicted on the maps. In addition, North American subspecies of puma, conclude that potential habitat for several reviewers commented that the P.c. couguar, citing W.C. Wozencraft pumas occurs in the Southeast (Keddy best available science includes the (Wilson and Reeder 2005). 2009), Georgia (Anco 2011), the genetic data indicating that all North • The Federal government’s Midwest (Smith et al. 2015), the American pumas should be classified as Interagency Taxonomic Information Adirondack region of New York a single subspecies (Culver et al. 2000). System (ITIS, http://www.itis.gov/), with (Laundre 2013), numerous locations in Some commenters suggested that recent the Department of the Interior and the New England (Glick 2014), and the evidence of pumas dispersing far from Service as partners, aims to set Great Lakes region (O’Neil et al. 2014). the Dakotas supports the hypothesis that governmental taxonomic standards and Some authors predict that pumas will the North American puma functions as ‘‘to incorporate classifications that have continue to expand their range eastward one extensive population with no gained broad acceptance in the and naturally recolonize some areas of restrictions to mating. taxonomic literature and by Eastern North America (LaRue and A few commenters asserted that, professionals who work with the taxa Nielsen 2014). based on the widespread acceptance of concerned.’’ It is important to note, Despite the apparent opportunities for genetic information leading to the however, that the Service does not puma recolonizations or recommendation to revise the taxonomy consider ITIS to be a legal authority for reintroductions, the Service does not to recognize all pumas in North America statutory or regulatory purposes. The have the authority under the Act to as a single subspecies, the Service ITIS acknowledges a single North pursue establishment of other puma should delist the eastern puma American subspecies, P.c. couguar, and subspecies within the historical range of subspecies on the basis of original data calls all separate North American the eastern puma. Furthermore, while error rather than extinction. They also subspecies (=synonyms) invalid taxa, the purpose of the Act is to provide a stated that, were the Service to based on expert input from A.L. Gardner means whereby the ecosystems upon determine that delisting is called for due (Curator of North American Mammals

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Jan 22, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM 23JAR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES 3090 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

and Chief of Mammal Section, National DECISIONS.pdf, last accessed June 5, for species to be delisted for reasons of Biological Services, Smithsonian 2017). recovery, extinction, or error in the Institution), W.C. Wozencraft (Wilson • The IUCN now recognizes one original data for classification, neither and Reeder 2005), and prior references subspecies of cougar (Puma concolor) in the Act nor the implementing (Hall 1981, Currier 1983, Wilson and North America: P.c. couguar. regulations compel the Service to Reeder 1993, and Wilson and Ruff Concerning its most recent taxonomic choose one basis for delisting over 1999). decisions, ‘‘A more recent study of another when more than one basis is • In 2009, the Convention for the mtDNA in pumas throughout their available. International Trade of Endangered range, although with lower sample Second, the eastern puma’s existence Species of Wild Flora and Fauna sizes, supports only two main has been questioned for decades—long (CITES) received a proposal from geographical groupings of North before its listing as an endangered Canada to review the taxonomy and America populations having colonized species under the Act. We therefore classification of the genus Puma since circa. 8,000 years before present place importance on officially (https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/ (Caragiulo et al. 2013) . . . On this acknowledging our finding, through this com/ac/24/E24-18-02.pdf). CITES basis, we tentatively recognize two rulemaking, that the listed entity is reviewed the standard nomenclatural subspecies within Puma concolor: extinct. Clear recognition of this finding procedures, and reviewers Puma concolor concolor . . . [and] should also forestall any speculation recommended accepting a single North Puma concolor couguar (Kerr 1792)’’ that we have discovered evidence of the (Kitchener et al. 2017, p. 33). existence of eastern pumas, a perception American subspecies, P.c. couguar. The • The Global Biodiversity Information that could be triggered by changing the Convention referred this ‘‘technical Facility (GBIF, http://www.gbif.org/) basis for delisting from extinction to issue’’ to the Animals Committee for recognizes one subspecies of cougar in original data error. review. As of February 5, 2015, the North America, P.c. couguar. All other Third, because the eastern puma has CITES Appendices (https:// subspecies are considered synonyms for likely been extinct since the early to www.cites.org/eng/app/appendices.php) P.c. couguar based on the conclusions of mid-1900s, and because its existence continued to list the subspecies P.c. ITIS, January 3, 2011. had not been confirmed at the time of couguar and P.c. coryi as separate • NatureServe currently listing, delisting due to extinction in subspecies. The Animals Committee acknowledges several subspecies, this case could be considered a delisting next reviewed the status of North including P.c. couguar and P.c. coryi, due to original data error that is more American pumas on September 3, 2015 but notes, ‘‘. . . mtDNA analysis by precisely described as ‘‘prior (https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/ Culver et al. (2000) indicated that Puma extinction.’’ And because the eastern com/ac/28/E-AC28-20-03-02.pdf), when concolor was genetically homogeneous puma’s existence was questioned long Canada and the United States proposed in overall variation across North before listing, while new information that the eastern puma (P.c. couguar) and America, relative to Central and South bringing its taxonomy into doubt did the Florida panther (P.c. coryi) American populations’’ (http:// not appear until well after listing, subspecies be transferred to Appendix explorer.natureserve.org/servlet/ original data error based on prior II, because ‘‘P.c. couguar is considered NatureServe?searchSpeciesUid= extinction reasonably has precedence extinct . . .’’ and there is ample ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.101183, last over original data error based on a more- protection under the Act for the Florida accessed June 5, 2017). recent taxonomic understanding. panther. Concerning taxonomy, ‘‘There Although some authorities indicate Fourth, although delisting the eastern is uncertainty regarding the traditional acceptance of a taxonomy identifying a puma due to taxonomic error would subspecies classification of Puma single North American puma subspecies have no immediate effect on the listed concolor. Recent genetic work suggests (USFWS 2011, pp. 29–35), others status of the Florida panther, it could that most traditionally described continue to recognize the eastern puma presuppose the taxonomic status of P.c. subspecies are poorly differentiated as a separate subspecies. This has coryi and thus cause confusion (Culver et al. 2000), and the new created an ambiguous situation that regarding the current protections proposed taxonomy has been adopted does not clearly replace Young and afforded the Florida panther under the by the most recent version of Wilson Goldman as the best scientific and Act. and Reeder (2005) and by the commercial data available on puma Finally, accepting that all pumas in International Union for the taxonomy. We conclude that, despite its North America are a single subspecies Conservation of Nature (IUCN, 2008). deficiencies, Young and Goldman would not fully address the question as CITES continues to acknowledge the (1946) remains the best available to whether the eastern puma is a listable subspecies coryi and couguar based on taxonomic information for the puma. entity. When a vertebrate animal is Wilson and Reeder (2nd Edition 1993).’’ We anticipate that in our status found not to be a valid species or On October 5, 2016, CITES considered assessment for the Florida panther, now subspecies, a determination that it is not a formal proposal to move all North underway, we will complete a a listable entity requires that it further American pumas to Appendix II comprehensive taxonomic treatment be found not to be a ‘‘distinct (https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/ that considers all other available population segment’’ (DPS) of a cop/17/prop/CA_puma.pdf), which scientific information—including vertebrate species as defined in the Act concluded that the eastern puma morphological, ecological, and and in the 1996 Interagency Distinct subspecies was extinct by 1900. The behavioral factors, in addition to Population Segment policy (61 FR 4722, CITES Committee accepted the proposal genetics. February 7, 1996). The eastern puma by consensus and also agreed that the Notwithstanding the commenters’ does not qualify as a DPS because it is taxonomic reference for Puma concolor questions about the taxonomy of the extinct (see also our response to would henceforth be Wilson and Reader species, we continue to base the comment 5). Extinction, therefore, is the (2005), with all North American cougars delisting of the eastern puma on most fundamental basis for delisting, belonging to a single subspecies, P.c. extinction for several reasons. First, because it is justified whether or not the couguar (https://cites.org/sites/default/ although the Act and its implementing eastern puma ever constituted a files/eng/cop/17/CITES_CoP17_ regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) allow taxonomically listable entity.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Jan 22, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM 23JAR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 3091

In sum, while the best available primarily in Canada. Some commented whether captive origin or wild), and one scientific information provides some that pumas are nearly impossible to was of unknown origin. From these evidence that North American pumas detect and can live in suboptimal data, Lang et al. (2013) concluded that constitute a single subspecies, habitats (citing Stoner et al. 2006, Stoner pumas have been present in eastern taxonomic revision awaits full et al. 2013a, and Stoner et al. 2013b), Canada but provide no confirmation of resolution and does not constitute the and others noted the tens of thousands the existence of the eastern puma or most fundamental basis for delisting the of eyewitness reports (Glick 2014). evidence of any breeding population of eastern puma. The best available Some commented that it is impossible pumas. Rosatte (2011) documented 21 information also indicates that the to prove extinction and provided puma occurrences with a high degree of entity described as the eastern puma examples of species that have gone certainty in Ontario from 1998 to 2010, was extirpated throughout its historical undetected for many decades or were including 15 confirmed tracks, 1 hair range long before its listing, and that thought to be extinct before being sample consistent with pumas, genetic this is a primary and sufficiently proven rediscovered. confirmation of 2 scats, and 3 basis for delisting. Our response: We addressed many of photographs ‘‘consistent with a cougar.’’ We note that the consequences of these points in our 2011 status review. Mallory et al. (2012) collected eight delisting the eastern puma with regard The Service continues to conclude that ‘‘potential’’ puma hairs (Sudbury, to Federal protection of dispersing the best available scientific information, Ontario) identified by hair scale pattern, western pumas are the same whether including information published since and reanalyzed a scat collected in 2004 delisting were to be based on extinction 2011, supports our finding that breeding from Wainfleet, Ontario, and reported in or taxonomic error (see our response to populations of pumas no longer exist in Rosatte (2011). Mallory et al. (2012) comment 3, above). Western pumas Eastern North America outside of reported that trapping records from dispersing into the historical range of Florida. Although there is evidence of 1919 to 1984 contained no information the eastern puma subspecies currently individual pumas (not breeding on puma pelts sold in Ontario or in lack protection under the Act and populations), there is no proof eastern Canada except for eight animals would not receive protection under whatsoever that any pumas discovered sold in Quebec from 1919 to 1920; the either delisting scenario. Dispersing since the 1930s within the eastern origin of these animals (Quebec or western pumas receive, and will puma’s historical range are members of western Canada) cannot be confirmed. continue to receive, those protections the listed eastern puma subspecies. Finally, Rosatte et al. (2015) afforded by individual States. Commenters cited Cumberland and documented six additional occurrences (5) Comment: We received comments Demsey (1994), Cardoza and Langlois in Ontario from 2012 to 2014, including that the eastern puma should be re- (2002), Maehr et al. (2003), Bertrand et one scat sample (North or South listed as a DPS so that dispersing pumas al. (2006), Rosatte (2011), Mallory et al. America haplotype not reported), three from western populations could be (2012), Lang et al. (2013), and Glick photographs, one set of tracks, one protected from take under the Act. One (2014) as corroborating documentation pregnant female shot (captive origin), person commented that the eastern for the occurrence of extant puma and one young male captured (believed puma should be re-listed under the populations in eastern Canada. Our to be of captive origin). significant portion of the range (SPR) review of these sources found that provision of the Act. Cumberland and Demsey (1994) Most of these authors (e.g., Our response: Our DPS policy (61 FR documented a single puma (from tracks) Cumberland and Demsey 1994, Bertrand 4722, February 7, 1996) requires that, in New Brunswick in 1992, concluding et al. 2006, Rosatte 2011, Lang et al. for a population to be determined to be that ‘‘these data lend little support to 2013) acknowledge that the pumas a DPS, it must be discrete, significant, the existence of a remnant Eastern reported recently in eastern Canada and endangered or threatened. Because Cougar population. It is possible that the were most likely escaped or released we have determined that the eastern animal responsible for the tracks could pets or dispersers from areas supporting puma subspecies no longer exists, it have been an escaped or released extant populations, as we concluded in cannot be considered to be currently animal.’’ Bertrand et al. (2006) our 2011 status review. Bertrand et al. discrete, significant, and endangered or documented hair samples from two (2006) reported that the two pumas threatened, and so cannot be a DPS. pumas in Fundy National Park in New documented in New Brunswick could The Service’s 2014 SPR policy (79 FR Brunswick in 2003. One of these was be members of a remnant population, 37577, July 1, 2014) states that listing from South America, indicative of an although this conclusion is contradicted considerations are based solely on the escaped or released pet, and there has by the fact that they recognized one of status of the species in its current range. been no further evidence confirming the the two as being of South American Regardless of the status of our 2014 SPR existence of pumas in New Brunswick origin. Rosatte (2011) believed that policy, the Service maintains this since 2003. Lang et al. (2013) collected pumas may not have been extirpated in position. Because we have determined 19 confirmed puma hair samples in Ontario: ‘‘In my opinion, the majority of that the eastern puma subspecies is eastern Canada from scratching post Cougars currently in Ontario are most extinct—that is, that it does not exist in stations from 2001 to 2012. Several of likely a genetic mixture of escaped/ any part of its range and, therefore, has these samples likely were from the same released captives (or their offspring), no current range—it cannot be animal. Two samples were shown to be immigrants (or their offspring), and/or considered endangered or threatened from the same pumas reported by native animals . . . In view of this, at throughout all of its range or in any Bertrand et al. (2006), while six were least some native Cougars in Ontario portion of its range. Therefore, a Central and South American haplotypes may have survived the decimation of continued listing of the eastern puma (assumed to be released pets), and 10 eastern Cougar populations in the based on endangered or threatened were of North American origin (whether 1800s. This would be feasible, given the status within a significant portion of its captive or wild was undetermined). size of Ontario (area of more than 1 range is not possible. They also evaluated the origin of three million km2) and the remoteness of the (6) Comment: Several reviewers known mortalities from 1992 to 2002. province, especially in the north. pointed to scientific evidence that One was of South American origin, one However, the presence of Cougars in populations of eastern pumas still exist, was of North American origin (uncertain Ontario between the 1930s and 1980s

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Jan 22, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM 23JAR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES 3092 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

may also have been the result of the recovery plan, because ‘‘agencies there is no available scientific immigration from the west or escaped/ have failed to meet the objective of . . . information, nor has any evidence been released captive animals (Bolgiano and having found or established . . .’’ at provided in comments on the proposed Roberts 2005).’’ Mallory et al. (2012) least three self-sustaining populations. rule, that a breeding population of indicated that the origin of the pumas in Maehr et al. (2003) called for recovery pumas has persisted in Eastern North Ontario ‘‘remains unclear,’’ but added, of pumas in Eastern North America but America anywhere other than Florida. ‘‘Nevertheless, sightings of Cougars with provided no documentation of a (8) Comment: Some commenters kittens and reports of young animals persistent population outside of Florida. maintained that delisting a species suggest that a breeding population exists (7) Comment: We received several based on extinction requires absolute in Ontario and adjacent provinces comments stating that pumas are wary certainty that it is gone, while one (Wright 1953, Nero and Wrigley 1977, and cryptic and could possibly escape reviewer requested that the Service Gerson 1988, Rosatte 2011).’’ We note detection for many years (citing Stoner document extinction using valid that Bertrand et al. (2006), Rosatte et al. 2006, 2013). statistical methods with appropriate (2011), and Mallory et al. (2012) provide Our response: Using data on puma statistical power. The same reviewer no confirmed evidence of adult or harvests in Utah, Stoner et al. (2013) stated that we must clearly demonstrate lactating female pumas, kittens, or predicted that remote habitats are more that the eastern puma subspecies is breeding, or of an abundance of likely to harbor relict populations of extinct according to government confirmed occurrences typically pumas, regardless of habitat quality, regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d)(3). associated with small puma populations when range contractions are caused by Our response: Proving whether a such as those occurring in Nebraska, the humans. That is, pumas faced with taxon is extant or extinct presents a Dakotas, and Florida. Neither do they human-induced range contraction were dilemma for conservation biologists document any evidence of a continuous more likely to recede along a gradient (Diamond 1987). With regard to presence of pumas in their study areas determined by human population delisting on the basis of extinction, the since the late 1800s. density rather than habitat quality; thus, Act’s implementing regulations at 50 Given the absence of trapping records remote, low-quality habitats may have CFR 424.11(d) describe the burden of and confirmed historical records in greater refugia value to pumas. proof: ‘‘Unless all individuals of the eastern Canada since the late 1800s, the Puma refugia in western North listed species had been previously best available information points to the America are often characterized by identified and located, and were later extirpation of puma populations in this remote, steep, mountainous terrain with found to be extirpated from their portion of the eastern puma’s historical little infrastructure for human access previous range, a sufficient period of range. Areas of Canada most likely to and relatively low ungulate populations time must be allowed before delisting to have been historically occupied by (Stoner et al. 2013). In contrast, indicate clearly that the species is eastern pumas (southern Ontario and potential refugia for pumas in Eastern extinct.’’ Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova North America (e.g., Laundre 2013, The IUCN Standards and Petitions Scotia) were extensively trapped and Glick 2014, O’Neil et al. 2014) are Subcommittee (IUCN 2014) has logged, and evidence of a small breeding neither mountainous nor remote, are established criteria to track the population would, in all probability, readily accessible and continue to be conservation status of species, and it is have been noted. With no confirmation heavily used by humans, and exist in a instructive to consider those criteria of breeding pumas in eastern Canada for landscape having much higher human here. The ‘‘extinct’’ category is used by many decades, the Service concludes density (Glick 2014). Observing that the IUCN when there is evidence that those puma populations were small puma populations in refugia in beyond a reasonable doubt that the last extirpated. Further, because there is no Florida, Nebraska, and the Dakotas leave individual of a taxon has died, indication of breeding or the abundant ample evidence of their presence recognizing that this is extremely evidence of presence typically (USFWS 2011, pp. 42–43), we infer that difficult to detect. The IUCN designates associated with small, reproducing any remnant population of pumas a taxon as extinct only after adequate populations, the Service concludes that persisting in Eastern North America surveys have failed to record the species the individual pumas occasionally outside Florida would have left a more and local or unconfirmed reports have found in Eastern Canada and the Eastern or less continuous record of credible been investigated and discounted. United States (outside Florida) are evidence since the late 1800s (e.g., Relevant types of evidence supporting escaped or released pets or animals that pumas trapped and shot, road an IUCN designation of extinct include have dispersed from western mortalities, carcasses, tracks, and/or the following (Butchart et al. 2006): populations (or, rarely, Florida); refer to photographs). Although one person • For species with recent last records, Comment 16 below for more detail). commented that species can go many the decline has been well documented; One commenter mistakenly indicated decades without being sighted, or can be • Severe threatening processes are that, among other investigators, Cardoza thought extinct before being known to have occurred (e.g., extensive and Langlois (2002) and Maehr et al. rediscovered (so-called ‘‘Lazarus habitat loss, the spread of alien invasive (2003) provide substantial scientific species’’), we received no comments predators, intensive hunting); and evidence that eastern pumas continue to providing scientific data indicating that • The species possesses attributes exist. On the contrary, Cardoza and a small, breeding population of pumas known to predispose taxa to extinction Langlois (2002) shared skepticism of the exists, only conjecture that they may (e.g., flightlessness for birds). plethora of anecdotal reports and exist. We agree that the historical record Such evidence should be balanced sightings, concluding that ‘‘the search and the best available scientific against the following opposing for cougars in the East must be information presented in our 2011 considerations (Butchart et al. 2006): conducted as a scientific endeavor.’’ status review, along with scientific • Recent field work has been They encouraged the Service to delist articles published since then, provide inadequate (surveys have been the eastern puma if it is extinct or re- evidence that individual pumas (of insufficiently intensive/extensive or list it as a DPS if any populations exist. captive origin or dispersing animals) are inappropriately timed, or the species’ If the subspecies were to remain listed, encountered with increasing frequency range is inaccessible, remote, unsafe, or they encouraged the Service to revise in Eastern North America. Nonetheless, inadequately known);

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Jan 22, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM 23JAR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 3093

• The species is difficult to detect (it 95 percent of these sightings have been South Dakota are most closely related to is cryptic, inconspicuous, nocturnal, shown to be invalid (Brocke 1981, pumas in Wyoming (Thomson 2009, nomadic, or silent, or its vocalizations Downing 1984, Hamilton 2006); these Jaurez et al. 2015), and that pumas are unknown, identification is difficult, invalid reports have generally involved breeding in Nebraska are likely from or the species occurs at low densities); instances of misidentification and, at Wyoming and South Dakota (Wilson et • There have been reasonably times, deliberate hoaxes. With respect to al. 2010). The Service has found no convincing recent local reports or increasing frequency of confirmed puma evidence that pumas in the Dakotas and unconfirmed sightings; and sightings in recent years, we recognize Nebraska are descended from the • Suitable habitat (free of introduced that suitable habitat is available within eastern puma subspecies. predators and pathogens, if relevant) the historical range of the eastern puma (10) Comment: We received one remains within the species’ known (see our response to comment 3, above), comment about high hunting mortality range, and/or allospecies or congeners that past threats have been largely in the easternmost puma populations in may survive despite similar threatening eliminated (with some level of the Dakotas and Nebraska, raising a processes. protection for dispersing pumas), and concern about fewer eastward- The IUCN has not issued a that, according to some biologists, dispersing pumas to potentially determination that the eastern puma western pumas will continue to expand recolonize former habitat. This subspecies, P.c. couguar, is extinct, their range eastward (e.g., LaRue and commenter questioned the accuracy of because they have accepted that all Nielsen 2015). the Service’s statements that ‘‘cougar pumas in North America constitute one There is no regulatory requirement for populations are growing in the West’’ subspecies that is extant in Florida and the Service to conduct statistical and ‘‘pumas may continue to disperse western North America. However, the analyses in order to draw conclusions into midwestern states.’’ IUCN standards for extinction have been about extinction. Both our 2011 status Our response: This comment is met for the eastern puma. review and our review of scientific outside the scope of this rule, which Many decades have passed since information that has become available concerns only the delisting of the documentation of the last credible since then point to overwhelming eastern cougar due to extinction. eastern puma records, which are evidence that the eastern puma (11) Comment: We received one contained in the scientific literature and subspecies is extinct (see also our earlier comment that cited Morrison (2015) to are documented for each State and responses to comments 2, 7, and 10). dispute information in our 2011 status province within the eastern puma’s Given that the last eastern pumas that review indicating that the easternmost historical range in our 2011 status were assumed to have existed were extant breeding population of pumas in review. In addition, severe threats killed in Maine (1938) and New Canada occurs in Manitoba. (indiscriminate shooting, trapping, Brunswick (1932), the preponderance of Our response: Morrison (2015) stated poisoning, deforestation, and scientific evidence fully supports our that a newly colonized area in extirpation of ungulate prey in much of conclusion that breeding populations of southwest Saskatchewan and southeast the range) were evident at the time pumas in Eastern North America Alberta ‘‘now supports the easternmost eastern puma populations were outside of Florida and, until recent confirmed breeding population of extirpated. Further, pumas are prone to decades, Manitoba have been absent for cougars in Canada.’’ However, the extirpation because of their relatively at least the past 80 years, and that scientific information available at the small population sizes and low pumas recently sighted within the time of our 2011 review, including the population densities, large habitat area historical range of the eastern puma are 1998 COSEWIC review of pumas in requirements, and relatively slow escaped or released pets and western Canada (Scott 1998), indicated that the population growth traits (Purvis et al. (and, rarely, Florida) dispersers. This easternmost breeding population of 2000). conclusion and our use of the best pumas occurred in Manitoba (USFWS Service-sponsored surveys in the available scientific information were 2011, pp. 11–12; Hutlet 2005). In early 1980s in the southern (Downing sustained by peer reviewers (see addition, Watkins (2006) documented 1994a, 1994b) and northern (Brocke and comment 20, below). multiple confirmed puma reports in VanDyke 1985) parts of the eastern (9) Comment: One commenter stated Manitoba, including two pumas killed puma’s historical range failed to detect that puma populations in South Dakota, in 2004. Another puma, radio tagged in any pumas, noting that while difficulty North Dakota, and Nebraska may be at South Dakota, was killed in Manitoba in of detection may be expected in the the western edge of the eastern puma’s 2008. Most recently, individual pumas South, it should not be particularly historical range and may still retain in Manitoba have been trapped in 2011 difficult to detect pumas in the North, genetic structure similar to the eastern and killed in 2015 and 2016 (http:// where there is snow. Our 2011 review puma subspecies. Thus, eastern pumas www.naturenorth.com/winter/Cougar/ also describes numerous other wildlife exist and should remain listed. Cougar_1.html). surveys that did not detect a breeding Our response: Pumas were extirpated Manitoba biologists have documented population of pumas in Eastern North from most of the Dakotas and Nebraska 20 occurrences of pumas since 2002 America outside of Florida, and by the early 1900s (Thompson 2009, (carcasses, tracks, photos), including 6 negative survey data are available for Wilson et al. 2010). Since 1970, puma carcasses (3 male and 3 female) many portions of the historical range breeding populations of pumas farther since 2004. However, there has been no that still have intact habitat. Despite west—within the mapped range of the conclusive evidence of kittens or suggestions that we conduct further subspecies P.c. hippolestes—have lactating females, and thus breeding surveys, we are not aware of areas expanded their ranges into eastern status is uncertain. Biologists are unsure within the historical range of the eastern Montana (Desimone et al. 2005), eastern whether an increased number of puma with enough evidence of a Wyoming (Moody et al. 2005), eastern dispersing pumas in Manitoba is on the breeding population to merit the Colorado, eastern New Mexico, eastern cusp of developing a breeding additional effort. Texas, western North and South Dakota, population or whether a small breeding In our 2011 status review, we and Nebraska (Wilson et al. 2010, LaRue population currently exists (W. Watkins, acknowledged the thousands of reported et al. 2012). Molecular genetic data Manitoba Conservation and Water puma sightings while noting that 90 to show that pumas in the Black Hills of Stewardship, email dated February 1,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Jan 22, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM 23JAR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES 3094 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

2016). In either event, there is no review and information obtained since the Upper Peninsula, are all dispersing evidence showing that any of these then. Regarding a resident Michigan animals from western populations (R. pumas is the eastern puma subspecies. puma population, the MDNR stated (in Mason, MDNR Wildlife Division, emails (12) Comment: We received numerous a letter dated March 30, 2007) that ‘‘all dated 2 February 2016). All four puma comments from people who believed available information suggests the carcasses examined by MDNR to date they had seen a puma or evidence of a eastern puma subspecies was extirpated (mortalities from various causes), as puma (deer kills, vocalizations, missing after the turn of the century [1900].’’ well as trail camera photos where sex pets, dead livestock, tracks, game The MDNR also expressed concerns can be determined, have been males. camera photos, collections of alleged about the scientific validity of The MDNR has no current evidence of sightings on maps, YouTube videos). information presented in Swanson and any females and no evidence of puma Some reviewers expressed concern that Rusz (2006), except for one confirmed reproduction in Michigan (R. Mason, pumas are dangerous and bound to occurrence in Delta County (2004). MDNR Wildlife Division, emails dated 2 attack humans, and others asserted that Kurta and Schwartz (2007) further February 2016). Similarly, the Service the sheer number of sighting reports refuted Swanson and Rusz’s (2006) has not found evidence that breeding proves the existence of eastern pumas. conclusion that a population of eight occurs east of Saskatchewan, North Our response: As discussed in our pumas existed in Michigan. Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska. response to comment 8, above, we Nonetheless, as in most eastern States (14) Comment: One commenter acknowledge the thousands of reports of and provinces, there continue to be contested the genetic basis for the South pumas in Eastern North America, but numerous reports of pumas in Dakota origin of the puma killed in most of these are unverified and, in the Michigan, the most credible of which Connecticut in 2014. majority of cases, represent are investigated by the MDNR following Our response: The Service recently misidentifications (Downing 1984, its response protocol. At the time of the reviewed Hawley et al. (2016) regarding Brocke and VanDyke 1985, Hamilton 2011 review, the MDNR had confirmed the puma killed in Connecticut in 2014. 2006, South Dakota Fish, Wildlife and one puma report from Alcona County DNA samples from this puma had Parks 2005). Still, confirmed (1998) and one ‘‘likely’’ occurrence in mitochondrial DNA consistent with occurrences of pumas within the Menominee County (2004). Since then, haplotype ‘‘M,’’ which is widespread in historical range of the eastern puma are additional confirmed occurrences have North American pumas (Culver et al. increasing, particularly in the Midwest been documented in the Upper 2000, Culver and Schwartz 2011). (LaRue et al. 2012, LaRue and Nielsen Peninsula of Michigan in Ontonagon Structure analysis indicated that, 2015). The best available scientific County (two in 2011), Houghton County genetically, this animal was most information supports the conclusion (one in 2011), Keweenaw County (three closely related to the subpopulation of that confirmed occurrences of pumas in in 2011), Baraga County (one in 2011, pumas found in the Black Hills of South Eastern North America are released or two in 2012), Marquette County (four in Dakota. Assignment tests showed that escaped pets or dispersers from western 2012, two in 2013), Delta County (one this animal had a 99.9-percent chance of populations. In recent decades, pumas in 2015), Menominee County (one in originating from the South Dakota puma have incrementally expanded their 2010, two in 2012, one in 2015), population compared to other breeding population eastward in both Schoolcraft County (one carcass in populations in the database (U.S. Forest Canada and the United States, and 2015), Luce County (one in 2013, one in Service Rocky Mountain Research Lab, LaRue and Nielsen (2014) provide a 2014), Mackinac County (two in 2014), Missoula, Montana). scientific rationale for why range and Chippewa County (one in 2014). (15) Comment: Several reviewers expansion will likely continue. Noting that many of these records expressed concern that, after delisting of (13) Comment: One commenter stated could represent multiple confirmations the eastern puma, pumas occurring or that Michigan has a resident population of the same animal, the number of dispersing into the former range of the of pumas (citing a 1994 book by D. confirmed puma occurrences in the eastern puma would be left unprotected. Evers, Endangered and Threatened Upper of Peninsula of Michigan has Some commenters observed that State Wildlife of Michigan, and Swanson and totaled 27 since 2010. This is in marked laws would not adequately protect Rusz 2006), asserting that these are contrast to the number of confirmed pumas in the absence of its Federal neither escaped or released pets nor puma records in Nebraska (255 since listing, noting that only 7 of 19 States transients moving east from South 2010), with its small breeding in the historical range protect the Dakota. The commenter contends that population of about 25 pumas. subspecies under a State endangered Michigan has a long, uninterrupted The overall record of pumas species law or its equivalent. Thus, the history (80 years) of puma presence, dispersing eastward has grown Act’s protections against take are including puma reports from 1966 and substantially since the 2011 status needed to promote natural 1984 (i.e., before the Black Hills review, with 271 confirmed puma recolonization of animals with genetics population in South Dakota was large occurrences east of documented identical to pumas originally occurring enough to have dispersing animals) and breeding areas in the Dakotas, Nebraska, in Eastern North America. Others further notes that the Michigan Colorado, and Texas commented that pumas need to be Department of Natural Resources (www.cougarnet.org/confirmations). The managed at a metapopulation level to (MDNR) verified puma evidence in 2008 majority of these animals are dispersing ensure access to refugia and safe passage and 2009. The commenter suggested juvenile males (although see our between populations. that the Service ought to collect puma response to comment 11 concerning Our response: Advances in molecular samples, conduct a full genetic analysis Manitoba). Many scientists, including biology in the last 10 to 15 years have of samples collected in each State/ MDNR biologists, think it possible that enabled scientists to document the region, and review related information a breeding population of pumas could origin of many of the pumas reported in about pumas in eastern Canada. become reestablished in Michigan and Eastern North America. Further, within Our response: We have reviewed all other midwestern States and Canadian the last 5 years, advances in isotope information provided by the public with provinces; however, at this time, the analysis allow determinations of respect to pumas in Michigan along MDNR has concluded that pumas in whether an animal has had a history of with data obtained for the 2011 status Michigan, documented exclusively in being in captivity. Analyses have

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Jan 22, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM 23JAR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 3095

revealed that some of the pumas found Florida panther be reclassified as a DPS commercial data available. Therefore, in in Eastern North America are of South to ensure continued Federal protection making the determination whether to American origin or show evidence of from take. Commenters also stated that delist the eastern puma, we did not having been in captivity. Outside Florida panthers are a source population consider the funding and staffing Florida (with the exception of the that could, potentially, naturally consequences of keeping it on the List panther killed in Georgia in 2008; see recolonize other parts of Eastern North or removing it from the List. comment 16, below), pumas of North America. Nonetheless, the Service disagrees that American origin have been found to be Our response: As a listed subspecies, retaining the extinct eastern puma on either wild western pumas or to have Florida panthers are protected under the the List has no repercussions. Keeping been captive animals. Act from take wherever they occur— an extinct entity on the List can cause The take protections of the Act do not both in and outside of Florida. For confusion—in this case, confusion over extend to nonlisted pumas, irrespective instance, a dispersing Florida panther whether escaped or released captive of their origin or the fact that they have killed in Georgia in 2008 was protected pumas and dispersing animals from non been found within the eastern puma’s under the Act and became a subject of ESA-listed western puma populations historical range. However, despite the Federal investigation. These protections are protected when found in the Act’s inapplicability to these pumas, against take of Florida panthers will historical range of the eastern puma. some States have enforced their continue in the event of delisting the Confusion surrounding the Service’s respective wildlife laws to protect all eastern puma on the basis of extinction. responsibilities relating to pumas also pumas within their jurisdictions. In (17) Comment: Several commenters unnecessarily complicates the States’ addition to the take prohibitions suggested that the Service update its management of puma issues. associated with some State endangered analysis to consider new information Additionally, this final rule will not species laws, many States within the regarding confirmed puma sightings in change the Act’s protections for the historical range have closed seasons on the historical range of the eastern puma. Florida panther (P.c. coryi). Florida pumas, affording some level of The Service should actively search for panthers, wherever they occur, continue protection, and similar provincial new reports of pumas within their to be protected from take under the Act, protections are provided to pumas that Eastern North America historical range. and all other pumas occurring in Florida may disperse into eastern Canada. Our response: Since completing our continue to be protected under a Florida panthers, wherever they occur, 2011 status review, we have continued similarity of appearance designation (32 continue to be protected from take to monitor confirmed records of pumas FR 4001, March 11, 1967). Pumas under the Act, and all other pumas in Eastern North America (e.g., through occurring elsewhere in the U.S. do not occurring in Florida continue to be cougarnet.org; see earlier comments 2, receive the protections of the Act. protected under a similarity of 7, and 10). We also refer reports and There also continue to be costs appearance designation (32 FR 4001, sightings of pumas we receive to the associated with retaining the eastern March 11, 1967). respective State wildlife agencies. puma on the List. Maintaining the We emphasize that the authority and Although pumas continue to be eastern puma on the List obligates the responsibility for protection and confirmed in Eastern North America, Service to continue to compile management of pumas not listed under the available scientific information fully information relating to puma science the Act resides with the States, and supports our conclusion that these and reported sightings and to respond to balancing a public interest in natural animals are released or escaped pets or reported sightings. The Service therefore recolonization with the concern for dispersers from western populations or, expends considerable staff time public, pet, and livestock safety will be rarely, Florida. To date, there remains a addressing puma reports and questions, a challenging endeavor. Recent studies complete lack of evidence of breeding diverting limited resources from of public attitudes toward pumas eastern pumas in locations not already conservation efforts for listed species recolonizing or being reintroduced in documented in the 2011 review, and that still exist. Eastern North America provide a good despite many additional puma reports While many listed species have areas foundation for management plans, in Eastern North America, the best of unoccupied range, there is no policy decisions, and educational available information indicates that the precedent for listing a species when its initiatives (Davenport et al. 2010, eastern puma subspecies is extinct. For entire range is unoccupied because the Thornton and Quinn 2010, Jacobsen et these reasons, it is not necessary or entity is extinct. It is important to al. 2012, Bruskotter and Wilson 2014, advisable to conduct surveys or actively recognize that under the Act the Service McGovern and Kretser 2014, Smith et al. solicit additional reports of pumas in cannot list a ‘‘vacant’’ range—we can 2015, McGovern and Kretzer 2015). Eastern North America to determine list only species, subspecies, and DPSs. These human dimension studies also eastern puma status. Thus, if a species as defined by the Act identify the many social and political (18) Comment: Several commenters is determined to be extinct, we can challenges associated with such stated that the current listing requires neither list it nor keep it listed. We initiatives. insignificant funding and staff acknowledge that this commenter could (16) Comment: Some commenters resources, and that therefore it does no be implying that the eastern puma expressed a concern that if the eastern harm to keep eastern pumas on the List. should remain listed because its entire puma is delisted, there will be no The Service should thus heed the unoccupied historical range represents a protection under the Act for Florida precautionary principle (Simson 2015) portion of the historical range of a panthers that disperse beyond Florida. and give listed pumas the benefit of the higher-level taxon to which it belongs Pumas can travel long distances (over doubt. Furthermore, the Service has (e.g., a North American subspecies). 1,000 miles); thus, dispersing Florida already set a precedent for listing However, for any higher-level taxon of panthers could potentially occur species in unoccupied portions of their puma to be listed, the Service would through much of the historical range of historical range (e.g., wolves). need to determine that it meets the the eastern puma subspecies. Protection Our response: Section 4(b)(1)(A) of definition of an endangered species or a from take is important for the natural the Act requires that listing decisions threatened species, and this range expansion of the Florida panther. under section 4(a)(1) be made solely on determination must be based on its Some commenters suggested that the the basis of the best scientific and status where it currently occurs, not on

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Jan 22, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM 23JAR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES 3096 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

its status as absent in a portion of its the Florida panther recovery plan, cited unpublished genetic data showing historical range. which will continue to be implemented. that all puma samples from Eastern Almost 80 years have passed In some instances, the Service has North America evaluated in her (including more than 40 years while promoted the development of multi- laboratory were of South American listed under the Act) with no State conservation plans for species that origin, consistent with animals confirmation of the existence of the are petitioned or are candidates for originating from captive sources, while eastern puma. In addition to the effort Federal listing (e.g., sage grouse, New another reviewer concluded that pumas and resources put into evaluating all England cottontail); however, we do not in Eastern North America are not extinct available scientific evidence, this have the authority to develop recovery but live in a highly discrete, endangered amount of time is sufficient to plans for nonlisted species (i.e., for population segment in southern Florida. determine the extinction of an animal pumas dispersing from western Two reviewers concurred that the vast that is not difficult to detect wherever populations). The Federal government majority of recently documented it exists as a breeding population—this does share authority for managing and sightings represent either reasoning satisfies the precautionary conserving fish and wildlife with the misidentifications or principle. See also our response to States, but our limited fiscal resources misrepresentations, and that the rare comment 8. are focused on Federal trust resources, confirmed reports are likely dispersers (19) Comment: Some commenters including threatened and endangered from western puma populations or suggested that the Service develop a species, migratory birds, and migratory pumas that have been released or recovery plan to address puma fish. Thus, it would be inappropriate for escaped from captivity. recolonization and habitat protection the Service to oblige States to develop One reviewer provided extensive across the North American continent. a plan for recolonizing or reintroducing comments and data concerning One commenter was impressed by the nonlisted pumas, nor would we have confirmed puma reports in Eastern California Department of Fish and any authority to require that Canadian North America. Based on this Wildlife’s draft wolf plan, (https:// provinces participate in such an effort. information, the reviewer surmised that www.ca.gov/conservation.mammals/ there is not a breeding population of Peer Review Comments gray-wolf), developed before wolves pumas within the historical range of the began to breed in that State, and would In accordance with our 1994 peer eastern puma. This reviewer also like to see a study of the issues State review policy (59 FR 34270, July 1, discussed published studies that suggest wildlife agencies anticipate if pumas 1994), we invited six independent evidence of resident puma populations should naturally recolonize the East and scientists to comment on our proposed in Eastern North America (e.g., Johnston Midwest. delisting proposal (81 FR 41925, June 2002, Bertrand et al. 2006, Swanson and Our response: Because the eastern 28, 2016). These individuals are Rusz 2006, Rosatte 2011, Mallory 2012), puma listing imparts no protection recognized for their expertise in large concluding that most of these claims either directly or indirectly to other carnivore ecology and management, were based on unreliable eyewitness pumas, there would be no benefit to with particular knowledge in one or accounts and noting the lack of retaining the listed status of the extinct more of the following areas: puma evidence of kittens. The reviewer subspecies for the purpose of allowing population ecology, management, disagreed with the reasoning presented State wildlife agencies to prepare for demographics, conservation, and in some of these papers that a breeding recolonization of pumas from western population genetics. In response to our population of pumas could exist within populations to Eastern North America. request, we received comments from the historical range of the eastern puma For a species that has recovered, five experts. without being detected. This reviewer delisting may require States to We reviewed all peer review also reviewed genetic evidence from demonstrate that the species will be comments for substantive issues and Bertrand et al. 2006, Swanson and Rusz managed to maintain its recovered new information regarding the status of 2006, Kurta et al. 2007, Mallory et al. status, and States often develop the eastern puma. With the exception of 2012, Lang et al. 2013, and Rosatte 2013, management plans to show that their our position in the proposed rule on and, based on these collective sources, oversight will be adequate to address current North American puma concluded that recent confirmed reports any emerging or reemerging threats. taxonomy, the peer reviewers largely do not constitute compelling evidence Because we are delisting due to endorsed our methods and overall of a breeding population, and that the extinction rather than recovery, there is conclusions, and provided new confirmed individuals within the no need for States to foresee problems information and suggestions to improve historical range represent animals that and demonstrate adequate management the final rule. Specific peer review have dispersed from western solutions for the eastern puma. comments are addressed below and populations. Section 4 of the Act authorizes the incorporated as appropriate into this Our response: We concur with these Service to develop recovery plans for rule or into supplemental documents comments, which validate or further species listed as endangered or (such as references cited), available at: corroborate the best available scientific threatened. With regard to listed pumas, http://www.regulations.gov under information and conclusions in our recovery plans were developed for the Docket No. FWS–R5–ES–2015–0001. 2011 status review (USFWS 2011). eastern puma (http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/ (20) Peer review comment: With (21) Peer review comment: Four of the recovery_plan/820802.pdf) and Florida regard to the current status of the five peer reviewers stated that the best panther (http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/ eastern puma, three reviewers available scientific information (Culver recovery_plan/081218.pdf). The eastern concurred with the Service’s conclusion et al. 2000, Culver 2010) supports the puma recovery plan called for the that there are no breeding populations conclusion that there is a single discovery or establishment of at least of pumas in the historical range of the subspecies of puma, Puma concolor three self-sustaining populations. This eastern puma and that the eastern puma couguar, in North America. A fifth peer goal has proven to be unachievable subspecies is extinct, and agreed that reviewer did not comment on this issue. given the absence of any source the Service adequately documented this Two peer reviewers noted that the individuals, making the plan moot. conclusion with the best available revised taxonomy, P.c. couguar, is Finalization of this rule will not affect scientific information. One reviewer identical to the nomenclature used for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Jan 22, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM 23JAR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 3097

the listed eastern puma subspecies, North America persists in Florida, and pertinent to North American puma which could create confusion with a that it should be designated as a DPS. taxonomy and therefore has not yet determination that the listed eastern Going further, one of these reviewers drawn a conclusion whether to accept puma subspecies, P.c. couguar, is suggested that an endangered DPS the single North American subspecies extinct. These peer reviewers designation should encompass the taxonomy. Furthermore, the Service has recommended that the Service accept entire historical range of the Florida determined that, because drawing a the revised taxonomy and consider the panther and the eastern puma conclusion on the single North single North American subspecies subspecies. American subspecies taxonomy is not extant but extirpated within the Our response: These peer review needed to delist the eastern puma based historical range previously delineated comments are similar to several on extinction, we have no essential for the eastern puma. Another peer comments from the public, and our basis for withdrawing our proposal to reviewer further suggested that genetic response is discussed in detail under delist due to extinction in order to evidence, documentation of long- comments 4 and 5. consider delisting due to original data distance dispersal of pumas, and lack of (23) Peer review comment: One error. Therefore, for the purposes of this geographic barriers support a single reviewer suggested that a recovery plan regulatory action, we continue to treat North American subspecies. Two peer should be developed for pumas in the eastern puma as a subspecies as reviewers pointed out that species-wide Eastern North America including, originally listed under the Act. morphological studies based on more specifically, pumas from Florida. This With regard to a determination that than 1,000 puma skulls (Gay 1994, Gay recovery plan should also include the eastern puma subspecies is extinct, and Best 1996, Wilkens et al. 1997) did translocating animals from western it is important to note that the not support separation of populations puma populations and protecting continuing presence of pumas in into the 32 previously described dispersing individuals from western Eastern North America is not debated. subspecies, with one reviewer populations. However, physical and genetic evidence discussing Wilkens et al.’s (1997) Our response: We address this issue indicates that pumas recently observed findings of the skull measurements, in our response to public comments in Eastern North America are released or pelage color, mid-dorsal whorl, kinked concerning a recovery plan for pumas in escaped captive animals, with the tail, and deformed sperm thought to be Eastern North America (see our exception of some wild pumas that have unique to the Florida panther. Based on response to comment 19). dispersed from western populations or, morphological and genetic studies, Assessment of Species Status rarely, Florida. these two peer reviewers concluded Most significantly, no evidence there was no evidence that the eastern Section 4 of the Act and its whatsoever has been found to show that puma was ever a valid subspecies and implementing regulations (50 CFR part either individuals or relict populations suggested that the Service should delist 424) set forth the procedures for listing of the eastern puma subspecies remain based on taxonomic error. One reviewer species, reclassifying species, and extant. The most recent confirmed suggested that the incorrect original removing species from listed status. records of pumas native to Eastern classification of the eastern puma ‘‘Species’’ is defined by the Act as North America are from Tennessee subspecies may warrant a reassessment including any species or subspecies of (1930), New Brunswick (1932), and of taxonomy. Another peer reviewer fish or wildlife or plants, and any Maine (1938). These records coincide indicated that the original subspecies distinct population segment of any with the extirpation of white-tailed deer designation was arbitrary and the species of vertebrate fish or wildlife in most of the eastern puma’s range in eastern puma still persists as the Florida which interbreeds when mature (16 the 1800s, with the exception of a few panther. U.S.C. 1532(16)). To determine whether remaining large forest tracts, and a shift Our response: These peer review a species should be listed as endangered of eastern pumas toward the northern comments reflect those expressed by or threatened, we assess the likelihood periphery of their historical range many public reviewers, to which we of its continued existence using the five during that time. In contrast, areas provide a detailed response under factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the throughout North America that still comment 4, above. Although mounting Act (see Consideration of Factors support extant populations of native evidence appears to support a single Affecting the Species, below). A species pumas have had a long and continuous North American puma subspecies, may be reclassified or removed from the record of confirmed occurrences. resolution of any remaining uncertainty List on the same basis. With regard to Given the puma’s life span, generally would constitute an additional, rather delisting a species due to extinction, ‘‘a thought to be 10 to 11 years, it is than a preemptive, line of reasoning for sufficient period of time must be implausible that nonbreeding eastern delisting the eastern puma. Because we allowed before delisting to indicate pumas could have persisted in the wild have determined that drawing a clearly that the species is extinct’’ (50 without being detected for more than conclusion regarding a revision of North CFR 424.11(d)(1)). According to these seven decades and under conditions of American subspecies taxonomy is not dual standards, we must determine habitat loss and lack of their primary necessary to delist the eastern puma whether the eastern puma subspecies is prey base. By the same token, it is based on extinction, we have no a valid listed entity that remains extant highly improbable that a breeding compelling basis for withdrawing our in order to determine its appropriate population of the subspecies could have proposal to delist due to extinction in listing status. gone undetected for that long. Together order to consider delisting due to With regard to the validity of the with the complete lack of either a recent original data error. Therefore, for the eastern puma as a subspecies and, report or a long-term record of eastern purposes of this regulatory action, we therefore, as a listable entity, we puma presence, these factors are continue to treat the eastern puma as a recognize that support for a single North indicative of the long-term absence of subspecies as originally listed under the American subspecies has gained wide this subspecies. Act. acceptance in the scientific community. In summary, we find that pumas (22) Peer review comment: Two peer However, the Service has not yet (except for single transients) are reviewers commented that the only conducted a comprehensive assessment reasonably detectable, that no remnant population of pumas in Eastern of all available scientific information contemporary puma sightings in Eastern

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Jan 22, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM 23JAR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES 3098 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

North America have been verified as the endangered species or threatened National Environmental Policy Act of eastern puma subspecies since 1938, species. 1969, need not be prepared in and that it is extremely unlikely that connection with regulations adopted Determination undetected individuals or eastern puma pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We populations could have survived the After a thorough review of all published a notice outlining our reasons long period during which most of their available information, we have for this determination in the Federal habitat was lost and their primary prey determined that the subspecies Puma Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR was nearly extirpated. We therefore (=Felis) concolor couguar is extinct. 49244). conclude that the eastern puma Based upon this determination and subspecies, Puma (=Felis) concolor taking into consideration the definitions Government-to-Government couguar, is extinct. of ‘‘endangered species’’ and Relationship With Tribes ‘‘threatened species’’ contained in the In accordance with the President’s Consideration of Factors Affecting the Act and the reasons for delisting as memorandum of April 29, 1994, Species specified in 50 CFR 424.11(d), upon its Government-to-Government Relations As mentioned under Assessment of effective date this rule removes the with Native American Tribal Species Status above, section 4 of the eastern puma from the List of Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, Act and its implementing regulations Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at and the Department of the Interior’s (50 CFR part 424) set forth the 50 CFR 17.11. manual at 512 DM 2, we readily procedures for listing, reclassifying, or Available Conservation Measures acknowledge our responsibility to removing species from listed status. communicate meaningfully with When we evaluate whether a species Conservation measures provided to recognized Federal Tribes on a should be listed as an endangered species listed as endangered or as government-to-government basis. In species or threatened species, we must threatened under the Act include accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 consider the five listing factors recognition, recovery actions, of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: requirements for Federal protection, and Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust (A) The present or threatened prohibitions against certain practices. Responsibilities, and the Endangered destruction, modification, or However, because the Service has Species Act), we readily acknowledge curtailment of the species’ habitat or determined the eastern puma to be our responsibilities to work directly extinct, this final rule removes any range; (B) overutilization for with Tribes in developing programs for Federal conservation measures for any commercial, recreational, scientific, or healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that individual eastern pumas as originally educational purposes; (C) disease or tribal lands are not subject to the same listed on June 4, 1973 (38 FR 14678) predation; (D) the inadequacy of controls as Federal public lands, to (Puma (=Felis) concolor couguar). This existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) remain sensitive to Indian culture, and final rule will not change the Act’s other natural or manmade factors to make information available to Tribes. protections for the Florida panther (P.c. affecting the species’ continued Accordingly, the Service communicated coryi). existence. We must consider these same with Tribes during the public comment factors in reclassifying a species or Effects of the Rule period on the proposed rule and removing it from the List. Discussion of received no comments expressing these factors and their application to the This final rule revises 50 CFR 17.11 by removing the eastern puma from the concern about our conclusion that the eastern puma follows. The principal eastern puma is extinct. factors leading to the listing of the List of Endangered and Threatened eastern puma were widespread Wildlife due to extinction. Upon the References Cited persecution (via poisoning, trapping, effective date of this rule, the prohibitions and conservation measures A complete list of references is hunting, and bounties) (factors B and D), available as a supplemental document at decline of forested habitat (factor A), provided by the Act will no longer apply to this subspecies. There is no http://www.regulations.gov under and near-extirpation of white-tailed deer Docket No. FWS–R5–ES–2015–0001. populations during the 1800s (factor A). designated critical habitat for the eastern puma. References are also posted on http:// Other natural or manmade factors www.fws.gov/northeast/ecougar. affecting the species’ continued Post-Delisting Monitoring existence (factor E) and disease or Authors Section 4(g)(1) of the Act, added in predation (factor C) were not identified The primary authors of this rule are as threats. These impacts led to the the 1988 reauthorization, requires the Service to implement a program, in the staff members of the Service’s Maine extirpation of most eastern puma Fish and Wildlife Service Complex, populations by 1900. However, because cooperation with the States, to monitor for not less than 5 years the status of all Ecological Services Maine Field Office, we have determined that all populations and the Hadley, Massachusetts, of pumas described as the eastern puma species that have recovered and been removed from the Lists of Endangered Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER have been extirpated and no longer INFORMATION CONTACT). exist, analysis of the five factors under and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (50 section 4(a)(1) of the Act, which apply CFR 17.11 and 17.12). Because we have List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 to threats facing extant populations, is determined that the eastern puma is Endangered and threatened species, immaterial. extinct, post-delisting monitoring is not Exports, Imports, Reporting and As stated above, given the period of warranted. recordkeeping requirements, time that has passed without Required Determinations Transportation. verification of even a single eastern puma, the Service concludes that the National Environmental Policy Act Regulation Promulgation last remaining members of this We have determined that an Accordingly, we amend part 17, subspecies perished decades ago. environmental assessment or an subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Therefore, the eastern puma is no longer environmental impact statement, as Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth extant and cannot be evaluated as an defined under the authority of the below:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Jan 22, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM 23JAR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 3099

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Islands (NWHI) commercial lobster THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS fishery under the Fishery Ecosystem National Oceanic and Atmospheric Plan for the Hawaiian Archipelago. The ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 Administration regulations at 50 CFR 665.252(b) require continues to read as follows: NMFS to publish an annual harvest 50 CFR Part 665 guideline for lobster Permit Area 1, Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– RIN 0648–XF881 1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise comprised of Federal waters around the NWHI. noted. Pacific Island Fisheries; 2018 Regulations governing the § 17.11 [Amended] Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Lobster Harvest Guideline Papahanaumokuakea Marine National ■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by removing the Monument in the NWHI prohibit the AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries entry for ‘‘Puma (=cougar), eastern’’ unpermitted removal of monument Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and resources (50 CFR 404.7), and establish under ‘‘Mammals’’ in the ‘‘List of Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.’’ a zero annual harvest guideline for Commerce. lobsters (50 CFR 404.10(a)). Dated: December 1, 2017. ACTION: Notification of lobster harvest Accordingly, NMFS establishes the James W. Kurth, guideline. harvest guideline for the NWHI Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife SUMMARY: NMFS establishes the annual commercial lobster fishery for calendar Service, Exercising the Authority of the harvest guideline for the commercial year 2018 at zero lobsters. Harvest of Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. lobster fishery in the Northwestern NWHI lobster resources is not allowed. [FR Doc. 2018–01127 Filed 1–22–18; 8:45 am] Hawaiian Islands for calendar year 2018 Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. BILLING CODE 4333–55–P at zero lobsters. Dated: January 17, 2018. DATES: January 23, 2018. Alan D. Risenhoover, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Harman, NMFS PIR Sustainable Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Fisheries, tel. 808–725–5170. National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2018–01064 Filed 1–22–18; 8:45 am] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the Northwestern Hawaiian BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Jan 22, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM 23JAR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES