55286 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 178 / Tuesday, September 15, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Written comments must be received by inspection, by appointment, during species (47 FR 58454). Category 2 status September 18th, 2015. normal business hours at the U.S. Fish included those taxa for which and Wildlife Service, New England information in the Service’s possession Privacy Act Statement Field Office, 70 Commercial Street, indicated that a proposed rule may be In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), Suite 300, Concord, NH 03301. Please appropriate, but for which sufficient DOT solicits comments from the public submit any new information, materials, data on biological vulnerability and to better inform its rulemaking process. comments, or questions concerning this threats were not available to support a DOT posts these comments, without finding to the above address. proposed rule at that time. This edit, including any personal information FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: classification remained valid for the the commenter provides to Thomas R. Chapman, Field Supervisor, species in subsequent review www.regulations.gov, as described in New England Field Office (see publications for animals that occurred the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– ADDRESSES); by telephone at 603–223– on September 18, 1985 (50 FR 37958), 14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 2541; or by facsimile at 603–223–0104. January 6, 1989 (54 FR 554), November www.dot.gov/privacy. If you use a telecommunications device 21, 1991 (56 FR 58804), and November Issued in Washington, DC, on September for the deaf (TDD), please call the 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982). In the February 11th, 2015. Federal Information Relay Service 28, 1996, candidate notice of review Patrick T. Warren, (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. (CNOR) (61 FR 7596), we discontinued the designation of Category 2 species as Acting Associate Administrator for Railroad SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Safety and Chief Safety Officer. candidates; therefore, the New England cottontail was no longer a candidate [FR Doc. 2015–23233 Filed 9–11–15; 4:15 pm] Background species. BILLING CODE 4910–06–P Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 On August 30, 2000, we received a U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that, for petition dated August 29, 2000, from the any petition to revise the Federal Lists Biodiversity Legal Foundation, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Conservation Action Project, and Plants that contains substantial Endangered Small Animals Fish and Wildlife Service scientific or commercial information Conservation Fund and Defenders of that listing the species may be Wildlife, requesting that the New 50 CFR Part 17 warranted, we make a finding within 12 England cottontail be listed under the [Docket No. FWS–R5–ES–2015–0136; months of the date of receipt of the Act and critical habitat be designated. 4500030113] petition. In this finding, we will We acknowledged the receipt of the determine that the petitioned action is: petition in a letter to The Biodiversity Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (1) Not warranted, (2) Warranted, or (3) Legal Foundation, dated September 14, and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Warranted, but the immediate proposal 2000, and stated that, due to funding Petition To List the New England of a regulation implementing the constraints in fiscal year (FY) 2000, we Cottontail as an Endangered or petitioned action is precluded by other would not be able to begin processing Threatened Species pending proposals to determine whether the petition in a timely manner. Those species are endangered or threatened, funding constraints persisted into FY AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, and expeditious progress is being made Interior. 2001. to add or remove qualified species from On December 19, 2000, Defenders of ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition the Federal Lists of Endangered and Wildlife sent a Notice of Intent (NOI) to finding. Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section sue the Service for violating the Act by 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and failing to make a timely 90-day finding treat a petition for which the requested Wildlife Service (Service), announce a on the August 2000 petition. On action is found to be warranted but 12-month finding on a petition to list February 8, 2002, Defenders of Wildlife precluded as though resubmitted on the the New England cottontail (Sylvilagus sent another NOI to sue in response to date of such finding, that is, requiring a transitionalis) as an endangered or the Service’s failure to make a timely subsequent finding to be made within 12-month finding on the August 2000 threatened species and to designate 12 months. We must publish these 12- petition. On May 14, 2002, we advised critical habitat under the Endangered month findings in the Federal Register. Defenders of Wildlife that we would Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Until now, making a 12-month finding begin action on the petition in FY 2002. After review of the best available that listing is warranted or not On June 30, 2004, the Service scientific and commercial information, warranted for the New England published in the Federal Register a 90- we find that listing the New England cottontail was precluded by other higher day finding that the petition presented cottontail is not warranted at this time. priority national listing actions (71 FR substantial scientific and commercial However, we ask the public to submit to 53756, September 12, 2006; 72 FR information indicating that listing the us any new information that becomes 69034, December 6, 2007; 73 FR 75176, New England cottontail as endangered available concerning the threats to the December 10, 2008; 74 FR 57804, may be warranted (69 FR 39395). We New England cottontail or its habitat at November 9, 2009; 75 FR 69222, also announced the initiation of a status any time. November 10, 2010; 76 FR 66370, review to determine if listing the species DATES: The finding announced in this October 26, 2011; 77 FR 69993, was warranted and requested additional document was made on September 15, November 21, 2012; 78 FR 70103, information and data regarding this 2015. November 22, 2013; 79 FR 72449, species. On September 12, 2006, the ADDRESSES: This finding is available on December 5, 2014). Service published a finding that the the Internet at http:// petition presented substantial scientific www.regulations.gov at Docket Number Previous Federal Actions and commercial information indicating FWS–R5–ES–2015–0136. Supporting On December 30, 1982, we published that listing the New England cottontail documentation we used in preparing our notice of review classifying the New as threatened or endangered was this finding is available for public England cottontail as a Category 2 warranted, but precluded (71 FR 53756).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:46 Sep 14, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 178 / Tuesday, September 15, 2015 / Proposed Rules 55287

The Service has annually reviewed the and snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) Appalachian cottontail (Sylvilagus status of the New England cottontail and by several features. In general, the New obscurus), with a range south and west reaffirmed the 2006 finding that listing England cottontail can be distinguished of the Hudson River in New York. Thus, of the species remained warranted but by its shorter ear length, slightly smaller the New England cottontail (S. precluded with a Listing Priority body size, presence of a black spot transitionalis) was defined as that Number of 2 in our CNORs published in between the ears, absence of a white species east of the Hudson River 2007 (72 FR 69034; December 6, 2007), spot on the forehead, and a black line through New England. No subspecies of 2008 (73 FR 75176; December 10, 2008), on the anterior edge of the ears (Litvaitis the New England cottontail are 2009 (74 FR 57804; November 9, 2009), et al. 1991, p. 11). Like the congeneric recognized (Chapman and Ceballos 2010 (75 FR 69222; November 10, 2010), (separate species of the same genus) 1990, p. 106). 2011 (76 FR 66370; October 26, 2011), eastern cottontail, the New England Litvaitis et al. (1997, entire) studied 2012 (77 FR 69993; November 21, 2012), cottontail can be distinguished from the the variation of mtDNA (mitochondrial 2013 (78 FR 70103; November 22, 2013), snowshoe hare by its lack of seasonal DNA, genetic material inherited from and 2014 (79 FR 72449; December 5, variation in pelage (mammal’s coat the mother) in the Sylvilagus complex 2014). consisting of fur, hair, etc.) coloration. occupying the northeastern United Subsequent to the 2006 petition New England and eastern cottontails States. They found no evidence to finding, the Service developed a can be difficult to distinguish in the suggest that hybridization is occurring national multi-year listing work plan field by external characteristics between the New England cottontail and associated with a multidistrict (Chapman and Ceballos 1990, p. 106). the eastern cottontail that was settlement agreement with the Center However, cranial (referring to the skull) introduced into the New England for Biological Diversity and WildEarth differences, specifically the length of the cottontail’s range, supporting the Guardians (In re Endangered Species supraorbital process (elongated bony conclusions of others that the New Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No. structure located posterior (behind) to England cottontail and the eastern 1–377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 the eye) and the pattern of the nasal cottontail have maintained genetic (D.D.C. May 20, 2011)). The work plan frontal suture (the junction between the distinction (Wilson 1981, p. 99). Also, represents a systematic process for the nasal and frontal bones), are a reliable the limited variation observed in Service to make determinations as to means of distinguishing the two mtDNA led Litvaitis et al. (1997, p. 602) whether the 250 identified candidate cottontail species (Johnston 1972, pp. 6– to conclude that the reclassification of species still warrant listing as either 11). S. obscurus as a distinct species was not threatened or endangered pursuant to Prior to 1992, the New England supported. However, the more recent the Act, and if so, proceed with cottontail was described as occurring in scientific view urges caution in appropriate rulemakings. Conversely, if a mosaic pattern from southeastern New interpreting the results of earlier the Service was to determine that listing England, south along the Appalachian mtDNA-based studies. Litvaitis et al. of any candidate species is no longer Mountains to Alabama (Bangs 1894, pp. (1997, p. 597) sampled 25 individual S. warranted, candidate status would be 405 and 411; Nelson 1909, p. 196; Hall transitionalis/obscurus across 15 withdrawn. Through the 1981, p. 305). However, Ruedas et al. locations in a geographic area that aforementioned work plan, we agreed to (1989, p. 863) questioned the taxonomic extended from southern Maine to complete a final listing determination status of Sylvilagus transitionalis based Kentucky. The number of individuals upon the presence of two distinct for the New England cottontail by sampled ranged from one to seven per chromosomal races (genetically September 30, 2015. This document site with a mean sample size of 1.7 differentiated populations of the same constitutes the 12-month finding on the individuals per location (Litvaitis et al. species) within its geographic range. August 29, 2000, petition to list the New 1997, p. 598). Individuals north and east of the Allendorf and Luikart (2006, p. 391) England cottontail as an endangered or Hudson River Valley in New York had warn that, ‘‘many early studies that used threatened species and fulfills the diploid (a cell containing two sets of mtDNA analysis included only a few aforementioned settlement agreement. chromosomes (structure that contains individuals per geographic location, For additional previous Federal genetic material) counts of 52, while which could lead to erroneous actions, see the New England individuals west and south of the phylogeny inferences’’ regarding cottontail’s species’ profile page at: Hudson River had counts of 46. Ruedas interpretations of descent and http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/ et al. (1989, p. 863) stated, ‘‘To date, relationship among evolutionary species profile/speciesProfile Sylvilagus transitionalis represents the or groups. Furthermore, their analysis .action?spcode=A09B. only chromosomally polymorphic taxon concentrated on the ‘‘proline tRNA and Species Information within the genus Sylvilagus,’’ and the first 300 base pairs of the control suggested that the two forms of S. region,’’ which represents a relatively Species Description and Taxonomy transitionalis be described as distinct small fragment of mtDNA that can result The New England cottontail species. in a failure to detect significant genetic (Sylvilagus transitionalis) is a medium- Chapman et al. (1992, pp. 841–866) differentiation when used to delineate large-sized cottontail rabbit that may conducted a review of the systematics taxonomic separation (Litvaitis et al. reach 1,000 grams (g) (2.2 pounds (lb)) and biogeography of the species and 1997, p. 599; King et al. 2006, p. entire). in weight and is the only endemic proposed a new classification. Based Strict adherence to the requirement of cottontail in New England (Bangs 1894, upon morphological variation and reciprocal monophyly (a genetic lineage p. 411; Allen 1904, entire; Nelson 1909, earlier karyotypic (pertaining to the where all members of the lineage share pp. 169, 170–171). Sometimes called the characteristics of a species’ a more recent common ancestor with gray rabbit, brush rabbit, wood hare, or chromosomes) studies, Chapman et al. each other than with any other lineage cooney, it can usually be distinguished (1992, p. 848) reported clear evidence on the evolutionary tree) in mtDNA as from the sympatric (similar, but for two distinct taxa within what had the sole delineating criterion for making different, species that occur in the same been regarded as a single species. taxonomic decisions often ignores area and are able to encounter each Accordingly, Chapman et al. (1992, p. important phenotypic, adaptive, and other) eastern cottontail (S. floridanus) 858) defined a new species, the behavioral differences that are

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:46 Sep 14, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 55288 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 178 / Tuesday, September 15, 2015 / Proposed Rules

important (Allendorf and Luikart 2006, Metapopulation Dynamics stochasticity (Gaggiotti and Hanski p. 392; Knowles and Carstens 2007, pp. The relationship between habitat and 2004, pp. 347–353). 887–895; Hickerson et al. 2006, pp. survival of wild New England Winter snow depth and persistence is 729–739). cottontails in New Hampshire was an example of a stochastic environmental factor that could cause a Notwithstanding the analyses investigated by Barbour and Litvaitis (1993, entire). Their study revealed that local extinction. However, we recognize discussed above, the results from that winter severity operates at a Chapman et al. (1992) have been the survival rate of cottontails occupying small patches was lower regional scale that is not easily accepted by the scientific community addressed. Therefore, the most effective (Wilson and Reeder 2005, pp. 210–211). (0.35) than in larger patches (0.69) (Barbour and Litvaitis (1993, p. 325). means of addressing the effects of snow The Service accepts the recognized depth and persistence on New England Subsequent research found that by late taxonomic reclassification provided by cottontail is to ensure (1) representation winter rabbits in smaller patches were Chapman et al. 1992 (p. 848) and of population diversity across the subsisting on a poorer diet, had lower concludes that Sylvilagus transitionalis historical range; (2) resiliency of body weights, were presumably less fit, and S. obscurus are valid taxa and are populations by ensuring enough and experienced greater predation rates, two separate species. Consequently, we individuals exist at local and patch most likely as a result of the need to find that the New England cottontail scales to buffer environmental, forage in areas of sparse cover meets the definition of a species, as demographic, and genetic stochasticity; (Villafuerte et al. 1997, p. 148). Based on provided in section 3 of the Act, and is and (3) redundancy of populations, the poor survival of cottontails on the a listable entity. because multiple populations will help smaller habitat patches, Barbour and guard against unexpected catastrophes Life History Litvaitis (1993, p. 326) considered such as disease outbreaks (Shaffer et al. patches less than 2.5 hectares (ha) (less The New England cottontail, like all 2002, p. 138). See Fuller and Tur (2012, than 6.2 acres (ac)) in size to be ‘‘sink pp. 32–41) for more information about cottontails, is primarily an herbivore habitats’’ where mortality exceeds the metapopulation dynamics of the and feeds on a wide variety of grasses recruitment (reproduction and New England cottontail. and herbs during spring and summer immigration). As a consequence of the and the bark, twigs, and buds of woody variable quality of habitat patches and Habitat Characteristics plants during winter (Dalke and Sime their ability to maintain occupancy, New England cottontails occupy 1941, p. 216; Todd 1927, pp. 222–228). New England cottontail populations are native shrublands associated with sandy Cottontails are short-lived (usually less believed to function as soils or wetlands and regenerating than 3 years), with predation being the metapopulations; that is, a set of local forests associated with small-scale cause of death of most individuals populations comprising individuals disturbances that set back forest (Chapman and Litvaitis 2003, p. 118). moving between local patches (Hanski succession. New England cottontails are Reproduction in cottontails begins at an and Gilpin 1991, p. 7; Litvaitis and considered habitat specialists, as they early age with some juveniles breeding Villafuerte 1996, p. 686). Therefore, the are dependent upon these early their first season (Chapman et al. 1982, spatial structure of a species’ successional habitats, frequently p. 96). Litters probably contain three to populations in addition to the species’ described as thickets (Litvaitis 2001, p. five altricial (born in an underdeveloped life-history characteristics must be 466). Suitable habitats for the New state and requiring parental care) young, considered when formulating England cottontail contain dense which are born in fairly elaborate nests management systems for the species’ (approximately greater than 9,000 where they receive maternal care viability (Hanski 1998, p. 41). woody stems per ha (greater than 3,600 In metapopulations, population (Chapman et al. 1982, p. 96). The stems per ac)), primarily deciduous extinction and colonization at the patch- number of litters produced by wild New understory cover (Litvaitis et al. 2003a, specific scale are recurrent rather than England cottontails is unknown, but p. 879), with a particular affinity for unique events (Hanksi 1998, p. 42). As microhabitats containing greater than may attain a maximum of seven, based with many metapopulations, local 50,000 stem-cover units/hectare (ha) on the number of litters produced by extinctions in New England cottontail (20,234 stem-cover units/acre (ac)) other cottontail species (Chapman et al. populations are likely the result of (Barbour and Litvaitis 1993, p. 324; 1982, p. 96). Young grow rapidly and demographic, environmental, and Gottfried 2013, p. 20). New England are weaned by 26 days from birth genetic stochasticities (Gaggiotti and cottontails are also associated with areas (Perrotti, in litt. 2014). Female New Hanski 2004, pp. 337–366). For containing average basal area (area England cottontails have a high example, New England cottontails occupied by trees) values of 53.6 square incidence of post partum breeding exhibit indicators of demographic meters (m2) per ha (233.6 square feet (ability to mate soon after giving birth) stochasticity influencing local (ft2) per ac), which indicates that tree (Chapman et al. 1982, p. 96). The populations, because individuals on cover is an important habitat component reproductive capacity of cottontails small patches are predominantly male for the New England cottontail remains relatively stable across (Barbour and Litvaitis 1993, entire). (Gottfried 2013, pp. 20–21). In addition population densities and is not believed While there are no examples of genetic to demonstrating a strong affinity for to be a significant factor in regulating stochasticity that have led to inbreeding habitat patches of heavy cover, New cottontail populations. Instead, survival, depression, recent analysis of gene flow England cottontails generally do not influenced mainly by predation, is among extant populations of New venture far from the patches (Smith and believed to be the primary factor in England cottontails in southeastern New Litvaitis 2000, p. 2134). Smith and regulating populations (Edwards et al. Hampshire and Maine revealed Litvaitis (2000, p. 2136) demonstrated 1981, pp. 761–798; Chapman and evidence of genetic drift and population via a winter experiment using animals Litvaitis 2003, p. 118). Consequently, isolation due to geographic distance and in an enclosed pen that, when food was habitat that provides abundant shelter is fragmentation (Fenderson et al. 2014, not available within the cover of crucial to cottontail abundance entire), which may be a predictor of thickets, New England cottontails were (Chapman and Ceballos 1990, p. 96). ongoing or future effects of genetic reluctant to forage in the open, lost a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:46 Sep 14, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 178 / Tuesday, September 15, 2015 / Proposed Rules 55289

greater proportion of body mass, and abundance and distribution (Foster et extensive analysis of the distribution of succumbed to higher rates of predation al. 2002, p. 1345). cottontails in northern New England compared to eastern cottontails in the Lacking a description of the species’ and stated that declines were ongoing in same enclosure. Consequently, New distribution prior to this range Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire. England cottontail populations decline expansion, we relied on information A systematic comprehensive survey rapidly as understory habitat thins pertaining to the distribution of habitat consisting of standardized sampling during the processes of forest stand in the pre-European landscape and our units comprising U.S. Geological Survey maturation (Litvaitis 2001, p. 467). understanding of the ecological factors 7.5-minute topographic quarter Today, New England cottontail (e.g., competition with snowshoe hare quadrangles and field collection habitats are typically associated with and eastern cottontail (see Summary of protocols to determine the current beaver (Castor canadensis) flowage Information Pertaining to the Five distribution of the New England wetlands, idle agricultural lands, power Factors—Factor C below) related to the cottontail within its recent (1990 to line corridors, coastal barrens, railroad species. Based on our review, we 2004) historical range was conducted rights-of-way, recently harvested forest, surmise that the historical distribution during the 2000–2001 through 2003– ericaceous thickets comprising Kalmia of the New England cottontail was 2004 winter seasons (Litvaitis et al. and Rhododendron; invasive-dominated confined to areas from the Hudson River 2006, pp. 1190–1197). The results shrublands comprising Rosa multiflora, in New York through southern New indicated that the range had declined Lonicera spp., and others; forest England to southeastern New substantially from the 1960 maximum understories dominated by Smilax spp.; Hampshire, with occurrences being historical distribution, estimated at and pine barrens (Litvaitis 1993b, p. confined to areas in close proximity to 90,000 square kilometers (km2) (34,750 869; Tash and Litvaitis 2007, p. 594). In coastal areas, perhaps extending no square miles (mi2)) to approximately contrast, eastern cottontails appear to farther inland than 100 kilometers (km) 12,180 km2 (4,700 mi2), representing a have relatively generalized habitat (60 miles (mi)), with occurrences also reduction of approximately 86 percent requirements, and although they found on several offshore islands, (Litvaitis et al. 2006, p. 1192). sometimes co-occur with the New including Nantucket Island and Contraction of the New England England cottontail, they can also be Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, and cottontail’s distribution occurred found in residential areas, where they Long Island, New York (Cardoza, pers. primarily toward the southern and utilize lawns and golf courses, and in comm.. 1999; Nelson 1909, pp. 196–199; eastern coastal regions, as well as active agriculture areas, where relatively A. Tur, pers. comm., 2015). interior landscapes associated with the small patches of thick cover are Our full analysis of the historical Hudson, Housatonic, and Merrimack insufficient to support New England distribution of the New England River valleys and associated uplands cottontails (Chapman and Ceballos cottontail can be found at http:// located respectively in New York, 1990, p. 102). www.regulations.gov. Connecticut, and New Hampshire Current Distribution and Status (Litvaitis et al. 2006, p. 1193). This Range and Distribution contraction was attributed primarily to For the New England cottontail and Historical Distribution habitat loss and fragmentation (Litvaitis other early-successional species, et al. 2006, p. 1193). See Summary of In our previous assessments we abundance and distribution increased Information Pertaining to the Five described the historical distribution of with land clearing that peaked by the Factors—Factor A below for more the New England cottontail (71 FR mid-19th century and persisted into the information. 53756; 72 FR 69034; 73 FR 75176; 74 FR early 20th century, but then In addition to the observed range 57804; 75 FR 69222; 76 FR 66370; 77 FR subsequently declined (Bernardos et al. contraction, Litvaitis et al. (2006, p. 69993; 78 FR 70103; 79 FR 72449) as 2004, pp. 142–158; Foster et al. 2002, 1193) stated that the range had been following the circa 1960 range pp. 1345–1346). By the mid-1900s, fragmented into five geographic areas, delineation presented by Litvaitis et al. afforestation was progressing, and the ranging in size from 1,260 to 4,760 km2 (2006, entire). This range description abundant shrubby young growth that (487 to 1,840 mi2). These areas and their included the area east of the Hudson had fostered the expanded distribution sizes are: (1) The seacoast region of River in New York (excepting Long of the New England cottontail’s range southern Maine and New Hampshire, Island); all of Connecticut, was beginning to age. Decreases in the 3,080 km2 (1,190 mi2); (2) The Massachusetts, and Rhode Island; and abundance of the New England Merrimack River Valley of New much of Vermont, New Hampshire, and cottontail were reported in the Hampshire, 1,260 km2 (490 mi2); (3) A southwestern Maine (Litvaitis et al. Champlain Valley, which may have portion of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, 980 2006, p. 1191). We have reanalyzed been attributed to increases in red fox km2 (376 mi2); (4) Eastern Connecticut existing information as well as (Vulpes vulpes) or the increased and Rhode Island, 2,380 km2 (920 mi2); previously unavailable information mechanization that resulted in ‘‘clean’’ and (5) Portions of western Connecticut, regarding land use and predator patterns farming practices, such as drainage of eastern New York, and southwestern (see Summary of Information Pertaining wetlands and the removal of old rail Massachusetts, 4,760 km2 (1,840 mi2). to the Five Factors—Factor A and Factor fences that had favored shrubby field These acreage figures, however, C, respectively, below). Based on this edges (Foote 1946, p. 37). substantially exceed the actual area more thorough analysis, we conclude By the 1970s, contraction of the range occupied by the species because the that the 1960 range of the New England of the New England cottontail was well calculations were based on the total area cottontail was a product of extensive underway. In Massachusetts, those within each 7.5 minute USGS land use changes that led to a declines were evident by the mid-1950s quadrangle map where one or more sites substantial increase in the availability of when Fay and Chandler (1955, entire) with an extant occurrence of the New habitat and human pressure that altered documented the distribution of England cottontail was recorded, rather ecological processes (Bernardos et al. cottontails within that State. Declines than the total area of the actual habitat 2004, p. 150; Ahn et al. 2002, p. 1). For were also reported in Connecticut patches. the New England cottontail, these (Linkkila 1971, p. 15; Johnston 1972, p. Since the 2000 to 2004 changes led to an artificially inflated 17). Jackson (1973, p. 21) conducted an comprehensive rangewide survey,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:46 Sep 14, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 55290 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 178 / Tuesday, September 15, 2015 / Proposed Rules

numerous efforts to determine the State within the species’ range by England cottontail population (western presence of New England cottontails utilizing area-specific information that Massachusetts, southeastern New York, have been expended throughout the included factors such as the extent of and western Connecticut), are less than species’ range. Because those efforts potential habitat, the occurrence of 3 ha (7.4 ac), probably supporting no involve wide variation in search sympatric eastern cottontail populations more than three to four New England intensity and methodology (e.g., fecal and local New England cottontail survey cottontails per site. pellet collection, hunter surveys, live results. When totaled, these 2014 local In 2014, State biologists estimated trapping, and road mortality), direct estimates yield a rangewide population that there was: (1) More than 180 km2 comparison with the results of Litvaitis estimate of approximately 17,000 (46,000 ac) of potential habitat in et al. (2006, pp. 1190–1197) is not individual New England cottontails, Connecticut (Kilpatrick et al., in litt. appropriate for the purpose of consisting of: (1) Fewer than 100 rabbits 2014); (2) Approximately 6 km2 (1,500 determining trends in the species’ in Rhode Island (Tefft et al., in litt. ac) in Maine (Boland et al., in litt. 2014); status. Despite this shortcoming, the 2014); (2) Approximately 10,000 in (3) 1.8 km2 (450 ac) in New Hampshire results of these various survey efforts Connecticut (Kilpatrick et al., in litt. 2 provide useful information, including 2014); (3) As many as 4,600 in (Holman et al., in litt. 2014); (4) 87 km the detection of New England Massachusetts (Scarpitti and Piche, in (21,000 ac) in New York (Novak et al., 2 cottontails in a few notable areas litt. 2014); (4) 700 in Maine (Boland et in litt. 2014); and (5) 30 km (7,600 ac) previously considered vacant (e.g., Cape al., in litt. 2014); (5) 180 or fewer in New in Rhode Island (Tefft et al., in litt. Cod National Seashore and Nantucket Hampshire (Holman et al., in litt. 2014); 2014). Estimates for Massachusetts are Island, Massachusetts) (Beattie, in litt. and (6) Approximately 1,600 in New not available. However, there are several 2013; Scarpitti, in litt. 2013). However, York (Novak et al., in litt. 2014). large habitat expanses in Massachusetts, some biologists involved in these survey Rangewide, some of the occupied such as at the 60 km2 (15,000 ac) of efforts conclude that the New England areas are quite small and support few unfragmented habitat found at the cottontail has declined since the early New England cottontails. For example, Massachusetts Military Reservation and 2000s, particularly along the middle two-thirds of the occupied habitat a 2.4-km2 (600-ac) or larger patch within Merrimack River valley in New patches in Maine are less than 2.5 ha Myles Standish State Forest in the Hampshire, extending northward from (6.2 ac) in size and are considered southeastern part of the State (Scarpitti the City of Manchester to Concord, and population sinks (Barbour and Litvaitis and Piche, in litt. 2014). While these in the region of northern Rhode Island 1993, p. 326; Litvaitis and Jakubas 2004, population estimates are encouraging, it (Tur, in litt. 2005; Holman et al., in litt. p. 41) because these patches do not is not yet known whether they are 2014; Tefft et al., in litt. 2014). contain the necessary forage and shelter sustainable due to their current Obtaining population estimates for components for long-term occupancy. In distribution and quality of habitat. The species such as the New England New Hampshire, more than half of the population estimates in Connecticut, cottontail, that are cryptic and subject to 23 sites occupied by the New England Massachusetts, and New York consist of wide population fluctuations within cottontail are less than 3 ha (7.4 ac) areas where the species is likely secure relatively broad geographic areas (Litvaitis et al. 2006, p. 1194). Litvaitis because the populations are large occupied by similar species, is et al. (2006, p. 1194) report that sampled enough to be self-sustaining and the challenging. Nevertheless, wildlife patches in eastern Massachusetts, as habitat supporting those self-sustaining biologists estimated New England well as the majority of those populations is being managed to cottontail population sizes for each constituting the largest extant New maintain its suitability.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:46 Sep 14, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 178 / Tuesday, September 15, 2015 / Proposed Rules 55291

Summary of Range and Distribution— allowing the New England cottontail to England cottontail populations and the In summary, the distribution of the disperse in more northerly and inland distribution of the species contracted species at the time of European contact directions. southward and eastward toward coastal is unknown; however, the species was Despite the spatial and temporal gaps areas. This contraction, however, is not most likely found in greatest abundance in the species’ distribution records, representative of the species’ pre- in coastal areas where shrublands were analysis of the best available Columbian baseline distribution, concentrated and suitable habitat information documents the changes in because extensive amounts of the patches are presumed to have been the historical distribution of the New intervening landscape have been relatively large. New England cottontail England cottontail over time. The converted to other land uses that have occurrence likely progressively evidence clearly indicates that the degraded habitat for the species and diminished inland where suitable distribution greatly increased during the contributed to its currently disjunct habitat patches tend to be smaller and 19th and early 20th centuries, when distribution. relatively short lived. The presence of regionwide conversion of mature forest Rangewide Conservation Efforts the snowshoe hare, a potential to young forest habitat within the competitor, along with climatic interior uplands was at its peak and Beginning in 2008, State and Service conditions that favor the hare, likely shifts in snowshoe hare abundance biologists began organizing a naturally contributed to the provided ample expansion conservation effort for the New England foreshortened distribution of the New opportunities for the New England cottontail. A governance structure was England cottontail. However, these cottontail. In the case of the Hudson formalized in 2011 to enhance natural control processes were River and Lake Champlain valleys, the cooperation between the Maine disrupted when the land use patterns best available information indicates that Department of Inland Fisheries and that accompanied European settlement over a 107-year period the species Wildlife (MDIFW), the New Hampshire changed. The land use patterns altered extended its range northward from Troy, Fish and Game Department (NHFGD), the abundance and distribution of New York, to the Canadian border, a the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries shrublands, particularly in interior New distance of approximately 257 km (160 and Wildlife (MDFW), the Rhode Island England, and thus artificially inflated mi), at a rate of approximately 2.4 km Department of Environmental the amount of suitable habitat available (1.5 mi) per year (Bachman 1837, p. 328; Management), the Connecticut to the New England cottontail. This Foote 1946, p. 39). In the latter half of Department of Energy and artificial increase in suitable habitat the 20th century, harvesting of interior Environmental Protection, the New offset the naturally controlling factors of upland forests waned, and young forest York Department of Environmental climate and competition, thereby habitat capable of maintaining New Conservation, the U.S. Department of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:46 Sep 14, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS EP15SE15.000 55292 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 178 / Tuesday, September 15, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Agriculture’s Natural Resources includes an implementation plan species. Such efforts would include Conservation Service (NRCS), and the through 2030. measures by Federal agencies, Native American Tribes, businesses, Service (hereafter referred to as the Summary of Information Pertaining to organizations, and individuals that Parties). The Parties established an the Five Factors Executive Committee, facilitated by the positively affect the species’ status. Wildlife Management Institute (WMI), Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) Also, Federal, Tribal, State, and foreign and adopted bylaws (Fuller and Tur and implementing regulations (50 CFR recovery actions (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)), and 2012, p. 4) ‘‘to promote recovery, part 424) set forth procedures for adding Federal consultation requirements (16 restoration, and conservation of the New species to, removing species from, or U.S.C. 1536) constitute conservation reclassifying species on the Federal England cottontail and its associated measures. Lists of Endangered and Threatened habitats so that listing is not necessary’’ Read together, sections 4(a)(1) and Wildlife and Plants. Under section (New England cottontail Executive 4(b)(1)(A), as reflected in our regulations 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be Committee, in litt. 2011). This Executive at 50 CFR 424.119(f), require us to take determined to be endangered or into account those factors that either Committee comprises high-level agency threatened based on any of the positively or negatively affect a species representatives, capable of making following five factors: status so that we can determine whether staffing and funding decisions. (A) The present or threatened a species meets the definition of The Executive Committee established destruction, modification, or threatened or endangered. In so doing, a Technical Committee, comprising curtailment of its habitat or range; we analyze a species’ risk of extinction staff-level biologists with biological and (B) Overutilization for commercial, by assessing its status (i.e., is it in conservation planning expertise, and recreational, scientific, or educational decline or at risk of decline and at what delegated eight initial charges to purposes; rate) and consider the likelihood that advance the work of New England (C) Disease or predation; current and future conditions and cottontail conservation, including (D) The inadequacy of existing actions will promote or threaten a preparation of a multifaceted regulatory mechanisms; species’ persistence by increasing, (E) Other natural or manmade factors conservation strategy with quantifiable eliminating, or adequately reducing one affecting its continued existence. or more threats to the species. This objectives to measure conservation In making this finding, information determination requires us to make a success (New England cottontail pertaining to the New England Executive Committee, in litt. 2011). The prediction about the future persistence cottontail in relation to the five factors of a species. Technical Committee drafted, and the provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is Executive Committee approved, the In making our 12-month finding on discussed below. In considering what the petition, we considered and 2012 peer-reviewed Conservation factors might constitute threats, we must Strategy for the New England Cottontail evaluated the best available scientific look beyond the mere exposure of the and commercial information. (Conservation Strategy) (Fuller and Tur species to the factor to determine 2012, available at http:// whether the species responds to the Factor A. The Present or Threatened www.newenglandcottontail.org factor in a way that causes actual effects Destruction, Modification, or (accessed March 18, 2015)). This to the species. If there is exposure to a Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range Conservation Strategy describes: (1) An factor, but no response, or only a The New England cottontail requires assessment of the conservation status of positive response, that factor is not a thicket habitat and is frequently and threats facing the New England threat. If there is exposure and the associated with shrublands and other cottontail; (2) The process used to species responds negatively, the factor ephemeral stages of forest regeneration develop a conservation design that may be a threat and we then attempt to after a disturbance such as fire, forest includes those landscapes, hereafter determine how significant a threat it is. insect outbreak, timber harvesting, or referred to as Focus Areas, where If the threat is significant, it may drive beaver activity (Litvaitis 2001, p. 466). conservation actions will be taken to or contribute to the risk of extinction of Because early successional species achieve a series of explicit conservation the species such that the species require habitats that generally persist goals; (3) The objectives related to warrants listing as endangered or only for a short time, continual turnover achieving those goals; (4) Important threatened as those terms are defined by of mature forest somewhere on the conservation actions needed to protect the Act. This does not necessarily landscape is necessary for the species to and manage habitat; (5) require empirical proof of a threat. The maintain its distribution and Communications needed to ensure combination of exposure and some abundance. implementation; (6) Research needed to corroborating evidence of how the The amount of early successional improve understanding of the ecology of species is likely affected could suffice. forest cover is limited in the States the New England cottontail; (7) The mere identification of factors that where the New England cottontail Monitoring techniques to evaluate the could affect a species negatively is not occurs. Data from the U.S. Department effectiveness of the implemented sufficient to compel a finding that of Agriculture indicate that the area of actions and identify any changes needed listing is appropriate; we require early successional forest cover in the to increase their effectiveness; (8) The evidence that these factors are operative southern New England States commitment of the participating threats that act on the species to the (Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode agencies to carry out the conservation point that the species meets the Island) declined from 36 percent of the effort; and (9) The process for modifying definition of an endangered or total timber land area in the early 1950s the Conservation Strategy in the future, threatened species under the Act. to 5 percent in the late 1990s (Brooks if necessary, in light of any new and Although this language focuses on 2003, p. 68). Jackson (1973, p. 21) relevant information (Fuller and Tur impacts negatively affecting a species, reported a decline in New England 2012, p. 4). The Conservation Strategy section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires us cottontails in Vermont, New Hampshire, focuses on securing New England to consider efforts by any State, foreign and Maine, and attributed the decline to cottontail within its current distribution nation, or political subdivision of a changes in habitat, primarily to the (see figure 1). The Conservation Strategy State or foreign nation to protect the reduction of cover on a landscape scale.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:46 Sep 14, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 178 / Tuesday, September 15, 2015 / Proposed Rules 55293

Inventories from the U.S. Forest most developed in the southwestern approximately 80 percent of its forest Service reveal that the extent of forest in corner and up the Connecticut River land to various types of development by the seedling-sapling stage (thickets Valley. Notably, the most densely the year 2020. Further, this analysis favorable to the New England cottontail) human-populated areas of Connecticut predicted that the greatest loss of forest declined by more than 80 percent in and Rhode Island are relatively devoid lands, approaching 24,281 ha (60,000 New Hampshire from 845,425 ha of New England cottontails. In ac), would occur in the southeastern (2,089,091 ac) to 131,335 ha (324,536 ac) association with human populations, portion of the State, principally in during the period 1960 to 1983 (R. early successional habitats that once Rockingham, Hillsborough, and Brooks, personal communication, in supported New England cottontails have Strafford Counties. These counties Litvaitis and Villafuerte 1996, p. 689) been converted to a variety of uses that account for all known New England and by 14 percent in New York from make them unsuitable for the cottontail, cottontail occurrences in the State. In 1980 to 1993 (Askins 1998, p. 167). thereby contributing to habitat loss and fact, observations by Service biologists While the forest inventory results fragmentation (Litvaitis et al. 2006, p. in 2005 confirmed that 2 of the 23 New reported by Brooks (2003, p. 68) found 1194). In the Seacoast Region of New Hampshire cottontail sites known to be an increase in the early successional Hampshire and Maine, the effects of occupied at some time from 2001 to forest component of northern New habitat fragmentation are having a 2003 had been lost to development, and England States, most of the increase deleterious effect on remnant 5 other sites were posted ‘‘for sale.’’ occurred in the industrial forest land of populations of the New England Noss and Peters (1995, p. 10) consider northern Maine, well north of the cottontail, such that enhancing gene eastern barrens to be among the 21 most historical and current range of the New flow by improving habitat or conducting endangered ecosystems in the United England cottontail. Maine’s translocations may be required to States. Some eastern barrens, such as southernmost counties (York and maintain populations in those the pitch pine and scrub oak barrens of Cumberland) that still support landscapes (Fenderson et al. 2014, pp. Cape Cod, Massachusetts, are suitable populations of New England cottontails, 1–23). Among shrub-dominated plant habitat for the New England cottontail. have experienced declines in young communities, scrub oak and pitch pine It is unclear to what extent barrens in forest stands, from about 38 percent in barrens that provide cottontail habitat other States also supported occurrences 1971 to 11 percent in 1995 (Litvaitis et have been heavily modified or of New England cottontails; however, as al. 2003b, p. 881). Litvaitis et al. (1999, destroyed by development (Patterson of 2014 the barrens of southeastern p. 106) reported that remaining shrub- 2002, unpublished presentation Massachusetts are known to be dominated and early successional abstract). occupied by the New England cottontail habitats in the northeast continue to Litvaitis et al. (1999, p. 106) (Scarpitti and Piche, in litt. 2014). decline in both coverage and suitability concluded that shrub-dominated and Within the historical range of the New England cottontail, the abundance of to the wildlife species dependent upon early successional habitat may be the early successional habitats continues to them. most altered and among the most rapidly declining communities in the decline (Litvaitis et al. 1999, p. 106; The decline of early successional Northeast. Based on changes in human Brooks 2003, p. 65), and for the most forest in the Northeast is primarily due populations and associated part, remaining patches are small and to forest maturation (Litvaitis 1993b, p. development, without intervention, this located in substantially modified 870), which is a natural process. trend will likely continue. For example, landscapes (Litvaitis and Villafuerte However, other influences are U.S. Census Bureau data for the New 1996, p. 687; Litvaitis 2003, p. 115; compounding the situation. Habitat England States indicate a 3.8-percent Litvaitis et al. 2008, p. 179). The destruction and modification are population growth, equating to an fragmentation of remaining suitable occurring as a result of human increase of 522,348 people, during the habitats into smaller patches separated population growth and development period 2000 to 2010 (U.S. Census by roads and residential and other types (Brooks 2003, p. 65). The three southern Bureau 2011). Analyses of U.S. Census of development can have profound New England States, Connecticut data demonstrates that, in 1982, the effects on the occupancy and (greater than 270 inhabitants per km2 number of acres developed for every persistence of New England cottontail (700 inhabitants per mi2)), Rhode Island new person was 0.68 in New England populations. Barbour and Litvaitis (greater than 380 inhabitants per km2 (http://wrc.iewatershed.com (accessed (1993, p. 321) found that New England (1,000 inhabitants per mi2)), and May 2006)), but in 1997, the number of cottontails occupying small patches of Massachusetts (greater than 300 acres developed for every new person habitat less than or equal to 2.5 ha inhabitants per km2 (800 inhabitants per was 2.33, an almost four-fold increase. (approximately 6 ac) were mi2)), which constitute the center of the Given the 1997 rate of development for predominantly males, had lower body New England cottontail’s range, are each additional resident (0.94 ha (2.33 mass, consumed lower quality forage, among the most densely populated areas ac) per person) and the measured and had to feed farther from protective in the United States, with only New population growth for New England, cover than rabbits in larger patches (5 ha Jersey and the District of Columbia 491,007 additional ha (1.2 million or greater than 12 ac). This study also being more densely populated (U.S. additional ac) of wildlife habitat would demonstrated that New England Census Bureau, 2012). Similarly, New have been converted and fragmented cottontails in the smaller patches had York, at greater than 150 inhabitants per during the period 2000 to 2010 (adapted only half the survival rate of those in the km2 (400 inhabitants per mi2), ranks from U.S. Census Bureau 2011, (http:// larger patches due to increased eighth among the 50 States in wrc.iewatershed.com (accessed May mortality from predation. Barbour and population density, though much of this 2006)), and it is highly likely that this Litvaitis (1993, p. 321) state that the density is centered around a few urban included habitat that was suitable and skewed sex ratios (or single occupant) areas, especially New York City. Rhode supported New England cottontails. and low survival among rabbits on small Island is most developed to the east of As an example, The Society for the patches may effectively prevent Narragansett Bay; the largest forest Protection of New Hampshire’s Forests reproduction from occurring on small patches remain along the less developed (Sundquist and Stevens 1999, p. entire) patches. Due to skewed sex ratios and western edge of the State. Connecticut is estimated that New Hampshire will lose low survival rates, the presence of New

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:46 Sep 14, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 55294 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 178 / Tuesday, September 15, 2015 / Proposed Rules

England cottontails in these small dependent species like the New England Conservation Efforts To Reduce Habitat patches is dependent on the dispersal of cottontail are less likely to occur in a Destruction, Modification, or individuals from source populations landscape with many small landowners. Curtailment of Its Range (Barbour and Litvaitis 1993, p. 326). Based on computer simulations As described above, the Conservation Litvaitis et al. (2008, p. 179) and demonstrating that populations Strategy (Fuller and Tur 2012, entire) Barbour and Litvaitis (1993, p. 321) dominated by small patches were likely guides the New England cottontail’s to go extinct (Livaitis and Villafuerte view these small patches as sink rangewide conservation and was 1996, entire), Litvaitis et al. (2006, p. habitats. The relationship between specifically developed to consider the 1194) conclude that the five remaining winter survival and food resources is species’ life-history traits or resource disjunct populations of the New supported by a 2010 study on eastern needs. These traits commonly include England cottontail, as currently cottontail, the results of which could be morphological, developmental, and configured, do not represent a stable extrapolated to New England cottontail, behavioral characteristics such as body condition for long-term persistence. which concluded supplemental feeding size; growth patterns; size and age at of animals in small habitat patches More recently, genetic analysis of New maturity; reproductive effort; mating enhanced winter survival (Weidman England cottontail populations in Maine success; the number, size, and sex of 2010, p. 20). and Seacoast New Hampshire Natural or anthropogenic disturbances corroborated the negative effects of offspring; and rate of senescence (Ronce that create small, scattered openings fragmentation (Fenderson et al. 2014, and Olivieri 2004, p. 227). Factors may no longer provide habitats capable pp. 13 and 17). Fenderson et al.’s (2014, addressing habitat quality and quantity of sustaining New England cottontail p. 17) findings of isolated populations were also considered. Given the species’ populations because, in contemporary with low effective population sizes and life history characteristics, the key to its landscapes, generalist predators low genetic diversity suggest that viability is ensuring that ample effectively exploit prey restricted to populations in the study area were resources are available to support such patches (Brown and Litvaitis 1995, vulnerable to extirpation. population increases, as opposed to p. 1005; Villafuerte et al. 1997, p. 148). In summary, the best available maximizing the survival of individuals. Barbour and Litvaitis (1993, p. 321) information indicates that in parts of the In addition, we also recognize that the concluded that local populations of species’ range, New England cottontails landscape-level alterations occurring New England cottontails may be occur on small parcels, where food throughout the species’ range have vulnerable to extinction if large patches quality is low and winter mortality to fragmented New England cottontail of habitat are not maintained. The predators (see Factor C below) is populations and substantially increased Service concludes this likely explains unsustainably high (Barbour and the risk of extinction (Litvaitis et al. why 93 percent of the apparently Litvaitis 1993, p. 321; Brown and 2006, p. 1195; Fenderson et al. 2014, p. suitable habitat patches that were Litvaitis 1995, p. 1005). In contrast, 17). searched by Litvaitis et al. (2006, pp. several large habitat tracts occur in the The Conservation Strategy (Fuller and 1190–1197) were found to be Cape Cod area of Massachusetts, Tur 2012, p. 19) contains a summary of unoccupied. western Connecticut, and eastern New the information contained in the Human population growth has had York, and those populations are likely Service’s 2013 Species Assessment and another effect, in addition to habitat loss secure (Scarpitti and Piche, in litt. 2014; Listing Priority Assignment Form and fragmentation, on forests within the Kilpatrick et al., in litt. 2014; Novak et (Service 2013, entire) and concluded New England cottontail range. Between al., in litt. 2014). Further, the current that the primary threat to the species 1950 and 2000, the human population distribution of the species is was habitat modification resulting, in increased 44 percent in southern New discontinuous, being divided by part, from: (1) Forest maturation; (2) England and 71 percent in northern expanses of unsuitable habitat that Disruption of disturbance regimes that New England (Brooks 2003, p. 70). With separate the range into five population set back succession; and (3) Habitat the increase in human population, an clusters. modification, fragmentation, and increase in the parcelization (i.e., the Among the factors contributing to the destruction resulting from development fragmentation of ownership) of long-term and rangewide reduction in (Fuller and Tur 2015, pp. 19, 21–23). northeastern forests into smaller and habitat, habitat succession was The Conservation Strategy prescribes smaller parcels followed. The majority considered by Litvaitis (1993b, p. 866) forest management practices on public of private northeastern forest owners, to be the most important. However, at a and private lands to reverse forest excluding industrial forest owners, own local or individual patch scale, loss or maturation and increase habitat capable less than 4 ha (10 ac) each; about 12 modification of habitat due to of supporting the New England percent of timberland in the Northeast development is also significant. In cottontail (Fuller and Tur 2012, pp. 20– is publicly owned (Brooks 2003, p. 69). general, the range of the New England 21) and identifies potential landscapes An increasingly urbanized landscape, cottontail has contracted by 86 percent (e.g., Focus Areas) where conservation with many small, partially forested since 1960 (Litvaitis et al. 2006, p. actions would be implemented. The residential parcels, imposes societal and 1190), and current land use trends in Conservation Strategy identified 41 logistical restrictions on forest the region indicate that the rate of separate Focus Areas distributed across management options (Brooks 2003, p. change, about 2 percent range loss per all 6 States within the species’ current 65). Shrublands, clear cuts, and thickets year, is likely to continue if range and containing a total habitat area are ‘‘unpopular habitats’’ among the conservation actions to address the in excess of 20,000 ha (50,000 ac). Each public (Askins 2001, p. 407), and decline are not implemented (Litvaitis individual Focus Area will contain private forest owners are resistant to and Johnson 2002, p. 4; Litvaitis et al. populations ranging from 100 to 2,500 managing for this type of habitat (Trani 2006, p. 1195; Fenderson et al. 2014, p. animals, as appropriate (Fuller and Tur et al. 2001, p. 418; Kilpatrick et al., in 17). This is supported by results from 2012, p. 30). litt. 2014). Timber harvesting and fire or various State surveys conducted since The Conservation Strategy specifies other disturbance regimes that would 2004 (Tefft et al., in litt. 2014; Holman that conservation of the species will be maintain or regenerate early et al., in litt. 2014; Boland et al., in litt. achieved by implementing rangewide successional habitat for thicket- 2014; Kilpatrick et al., in litt. 2014). conservation actions that establish:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:46 Sep 14, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 178 / Tuesday, September 15, 2015 / Proposed Rules 55295

Æ 1 New England cottontail landscape Tur 2015, p. 55). However, although we Connecticut site, but provided no capable of supporting 2,500 or more have evidence of demonstrated supporting data. individuals; implementation success, not all of the Carlton et al. (2000, p. 46) suggest that Æ 5 landscapes each capable of actions implemented have yet to show overhunting of New England cottontails supporting 1,000 or more individuals; full effectiveness for the species (see led to their decline in the mid-20th and Policy for the Evaluation of century, and that this decline indirectly Æ 12 landscapes each capable of Conservation Efforts Analysis section contributed to the deleterious supporting 500 or more individuals. below). The 2014 Annual Performance introduction of eastern cottontails by Each New England cottontail Report acknowledges that suitable hunters seeking to compensate for the landscape/Focus Area should comprise habitat is not equally distributed across lost opportunity to hunt rabbits. The a network of 15 or more habitat patches, the Focus Areas and that due to the Service concurs that the introduction of each 10 ha (25 ac) or greater in size, and ephemeral nature of most of the species’ eastern cottontails, a nonnative situated within dispersal distance (less habitat, additional management and competitor, has been a factor in the than 1 km (0.6 miles)) to other patches maintenance actions are necessary to decline of New England cottontail of suitable habitat (Fuller and Tur 2012, keep the habitat in suitable condition populations (see Factor C below) p. 43). This dispersal distance was (Fuller and Tur 2015, p. 55). because eastern cottontails are now the based on Litvaitis and Villafuerte’s predominant rabbit throughout all of the Summary of Factor A—We identified (1996, p. 689) conclusion that dispersal former range of the New England a number of threats to New England of New England cottontail fits a cottontail, except southern Maine. The cottontail habitat that have resulted in geometric distribution, with a maximum prevailing view indicates the primary the destruction and modification of distance of 3 km (1.9 mi). Recent determinant of cottontail abundance is analysis of gene flow confirms the habitat and a concomitant curtailment habitat (Chapman et al. 1982, p. 114). accuracy of this distance, as evidenced in the species’ range. Although Available evidence suggests that habitat by Fenderson et al.’s (2014, p. 15) implementation of the Conservation loss through forest maturation and other conclusion that New England cottontails Strategy is underway, the population causes (Jackson 1973, p. 21; Brooks and have difficulty traversing distances and habitat levels specified have not yet Birch 1988, p. 85; Litvaitis et al. 1999, greater than 5 km (3 mi). been attained (Fuller and Tur 2015, p. p. 101), rather than hunting pressure, The Conservation Strategy Landscape 18). Consequently, despite previous and was the primary reason for the decline planning further specifies that actions ongoing conservation actions, we of New England cottontail populations should take into account the habitat conclude that the destruction, in the mid-20th century. matrix (condition of the landscape modification, or curtailment of the New Although hunting of New England surrounding habitat patches), because England cottontail’s range continues to cottontails occurs, hunting pressure is areas with numerous anthropogenic be a threat. In the Policy for the low relative to the overall abundance of features or substantial natural barriers Evaluation of Conservation Efforts eastern and New England cottontails are likely to be highly fragmented and Analysis section below we further and not a significant source of mortality form barriers to dispersal that may evaluate the Conservation Strategy to compared to other factors. State wildlife otherwise encumber conservation efforts determine if the threat is expected to biologists postulate that hunting has a (Fuller and Tur 2012, p. 43). The persist into the future. minimal effect on the New England Technical Committee addressed the Factor B. Overutilization for cottontail population in those States habitat matrix conditions by building in Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or where hunting is legal (Parker, in litt. redundancy as expressed in the creation Educational Purposes 2004; Stolgitis, in litt. 2000; Scarpitti of the 41 Focus Areas—not all 41 Focus and Piche, in litt. 2014; Tefft et al., in. Areas will be needed to achieve the Recreational Hunting litt. 2014; Kilpatrick et al., in litt. 2014, landscape goals specified above. The Novak et al., in litt. 2014). Most States The New England cottontail is Conservation Strategy identifies a suite now have fewer rabbit and other small considered a small game animal by the of implementation objectives, many of game hunters than in earlier decades (S. northeastern States’ wildlife agencies. It which are intended to reduce the threat Cabrera, in litt. 2003; J. Organ, in litt. of habitat destruction, modification, and is legally hunted within season and 2002; U.S. Department of the Interior curtailment of the New England with bag limitations in four of the six and U.S. Department of Commerce cottontail’s range (Fuller and Tur 2012, States known to have extant 2002), and the New England cottontail pp. 44–87). populations: New York, Connecticut, is not the rabbit species harvested by The Conservation Strategy’s 2014 Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. Maine most small game hunters. For example, Annual Performance Report documents closed its cottontail season in 2004, and in a 54-month study of eastern and New previous and ongoing implementation it remains closed (MEDIFW 2004, England cottontails in Connecticut, actions that have and are addressing MEDIFW 2015). New Hampshire has approximately 87 percent of the 375 loss of habitat for the New England modified its hunting regulations to rabbits killed by hunters and examined cottontail (Fuller and Tur 2015, entire). prohibit the take of cottontails in those by the State were identified as eastern For example, by the autumn of 2013, portions of the State where the New cottontails, and approximately 13 approximately 14,000 ac (5,666 ha) of England cottontail is known to occur percent were New England cottontails habitat were under evaluation or (NHFG 2004, NHFG 2015). (adapted from Goodie et al. 2005, p. 4 contract for appropriate management One turn-of-the-century account and Table 2). Similarly, in Rhode Island, actions, and by the end of 2014, specific relative to hunting New England most rabbit hunting occurs on farm habitat treatments were estimated to be cottontails (Fisher 1898, p. 198) states lands, where the eastern cottontail is complete on more than 6,700 ac (2,711 that ‘‘although hundreds are killed most often the targeted species and New ha) of State, other public, or private land every winter nevertheless they appear to England cottontails are absent (Stolgitis, (Fuller and Tur 2015, p. 55). In addition, be just as common at the present time in litt. 2000; Tefft et al., in litt. 2014). more than 10,000 ac (4,047 ha) of self- as 20 years ago.’’ Tracy (1995, p. 12) In a New Hampshire study prior to the sustaining New England cottontail reported extensive hunting as a possible closing of cottontail hunting, of 50 habitat has been identified (Fuller and cause for the lack of cottontails at one collared New England cottontails

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:46 Sep 14, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 55296 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 178 / Tuesday, September 15, 2015 / Proposed Rules

monitored, only 1 was taken by a hunter Conservation Efforts To Reduce England cottontails obtained as breeding (J. Litvaitis, pers. comm., 2000). Overutilization for Commercial, stock for the captive-breeding effort at In addition to level of hunter effort, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational the Roger Williams Park Zoo in the New England cottontail’s behavior Purposes Providence, Rhode Island, receive a also influences its risk of exposure to As discussed above, New Hampshire complete veterinary exam (Fuller and hunting mortality. For example, New does not allow cottontail hunting in Tur 2015, p. 50). Additionally, England cottontails forage within or areas where the New England cottontail researchers at Brown University are close to dense cover (Smith and Litvaitis is known to occur, and Maine does not studying the disease ecology of New 2000, p. 2134), and typically hold in allow cottontail hunting at all. We are England and eastern cottontails (Smith, safe areas when disturbed. They also unaware of any other conservation in litt. 2014). And lastly, in New York, tend to remain in dense habitat and are, efforts to eliminate the very limited researchers are studying parasites therefore, not as easily run by hounds hunting mortality occurring in the (Fuller and Tur 2015, p. 54). To date, no and taken by hunters as eastern species’ range. However, as discussed incidences of disease or parasites have been reported from these three cottontails or snowshoe hares above, increasing habitat patch size monitoring efforts or from other sources. (Kilpatrick et al., in litt. 2014). Research (Factor A) may further reduce the The best available information indicates shows that New England cottontails are limited exposure that individual New that disease is not a threat to the New more vulnerable to mortality from England cottontails have to hunting England cottontail. predation in smaller patches of habitat mortality. than in larger ones (Barbour and Summary of Factor B—We conclude Predation Litvaitis 1993, p. 321). This pattern may based on the best scientific and commercial information available that hold true for hunting mortality as well Brown and Litvaitis (1995, p. 1007) overutilization for commercial, because rabbits on small patches found that mammalian predators recreational, scientific, or educational eventually exploit food available in the accounted for the loss of 17 of 40 New purposes does not currently pose a best cover, and venture farther from England cottontails in their study. threat to the New England cottontail, shelter to feed where there is less escape Barbour and Litvaitis (1993, p. 325) nor is it likely to become a threat in the cover in which to hide. determined that coyotes (Canis latrans) future. and red foxes were the primary Pest Management Factor C. Disease or Predation predators of New England cottontails in New Hampshire. Coyotes first appeared Rabbits may be regarded as pests and Disease in New Hampshire and Maine in the killed by gardeners and farmers. Cottontails are known to contract a 1930s, in Vermont in the 1940s, and in However, because of differences in number of different diseases, such as southern New England in the 1950s habitat preference of the two cottontail tularemia, and are naturally afflicted (Foster et al. 2002, p. 1348; DeGraaf and species, most farmers and homeowners with both ectoparasites such as ticks, Yamasaki 2001, p. 341). Since then, are more likely to encounter eastern mites, and fleas and endoparasites such coyote populations have increased cottontails, which occur in the more as tapeworms and nematodes (Eabry throughout the Northeast (Foster et al. open habitats of farms and residential 1968, pp. 14–15). Disease has been 2002, p. 1348; Litvaitis and Harrison lawns, than New England cottontails. attributed to population declines in 1989, p. 1180), and they even occur on Therefore, targeted pest management of rabbits over numerous areas (Nelson many offshore islands. Further, coyotes rabbits is unlikely to be a significant 1909, p. 35); however, there is little have become especially abundant in source of mortality of New England evidence to suggest disease is currently human-dominated habitats (Oehler and cottontails. a limiting factor for the New England Litvaitis 1996, p. 2070). Litvaitis et al. In summary, based on the best cottontail. DeVos et al. (1956) in Eabry (1984, p. 632) noted that cottontails available information, we concur with (1983, p. 15) stated that the introduced were a major prey of bobcats (Felis Litvaitis’ (1993a, p. 11) previous eastern cottontail on the Massachusetts rufus) in New Hampshire during the assessment that hunting restrictions or islands of Nantucket and Martha’s 1950s, and were recorded in the other nonhabitat-based management Vineyard probably competed with the stomachs of 43 percent of the bobcats will likely have no influence on current native New England cottontail and examined; later, it was determined that or future populations of the species, and introduced tularemia to the islands. the cottontails found in the bobcat study we conclude that current hunting However, it is not known whether were most likely all New England pressure is a stressor for only a very tularemia played a role in the cottontails (Litvaitis, in litt. 2005). In limited number of individual New disappearance of New England addition to coyotes and bobcats, other England cottontails and does not appear cottontail from the islands. Chapman mammalian predators of cottontail to be a significant mortality factor or and Ceballos (1990, p. 96) do not rabbits in New England include weasels threat for the species as a whole. While identify disease as an important factor (Mustela sp.) and fishers (Martes the best available information indicates in the dynamics of contemporary pennanti). Avian predation is also the hunting is not a threat now or likely cottontail populations. Rather, they considered a source of mortality for to be in the future, should the New indicate that habitat is key to cottontail New England cottontails (Smith and England cottontail’s population decline abundance and that populations are Litvaitis 1999, p. 2136), and both barred to substantially low levels in the future regulated through mortality and owls (Strix varia) and great horned owls such that the viability of individual dispersal (see the Life History and (Bubo virginianus) took cottontails in a animals become substantially important Factor A sections above for further New Hampshire study, where an to the species as a whole, the current discussion regarding the importance of enclosure prevented losses to stressor of hunting mortality may rise to habitat). mammalian predators. Litvaitis et al. the level of a threat. In addition, we Three efforts are currently underway (2008, p. 180) conclude that the have no information to indicate that involving research and monitoring of abundance of hunting perches for red- pest management actions are affecting disease and parasites in the New tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) and New England cottontails. England cottontail. First, wild New other raptors reduces the quality of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:46 Sep 14, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 178 / Tuesday, September 15, 2015 / Proposed Rules 55297

habitat afforded cottontails along power is considered the single biggest threat to and Litvaitis (1993, pp. 321–327) found lines. the recovery of that species (Forys and that, as food in the most secure areas Winter severity, measured by Humphrey 1999, p. 251). According to was depleted, New England cottontails persistence of snow cover, is believed to the American Veterinary Medical were forced to utilize lower quality affect New England cottontail survival Association (2002), cats occur in 31.6 forage or feed farther from cover where because it increases the rabbits’ percent of homes in the United States, the risk of predation was greater and vulnerability to predation, particularly and the average number of cats per that, as a result, New England in low-quality habitat patches (Brown household is 2.1. We do not have direct cottontails on small patches of habitat and Litvaitis 1995, pp. 1005–1011). evidence regarding the role of domestic were killed at twice the rates and earlier Compared to snowshoe hares, New cats in influencing New England in winter than cottontails on larger England cottontails have cottontail populations; however, Rhode habitat patches. Furthermore, proportionately heavier foot loading Island biologists hypothesize that cats Villafuerte et al.’s (1997, pp. 149–150) (i.e., feet sink farther into the snow) and may be a threat to New England study of New England cottontail urea do not turn white in winter (pelage cottontails in that State (Tefft et. al., in nitrogen:creatinine ratios demonstrated color contrasts with snow making the litt. 2014). Given the high human that New England cottontails on small species more visible to predators). population and housing densities found patches exhibited reduced ratios that Villafuerte et al. (1997, p. 151) found throughout the range of the New were indicative of nutrient deprivation that snow cover reduces the availability England cottontail, the domestic cat and that may have led individuals to of high-quality foods, and likely results may be a predator of the species, though forage in suboptimal cover where they in rabbits becoming weakened the lack of specific information makes it experienced higher predation rates than nutritionally. In a weakened state, impossible to determine the extent of individuals occupying larger patches rabbits are more vulnerable to the possible predation. (Villafuerte et al. 1997, pp. 149–150). predation. Brown and Litvaitis (1995, Predation is a natural source of Villafuerte et al. (1997, p. 151) pp. 1005–1011) found that, during mortality for all rabbits. Under historical concluded that forage limitations winters with prolonged snow cover, a circumstances predation would not imposed by habitat fragmentation greater proportion of the cottontails in have been a factor that posed a risk to determine the viability of local their study were killed by predators. the New England cottontail’s survival. populations of New England cottontails Eighty-five percent of the current However, the majority of present-day by influencing their vulnerability to occurrences of the New England thicket habitats supporting New predation. cottontail are within 50 miles of the England cottontails are of an insufficient Thus, as landscapes become more coast, and 100 percent are within 75 size to provide adequate cover and food fragmented, vulnerability of New miles of the coast. Litvaitis and Johnson to sustain the species’ populations amid England cottontails to predation (2002, p. 21) hypothesize that snow high predation rates from today’s more increases not only because there are cover may explain this largely coastal diverse set of natural and human- more predators, but also because distribution of this species in the induced mid-sized carnivores (Brown cottontail habitat quantity and quality Northeast (generally less snow falls and and Litvaitis 1995, pp. 1005–1011; (forage and escape cover) are reduced fewer snow cover days occur in coastal Villafuerte et al. 1997, pp. 148–149). (Smith and Litvaitis 2000, pp. 2134– versus interior areas) and may be an The best available information 2140). Individuals on larger patches important factor defining the northern suggests that land use patterns influence were less vulnerable to predation; limit of its range. The preceding studies predation rates and New England therefore, large patches of habitat may suggest that a stochastic event, such as cottontail survival in several ways. be essential for sustaining populations a winter or consecutive winters with Brown and Litvaitis (1995, pp. 1005– of this species in a human-altered unusually persistent snowfall (see 1011) compared the survival of landscape. Factor E—Climate Change), will reduce transmitter-equipped New England Conservation Efforts To Reduce Disease the number and distribution of New cottontails with habitat features in or Predation England cottontails due to predation. surrounding habitat patches. They This effect would not have been a found that the extent of developed As discussed above, disease is not concern under historical conditions. lands, coniferous cover, and lack of known to be a threat to the New However, with the current level of surface water features were associated England cottontail. Therefore, no habitat fragmentation and the number of with an increase in predation rates. In conservation measures to manage small patches of habitat (Factor A), addition, Oehler and Litvaitis (1996, pp. disease have been planned or coupled with vulnerability to predation 2070–2079) examined the effects of implemented (Fuller and Tur 2012, p. in these small patches, winter severity contemporary land uses on the 55). Nevertheless, as described above, could affect the persistence of local abundance of coyotes and foxes and three conservation efforts are underway populations and could contribute to concluded that the abundance of these to monitor and investigate new further reductions in the range of the generalist predators doubled as forest instances of disease should they occur species. cover decreased and agricultural land within the species. New England cottontails are known or use increased. Thus, the populations of Predation is considered to be a expected to be killed by domestic dogs predators on the New England cottontail stressor, in that small New England (Canis familiaris) and cats (Felis catus) increased substantially at the times cottontail populations occupying (Walter et al. 2001, p. 17; Litvaitis and prior to the regeneration of agricultural landscapes containing insufficient Jakubas 2004, p. 15; Kays and DeWan and other lands to more mature forests, amounts of high-quality habitat are 2004, p. 4). The significance of the which further depressed New England particularly vulnerable. Currently, there domestic cat as a predator on numerous cottontail populations. are no efforts in place to suppress species is well known (Coleman et al. The abundance of food and risk of predator numbers to increase New 1997, pp. 1–8). The domestic cat has predation are highly influential in England cottontail survival (Fuller and been identified as a significant predator determining the persistence of small- Tur 2012, p. 65; Boland et al., in litt. of the endangered Lower Keys marsh and medium-sized vertebrates such as 2014; Holman et al., in litt. 2014; rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris hefneri), and the New England cottontail. Barbour Scarpitti and Piche, in litt. 2014; Tefft et

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:46 Sep 14, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 55298 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 178 / Tuesday, September 15, 2015 / Proposed Rules

al., in litt. 2014; Kilpatrick et al., in litt. the New England cottontail is primarily prohibits the export, take, and 2014; Novak et al., in litt. 2014). Instead, an upland, terrestrial species that possession of State species that have conservation efforts to increase habitat sometimes occurs along the margins of been identified as endangered or availability, as described in the these wetland types. Federal and State threatened (12 MRS sections 12801– Conservation Actions to Reduce Habitat laws, such as section 404 of the Clean 12810). Under MESA’s endangered Destruction, Modification, or Water Act of 1972 (86 Stat. 816) and designation, the State agencies have the Curtailment of Its Range section above, Maine’s Natural Resources Protection ability to review projects that are carried are being implemented that indirectly Act (Title 38, section 435–449), that out or funded by State and Federal reduce New England cottontail provide protection to wetlands and agencies and assess those projects for vulnerability to predation. upland buffers offer protection to only effects to the New England cottontail. In Summary of Factor C—Disease does a small number of New England some cases, projects may be modified or not appear to be an important factor cottontail occurrences. mitigated to ensure that deleterious affecting New England cottontail State wildlife agencies in the effects to the New England cottontail are populations and is not considered a Northeast have the authority to regulate minimized. However, the existing threat to the species, nor is it expected hunting of the New England cottontail statutes cannot require the creation and to become a threat in the future. by setting hunting seasons and bag maintenance of suitable habitat at the Predation is a routine aspect of the life limits. However, most northeastern spatial scales described under Factor A; history of most species, and under States cannot restrict the take of New consequently, the loss of habitat due to natural conditions (i.e., prior to England cottontails without also natural forest succession is likely to settlement by Europeans in the reducing hunting opportunities for the proceed. Northeast and the substantial habitat eastern cottontail, a common species, Since the State listing of the species, alteration that has followed) predation because the two species are similar in the distribution of the New England was likely not a threat to the persistence appearance and cannot be easily cottontail has continued to decline in of the New England cottontail. Today, distinguished at a distance, and Maine (Fenderson 2010, p. 104), while however, the diversity of predators has sometimes occur within the same in New Hampshire the distribution increased, the amount of suitable habitat patches (Walter et al. 2001, p. declined, but is now improving at some cottontail habitat has decreased, and the 21). In Maine, where the only cottontail locations where active management is remaining habitat is highly fragmented species is the New England cottontail, occurring (Fenderson 2014, p. 12; H. with remnant habitat patches often cottontail hunting has been prohibited Holman, pers. comm., 2015). This slight small in size. The best available since 2004 (MEDIFW 2004; MEDIFW improvement, however, is likely information strongly suggests that most 2014). In recognition of the declining attributed to implementation of cottontails occupying small habitat status of the New England cottontail, voluntary conservation measures to patches will be killed by predators, as New Hampshire similarly closed the improve habitat and population few rabbits that disperse into or are born eastern cottontail hunting season in in those areas live long enough to breed; 2004/2005 in those portions of the State augmentation efforts described under thus, most small thicket habitat patches where New England cottontails are Factor A (H. Holman, pers. comm., are unoccupied by cottontails. Since known to occur, and it has remained 2015), and not to regulatory processes. predation is strongly influenced by closed (NHFG 2004; NHFG 2014). The New England cottontail has been habitat quantity and quality, we Harvest of New England cottontail is identified as a ‘‘Species of Greatest conclude that the primary threat to the legal in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Conservation Concern’’ (SGCN) in all species is the present destruction, Connecticut, and New York (see seven State Comprehensive modification, and curtailment of its discussion under Factor B). Under Conservation Strategies throughout the habitat and range (Factor A), and that Factor B, above, we concluded that species’ historical and current range. predation is a contributing threat to the hunting, by itself, is not a threat to the Species of Greatest Conservation New England cottontail’s viability. In New England cottontail at the species Concern are defined as species that are the Policy for the Evaluation of level, but may be a concern for small rare or imperiled or whose status is Conservation Efforts Analysis section localized populations where hunting unknown. As a result, the New England below we further evaluate the mortality may contribute to further cottontail is receiving additional Conservation Strategy to determine if declines in those areas. attention by State managers. For the threat of predation is expected to The New England cottontail is example, New Hampshire suggests persist into the future. currently listed under State endangered development of early successional species laws in Maine and New habitat networks in landscapes Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Hampshire (Boland et al., in litt. 2014; currently occupied by the species Regulatory Mechanisms Holman et al., in litt. 2014). No other (http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/ There are only limited regulatory State currently lists the New England Wildlife/wildlife_plan.htm (accessed mechanisms available to address the cottontail as a threatened or endangered March 2015)). However, the destruction or modification of New species. The Endangered Species identification of the New England England cottontail habitat, especially on Conservation Act (ESCA) of New cottontail as an SGCN is intended to private lands. Local governments Hampshire prohibits the export, take, convey concern so as to draw regulate development through zoning and possession of State species that conservation attention to the species ordinances; we are unaware of any have been identified as endangered or and provides no regulatory function. locally developed regulatory threatened (Revised Statutes Annotated Conservation Efforts To Increase mechanisms that specifically address [RSA] 212–A:7). However, the executive Adequacy of Existing Regulations threats to New England cottontail director of NHFGD may permit certain habitat. Some New England cottontail activities, including those that enhance While there are conservation efforts to occurrences are associated with sites the survival of the species. Penalties for raise awareness of the species’ habitat that contain or are adjacent to riparian violations of RSA 212–A:7 of the ESCA needs, these are not regulatory in vegetation, such as borders of lakes, are identified (RSA 212–A:10, II). The nature. We are unaware of any ongoing beaver wetlands, and rivers. However, Maine Endangered Species Act (MESA) conservation efforts to increase the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:46 Sep 14, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 178 / Tuesday, September 15, 2015 / Proposed Rules 55299

adequacy of existing regulatory 289) found that eastern cottontails, from areas containing high quality food mechanisms. though larger, were not physically resources. Conversely, eastern Summary of Factor D—We conclude dominant over New England cottontails cottontails may be unable to meet their that the best available information and concluded that interference metabolic demands in habitats indicates hunting is not a limiting factor competition did not explain the change characterized by relatively nutrient poor for the species and the existing in the distribution and abundance of the food resources such as ericaceous regulatory mechanism to control the latter. In a follow-up investigation, (related to the heath family) forests, legal take of New England cottontails Smith and Litvaitis (2000, entire) whereas the New England cottontail through hunting is adequate. assessed winter foraging strategies used may be able to persist. The ability to Conversely, we are unaware of any by the two species by monitoring the maintain winter body condition while locally developed regulatory response of eastern and New England occupying small habitat patches may be mechanisms, such as local zoning cottontails to variations in food and the reason the eastern cottontail is more ordinances, specifically designed to cover within large enclosures. Smith fecund (capable of producing offspring) address the threat of habitat destruction, and Litvaitis (2000, p. 239) found that than the New England cottontail modification, or curtailment for this the eastern cottontail was able to (Chapman and Ceballos 1990, p. 96) and species. While we cannot consider non- maintain physical condition when food the reason eastern cottontails, once regulatory mechanisms here under resources in cover were low by established, are not readily displaced by Factor D, we acknowledge in Factor A venturing into open areas to feed from New England cottontails (Probert and above and the Policy for the Evaluation feeders supplied with commercially Litvaitis 1996, p. 292). of Conservation Efforts section below available rabbit forage. In contrast, New The competitive advantage of eastern that the threat of habitat destruction, England cottontails were reluctant to cottontails, however, may be lost in modification, or curtailment is being venture into open areas to exploit these nutrient-deficient sites, such as in pine managed now and is likely to continue resources, and their physical condition barrens and ericaceous shrublands, to be managed into the future. declined (Smith and Litvaitis 2000, p. where resources to meet the higher 2138). Smith and Litvaitis (2000, pp. energy demands of this species are Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade 2138–2139) also found that when New lacking but may be adequate to support Factors Affecting Its Continued England cottontails did venture into the resource needs of the New England Existence open areas for forage, they experienced cottontail (Tracy 1995, p. 69). These Competition higher rates of predation by owls than nutrient-deficient sites are relatively did eastern cottontails. stable and persistent through time in The eastern cottontail was released Smith and Litvaitis (2000, p. 2139) comparison to other disturbance- into much of the range of the New suggest that the increased survival of generated habitats, such as young England cottontail, and the introduction eastern cottontails foraging in low cover forests. Litvaitis et al. (2008, p 176) and spread of eastern cottontails have areas is made possible by their suggested that relatively stable been a factor in reducing the range and enhanced predator detection ability. In shrublands may allow New England distribution of the New England a companion study, Smith and Litvaitis cottontails to coexist with eastern cottontail. Prior to their introduction, (1999, p. 57) reported that the eastern cottontails. This ability to persist in the eastern cottontail extended cottontail had a larger exposed surface stable habitats may explain why habitats northeast only as far as the lower area of the eye and consequently had a occupied by the New England cottontail Hudson Valley (Bangs 1894, p. 412). By greater reaction distance to a simulated in Connecticut are characterized by 1899, tens of thousands of individuals owl than did New England cottontails. greater canopy cover and basal area than of four or five different subspecies of the Consequently, eastern cottontails have sites occupied by eastern cottontails eastern cottontail were introduced to the the ability to use a wider range of (Gottfried 2013, p. 18). New England cottontail’s range, habitats, including relatively open areas Throughout most of the New England beginning on Nantucket Island, such as meadows and residential back cottontail’s range, conservationists Massachusetts (Johnston 1972, p. 3). By yards, compared to the New England consider the presence of eastern the 1930s, eastern cottontails were cottontail, and may be able to exploit cottontails among the most substantial known to occur in western Connecticut newly created habitats sooner than New conservation issues to be addressed if (Goodwin 1932, p. 38), most likely as a England cottontails (Litvaitis et al. efforts to restore the New England result of introductions (Hosley 1942, p 2008). cottontail are to be successful (Probert 18). Large-scale introductions of eastern In addition to the morphological and and Litvaitis 1996, p. 294; Fuller and cottontails to New Hampshire (Silver behavioral differences between the two Tur 2012, p. 20; Scarpitti and Piche, in 1957, p. 320), Rhode Island (Johnston species, there are important litt. 2014; Tefft et al., in litt. 2014; 1972, p. 6), Massachusetts (Johnston physiological differences that may Kilpatrick et al., in litt. 2014; Novak et 1972, pp. 4–5), and possibly Vermont influence competition between the two al., in litt. 2014). Uncertainty remains, (Kilpatrick, in litt. 2002) have firmly species. Tracy (1995, pp. 65–67) however, regarding the best approaches established the eastern cottontail compared the metabolic physiology of to managing New England and eastern throughout most of New England where the two species and found that the cottontail populations to ensure that the it remains common. The exception is eastern cottontail had a significantly former persists (Fuller and Tur 2012, Maine, where the New England higher basal metabolism (the amount of pp. 20–21). The best available cottontail remains the only Sylvilagus energy expended while at rest). Based information strongly suggests that species (Litvaitis et al. 2006, p. 1193; on the findings, Tracy (1995, pp. 68–75) competition with eastern cottontails has Boland et al., in litt. 2014; Kilpatrick et suggested that the difference in been a factor in the decline of the New al., in litt. 2014; Tefft et al., in litt. 2014; metabolic rate may confer a competitive England cottontail and that the effect is Novak et al., in litt. 2014). advantage on eastern cottontails, by greatest in landscapes comprising small The eastern cottontail is larger (1,300 affording eastern cottontails an habitat patches. Therefore, we conclude gm (2.9 lb)) than the New England increased reproductive capacity and that the primary threat to the species is cottontail (Chapman and Ceballos 1990, predator avoidance capability, and to the present destruction, modification, p. 96). Probert and Litvaitis (1996, p. displace the New England cottontail and curtailment of its habitat and range

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:46 Sep 14, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 55300 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 178 / Tuesday, September 15, 2015 / Proposed Rules

(Factor A), and that competition with mortality does result in the death of a defined by the Intergovernmental Panel eastern cottontails is a contributing few individuals, New England cottontail on Climate Change (IPCC), ‘‘climate’’ threat to the New England cottontail’s populations are not considered to be refers to average weather, typically viability. significantly affected by vehicular measured in terms of the mean and mortality (Boland et al., in litt. 2014; variability of temperature, precipitation, White-Tailed Deer Herbivory Holman et al., in litt. 2014; Scarpitti and or other relevant properties over time, In our previous CNORs (71 FR 53756; Piche, in litt. 2014; Tefft et al., in. litt. and ‘‘climate change’’ thus refers to a 72 FR 69034), we concluded that 2014; Kilpatrick et al., in litt. 2014; change in such a measure that persists competition with, and habitat Novak et al., in litt. 2014). for an extended period, typically degradation by, white-tailed deer Small Population Size decades or longer, due to natural (Odocoileus virginianus) may be a risk conditions (e.g., solar cycles) or human- factor to the New England cottontail as As provided in the Life History caused changes in the composition of a result of the deer’s effect on forest section, extant populations of New the atmosphere or in land use (IPCC regeneration. This earlier conclusion England cottontails are believed to 2013, p. 1450). Detailed explanations of was based on the white-tailed deer’s function as metapopulations with local global climate change and examples of high population densities (J. McDonald, extinction events likely the result of various observed and projected changes in litt. 2005), their similar food habits to demographic, environmental, and and associated effects and risks at the cottontails (Martin et al. 1951, pp. 241– genetic stochasticity. Existing global level are provided in reports 242, 268–270), and their documented populations in Maine likely contain issued by the IPCC (2014 and citations negative direct and indirect effects on fewer than 700 individuals scattered therein); information for the United forest vegetation in many areas of the across four separate areas (Boland et al., States at national and regional levels is eastern United States (Latham et al. in litt. 2014). Similarly, in New summarized in the National Climate 2005, pp. 66–69, 104; deCalesta 1994, Hampshire the current population is Assessment (Melillo et al. 2014 entire pp. 711–718). While it was reasonable to thought to contain fewer than 200 and citations therein; see Melillo et al. conclude at the time that white-tailed individuals located within two distinct 2014, pp. 28–45 for an overview). deer may be competing with New areas (Holman et al., in litt. 2014). As a Because observed and projected changes England cottontail for food because the consequence of habitat fragmentation in climate at regional and local levels two species overlapped in areas of and loss, these populations exhibit the vary from global average conditions, occurrence and it was the best available effects of small population size, as rather than using global-scale information, we had no direct evidence evidenced by the presence of genetic projections we use ‘‘downscaled’’ that deer herbivory was having an actual drift (change in the frequency of alleles projections when they are available and effect on New England cottontail. Since (gene variants) in a population due to have been developed through then, we requested specific information random sampling of individuals) and appropriate scientific procedures, from State wildlife agencies indicating critically low effective population sizes because such projections provide higher that the presence of deer is affecting the (number of individuals who contribute resolution information that is more status of the New England cottontail. offspring to the next generation) relevant to spatial scales used for The State wildlife agencies responded (Fenderson et al. 2014, entire). For these analyses of a given species and the that they had no information indicating populations, Fenderson et al. (2014, p. conditions influencing it (see Melillo et deer herbivory was affecting New 17) suggested that habitat creation alone England cottontail (Boland et al., in litt. may be insufficient to improve their al. 2014, Appendix 3, pp. 760–763 for 2014; Holman et al., in litt. 2014; status and that translocations may be a discussion of climate modeling, Scarpitti and Piche, in litt. 2014; Tefft et necessary to augment existing including downscaling). In our analysis, al., in litt. 2014; Kilpatrick et al., in litt. populations. The effect of small we use our expert judgment to weigh 2014; Novak et al., in litt. 2014). population size is likely exhibited in the best scientific and commercial Furthermore, we have no such Rhode Island’s remaining population, information available in our information from any other source that since current estimates indicate that consideration of relevant aspects of this one-time potential risk factor is there are fewer than 100 individuals climate change and related effects. presently having negative effects on within the State (Tefft et al., in litt. Downscaled climate change models New England cottontail. Consequently, 2014). In the remainder of the New for the Northeastern United States lacking direct evidence that herbivory England cottontail’s range, populations (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, by white-tailed deer is currently are generally larger and presumed to be Massachusetts, Rhode Island, compromising habitat quality and less affected by fragmentation (Scarpitti Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and quantity for the New England cottontail, and Piche, in litt. 2014; Kilpatrick et al., Pennsylvania) indicate that we conclude that excessive herbivory by in litt. 2014; Novak et al., in litt. 2014); temperatures will increase in the future, white-tailed deer is currently not a consequently, the effects of small more so in summer than in winter threat to the species. population size are not anticipated to be (Hayhoe et al. 2008, p. 433). Overall, the a significant biological consequence region is expected to become drier Road Mortality throughout the species’ range. However, overall, but average seasonal State wildlife agencies report that if the total number of New England precipitation is expected to shift toward road kills are an important source for cottontail populations continues to winter increases of 20 to 30 percent obtaining specimens of rabbits, decline, the remaining populations may with slightly drier summers (Hayhoe et including the New England cottontail. experience the deleterious effects of al. 2008, p. 433). Variations across the Road-killed rabbits were second only to small population size. region are also expected, with northern hunting mortality as a source for portions of the region drying out more cottontail specimens for a distributional Climate Change than southern areas, with a ‘‘hot spot’’ study in Connecticut: Of 108 cottontail Our analyses under the Act include developing over coastal southern Maine specimens obtained, 3 were identified consideration of observed or likely (Hayhoe et al. 2008, p. 433). Although as New England cottontails (Walter et al. environmental effects related to ongoing the New England cottontail is a habitat 2001, pp. 13–19). Although road and projected changes in climate. As specialist that is reliant upon dense

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:46 Sep 14, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 178 / Tuesday, September 15, 2015 / Proposed Rules 55301

shrublands (see Life History section), Analysis section below for additional change may benefit the species. Eastern sites occupied by the species are information). cottontails compete with New England variable and range from droughty (e.g., cottontails for food and space and may Small Population Size pitch pine-scrub oak) to wet (e.g., shrub be suppressing New England cottontail wetlands). Given the range of habitats To address the threat of small populations. Since the effects of small occupied by the species, predicting the population size, the Conservation population size and competition with effects of climate change is complicated. Strategy identifies the need for specific eastern cottontails are inextricably Climate change is anticipated to alter population management objectives, linked to habitat quality, quantity, and the frequency, intensity, duration, and including captive breeding and connectivity, we conclude that the timing of forest disturbance (Dale et al. relocation of New England cottontails primary threat to the species throughout 2001, entire), which is likely to (Fuller and Tur 2012, p. 61–67), which most of its range is the present positively influence habitat for the is further corroborated by Fenderson et destruction, modification, and species. Climate change is also expected al. (2014, entire) for populations in New curtailment of its habitat and range to affect invasive species Hampshire and Maine. A captive- (Factor A), and that small population disproportionately to native species breeding pilot program has been size is a contributing threat to the New (Hellmann et al. 2008, entire), which is initiated at the Roger Williams Park Zoo England cottontail’s viability. In the likely to influence the distribution and (RWPZ) to evaluate and refine Policy for the Evaluation of abundance of the eastern cottontail, as husbandry, captive propagation, and Conservation Efforts Analysis section well as those habitats comprising exotic reintroduction protocols for the New below we further evaluate the invasive shrubs (e.g., Rosa multiflora England cottontail. A Technical Conservation Strategy to determine if and Lonicera spp.), and, therefore, may Committee Captive-breeding Working the threat of small population size and affect the New England cottontail. Group facilitates and monitors eastern cottontails is expected to persist Consequently, accurately predicting implementation of this conservation into the future, as required by section climate change effects to the New tool. Since 2011, approximately 131 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act. England cottontail is not easily young have been produced at the RWPZ, and individually marked New Cumulative Effects From Factors A disentangled. That said, the bioclimatic Through E envelope (species distribution as England cottontails are released at sites predicted by climate) for the New in Rhode Island and New Hampshire As discussed above, habitat loss England cottontail is predicted to (Fuller and Tur 2015, pp. 49–53). (Factor A) is the most significant threat increase by 110 percent by the end of Success of these efforts is indicated by to the New England cottontail. This the century and shift approximately 1 the presence of unmarked animals, directly affects the species through degree poleward (Leach et al. 2014, p. which suggests that released animals are insufficient resources to feed, breed, and 126), which suggests that the species’ successfully breeding (Fuller and Tur shelter and indirectly affects the species 2015, pp. 51–52). by amplifying the effects of predation distribution may increase with climate Through these efforts, populations of (Factor C), competition with eastern change. New England cottontails may be cottontails (Factor E), and small Conservation Efforts To Reduce Other increasing and less susceptible to population size (Factor E). In our Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting demographic and environmental analysis of these threats, we discussed Its Continued Existence stochastic events. Since these previous and ongoing conservation introductions involve the descendants Competition efforts addressing these rangewide from numerous geographic areas threats, which will be further analyzed As previously described under (Perrotti, in litt. 2014), we anticipate in the Policy for the Evaluation of Conservation Actions to Reduce Habitat that genetic drift has been ameliorated Conservation Efforts Analysis section Destruction, Modification, or and the possibility of genetic below. Curtailment of Its Range, there are many stochasticity affecting remnant previous and ongoing conservation populations in Rhode Island and New Policy for Evaluation of Conservation efforts to increase and maintain suitable Hampshire has been reduced or Efforts Analysis habitat. Increased habitat patch size and eliminated. Nevertheless, genetic As presented in the Summary of connectivity will reduce the effects of monitoring to determine the genetic Information Pertaining to the Five eastern cottontail competition. health of these populations will be Factors above, section 4(b)(1)(A) of the However, there remain uncertainties conducted (Fuller and Tur 2012, p. 54) Act and our regulations at 50 CFR regarding the best approaches to (see the Policy for the Evaluation of 424.119(f) require us to consider efforts managing sympatric populations; Conservation Efforts Analysis section by any State, foreign nation, or political therefore, research and monitoring has below). In contrast, plans to implement subdivision of a State or foreign nation been identified as a top-priority need to population augmentation in Maine may to protect the species. Such efforts address the conservation needs of the not occur until 2030 (Boland et al., in would include measures by Native New England cottontail (Fuller and Tur litt. 2014). Given the critically low American Tribes and organizations. 2012, pp. 20, 53, 77–80, 114–120). For effective population sizes in Maine, Also, Federal, Tribal, State, and foreign example, a study to determine the however, habitat creation alone may be recovery actions (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)) and efficacy and benefits of managing insufficient (Fenderson et al. 2014, p. Federal consultation requirements (16 eastern cottontails for the benefit of the 17). U.S.C. 1536) constitute conservation New England cottontail is underway, Summary of Factor E—In summary, measures. and the results will be integrated into habitat modification resulting from high In addition to identifying such efforts the Conservation Strategy’s adaptive densities of white-tailed deer was once under the Act and our policy management process so that it may thought to be a threat to the New implementing this provision, known as inform future management actions (Tur England cottontail, but is no longer a the Policy for Evaluation of and Eaton, in litt. 2013; Fuller and Tur concern. The best available information Conservation Efforts (PECE) (68 FR 2012, p. 114) (see the Policy for the indicates that climate change and road 15100; March 28, 2003), we must, at the Evaluation of Conservation Efforts mortality are not threats: In fact, climate time of the listing determination,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:46 Sep 14, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 55302 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 178 / Tuesday, September 15, 2015 / Proposed Rules

evaluate whether formalized extent, the formalized conservation conservation effort, and that we are not conservation efforts provide sufficient efforts affect the species’ status under required to analyze each agreement certainty of effectiveness on the basis of the Act. The results of our analysis may separately; rather, we briefly describe in whether the effort or plan establishes allow us to conclude that the threats our full PECE analysis (available at specific conservation objectives; identified in the section 4(a)(1) analysis http://www.regulations.gov) those identifies the necessary steps to reduce have been sufficiently reduced or actions, such as the two Candidate threats or factors for decline; includes eliminated to such an extent that the Conservation Agreements with quantifiable performance measures for species does not meet the definition of Assurances for Maine and New the monitoring of compliance and threatened or endangered, or is Hampshire, as contributing to the effectiveness; incorporates the threatened rather than endangered. collective effort. principles of adaptive management; and An agreement or plan intended to Using the criteria in PECE, we is likely to improve the species’ viability improve a species’ status may contain evaluated the degree of certainty to by eliminating or adequately reducing numerous conservation objectives, not which the Conservation Strategy would one or more of the threats identified in all of which are sufficiently certain to be be effective at minimizing or our section 4(a)(1) analysis. We must implemented and effective. Those eliminating threats to the New England also evaluate the conservation efforts to conservation efforts that are not cottontail. Our evaluation was determine the certainty that they will be sufficiently certain to be implemented facilitated by a recent report, entitled implemented on the basis of the and effective cannot contribute to a New England Cottontail Conservation availability of resources necessary to determination that listing is Progress, 2014 Annual Performance carry out the effort; the authority of the unnecessary, or a determination to list Report (Fuller and Tur 2015, entire, parties to carry out the identified as threatened rather than endangered. available at actions; the regulatory and procedural Further, it is important to note that a www.newenglandcottontail.org), requirements necessary to carry out the conservation plan is not required to hereafter referred to as the Performance action are in place; the schedule for have absolute certainty of Report. In addition to our review of completing and evaluating the efforts; implementation and effectiveness to performance, we assessed the status of and the extent of voluntary participation contribute to a listing determination. the New England cottontail, the specific necessary to achieve the conservation Rather, we need to be certain that the threats to New England cottontail goals has been identified and will be conservation objectives identified populations, and conservation actions secured. The criteria for PECE are not within the plan will be implemented planned and implemented to address considered comprehensive evaluation and effective, such that the threats to the those threats, at the local or Focus Area- criteria for evaluating certainty of the species are expected to be sufficiently specific scale. This information was formalized conservation effort, and reduced or eliminated. Regardless of the provided in individual Focus Area consideration of species, habitat, adoption of a conservation agreement or Status Screening Templates (FASSTs) location, and effort is provided when it plan, if the best scientific and that were prepared for most of the Focus is appropriate. To satisfy the commercial information indicates that Areas identified in the Conservation requirements of PECE, conservation the species meets the definition of Strategy (Fuller and Tur 2012, pp. 90– plans should, at a minimum, report data endangered or threatened on the day of 113). We used this information to on existing populations, describe the listing decision, then we must determine if the conservation actions proceed with appropriate rulemaking planned within the Focus Areas would activities taken toward conservation of under section 4 of the Act. maintain or increase populations to the the species, demonstrate either through Because the certainty of extent that they might contribute to the data collection or best available science implementation and effectiveness of goals of the Conservation Strategy. how these measures will alleviate formalized conservation efforts may Further, in October 2014, we convened threats, provide a mechanism to vary, PECE specifies that each effort will a meeting of the Parties, with facilitation integrate new information (adaptive be evaluated individually (68 FR support provided by WMI, to assess the management), and provide information 15114). In the Rangewide Conservation Parties’ commitment to implementing regarding certainty of implementation. Efforts section above, we introduced the the Conservation Strategy and its An integral part of determining development of a conservation planning individual components. whether a species meets the definition effort beginning in 2008, which was of threatened or endangered requires us later formalized in 2011 and resulted in PECE Analysis Summary to analyze a species’ risk of extinction. the development of the Conservation Using the criteria in PECE, we Central to this risk analysis is an Strategy (Fuller and Tur 2012, entire). evaluated the certainty of assessment of the status of the species This Conservation Strategy represents implementation and effectiveness of the (i.e., is it in decline or at risk of decline, the Parties’ planning process and guides Conservation Strategy. We have and what is the rate of decline or risk actions intended to improve and determined that the conservation of decline) and consideration of the maintain populations of New England objectives described therein have a high likelihood that current or future cottontails throughout the species’ certainty of being implemented, based conditions or actions will promote or current range. There are a number of on the Parties’ previous actions and threaten a species’ persistence. This other formalized actions interrelated to commitments (Fuller and Tur 2015, determination requires us to make a the Conservation Strategy, some of entire) and the recent reaffirmation to its prediction about the future persistence which precede its completion but were continuation (Sparks et al., in litt. 2014; of a species, including consideration of integral to its development and Riexinger et al., in litt. 2014; Hyatt et al., both future negative and positive effects implementation. Since these in litt. 2014; Connolly, in litt. 2014; of anticipated human actions. For interrelated formalized actions MacCallum, in litt. 2014; Ellingwood formalized conservation efforts that are contribute to the overall Conservation and Kanter, in litt. 2014; Weber, pers. not fully implemented, or where the Strategy and its goal of addressing the comm. 2014; Weller, pers. comm. 2014). results have not been demonstrated, we New England cottontail’s primary We have determined that the will consider PECE criteria in our threat—loss of habitat—we conclude Conservation Strategy provides a high evaluation of whether, and to what that they can be batched as a single degree of certainty that it will be

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:46 Sep 14, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 178 / Tuesday, September 15, 2015 / Proposed Rules 55303

effective. This is supported, in part, by level that would warrant listing of the expected to continue through the the identification of all known threats, New England cottontail. Conservation Strategy’s 2030 planning the development of actions to Thus, we next considered period, based on a high degree of ameliorate them, monitoring, and conservation efforts pursuant to section certainty that the conservation effort application of the principles of adaptive 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and our regulations will continue to be implemented and management. Specifically, we find that at 50 CFR 424.119(f). This consideration effective. the Conservation Strategy presents an includes an evaluation under the PECE On the basis of the best scientific and effective approach that establishes a policy of those conservation efforts commercial information available, we network of habitats of sufficient quality within the Conservation Strategy, find that the current and future threats and quantity that is likely to including commitments of funding and are not of sufficient imminence, compensate for the destruction, other resources, that have been intensity, or magnitude to indicate that modification, and curtailment of the implemented and not yet shown to be the New England cottontail is in danger New England cottontail’s habitat and effective and those actions proposed for of extinction (endangered), or likely to range, the primary threat to the species. the future (see the Policy for the become endangered within the For example, the Conservation Strategy Evaluation of Conservation Efforts foreseeable future (threatened). identifies 3,310 ha (8,179 ac) for land Analysis section above). Based on our Therefore, the New England cottontail management activities to create, restore, evaluation of the conservation effort, as does not meet the definition of a or maintain suitable habitat; these described in the Conservation Strategy threatened or endangered species, and management activities have been and associated documents, we find that we are withdrawing our previous planned, initiated or completed and the sufficient certainty of implementation ‘‘warranted, but precluded findings’’ initiated or completed projects have and effectiveness is provided and the and removing the species from the list demonstrated examples of populations conservation effort forms part of the of ‘‘candidate’’ species. basis for our final listing decision for the that have increased within specific Significant Portion of the Range patches (Fuller and Tur 2015, entire). New England cottontail. We find those Based on our evaluation of the actions taken under the auspices of the Under the Act and our implementing conservation effort described in the Conservation Strategy have yet to regulations, a species may warrant Conservation Strategy and associated completely remove the threats specified listing if it is in danger of extinction or documents, we find that the above, but have been successful, and are likely to become so throughout all or a conservation effort provides a high anticipated to be fully successful in the significant portion of its range. The Act degree of certainty of implementation future, in ameliorating the threats. For defines ‘‘endangered species’’ as any and effectiveness. example, as of January 2015, the NRCS species which is ‘‘in danger of Our full analysis of the New England created or maintained approximately extinction throughout all or a significant cottontail conservation effort pursuant 3,700 ac (1,497 ha) of New England portion of its range,’’ and ‘‘threatened to PECE can be found at http:// cottontail habitat under the Working species’’ as any species which is ‘‘likely www.regulations.gov. Lands for Wildlife program (Fuller and to become an endangered species within Tur 2015, p. 59), and the agency the foreseeable future throughout all or Finding anticipates implementing management a significant portion of its range.’’ The As required by the Act, we considered actions on additional habitat as part of term ‘‘species’’ includes ‘‘any the five factors in assessing whether the NRCS’ 5-year plan. In addition, the subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, New England cottontail is endangered 2,107 ac (852 ha) of scrub oak and any distinct population segment or threatened throughout all of its range. shrublands found on the Camp Edwards [DPS] of any species of vertebrate fish or We examined the best scientific and Training Site owned by the MDFW and wildlife which interbreeds when commercial information available leased to the Massachusetts Army mature.’’ We published a final policy regarding the past, present, and future National Guard are considered a interpreting the phrase ‘‘Significant threats faced by the New England stronghold for the New England Portion of its Range’’ (SPR) (79 FR cottontail. We reviewed the petition, cottontail, and conservation efforts to 37578). The final policy states that (1) information available in our files, and maintain and expand habitats are if a species is found to be endangered other available published and ongoing primarily through the use of or threatened throughout a significant unpublished information, and we prescribed fire (McCumber, in litt. portion of its range, the entire species is consulted with recognized species and 2015). Therefore, we conclude that the listed as an endangered or a threatened habitat experts and other Federal, State, conservation efforts have reduced or species, respectively, and the Act’s and Tribal agencies. Based on our eliminated current and future threats to protections apply to all individuals of evaluation of the threats to the New the New England cottontail to the point the species wherever found; (2) a England cottontail, we find that the that the species no longer is in danger portion of the range of a species is present or threatened destruction, of extinction now or in the foreseeable ‘‘significant’’ if the species is not modification, or curtailment of its future. currently endangered or threatened habitat or range (Factor A) is the most Additionally, although the current throughout all of its range, but the significant threat to the species. This rangewide estimate suggests there are portion’s contribution to the viability of directly affects the species through approximately 17,000 New England the species is so important that, without insufficient resources to feed, breed, and cottontails, we estimate that only 10,500 the members in that portion, the species shelter and indirectly affects the species individuals currently occupy would be in danger of extinction, or by amplifying the effects of predation landscapes where persistence of the likely to become so in the foreseeable (Factor C), competition with eastern species is anticipated. This estimate future, throughout all of its range; (3) cottontails (Factor E), and small falls short of the population goal of the range of a species is considered to population size (Factor E). Without the 13,500 individuals. Nevertheless, the be the general geographical area within ongoing and planned implementation of conservation actions implemented have which that species can be found at the the conservation measures described in demonstrably improved the population time FWS or NMFS makes any the Conservation Strategy, these status of the New England cottontail at particular status determination; and (4) identified threats would remain at a some locations, and that improvement is if a vertebrate species is endangered or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:46 Sep 14, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 55304 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 178 / Tuesday, September 15, 2015 / Proposed Rules

threatened throughout an SPR, and the portions of the range that clearly do not England cottontail as an endangered or population in that significant portion is meet the biologically based definition of threatened species under the Act is not a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather ‘‘significant’’ (i.e., the loss of that warranted at this time. than the entire taxonomic species or portion clearly would not be expected to We request that you submit any new subspecies. As stated above, we find the increase the vulnerability to extinction information concerning the status of, or New England cottontail does not of the entire species), those portions threats to, the New England cottontail to warrant listing throughout its range. will not warrant further consideration. our New England Field Office (see Therefore, we must consider whether If we identify any portions that may ADDRESSES section) whenever it there are any significant portions of the be both (1) significant and (2) becomes available. New information range of the New England cottontail. endangered or threatened, we engage in will help us monitor the New England The SPR policy is applied to all status a more detailed analysis to determine cottontail and encourage its determinations, including analyses for whether these standards are indeed met. conservation. If an emergency situation the purposes of making listing, The identification of an SPR does not develops for the New England delisting, and reclassification create a presumption, prejudgment, or cottontail, we will act to provide determinations. The procedure for other determination as to whether the immediate protection. analyzing whether any portion is an species in that identified SPR is SPR is similar, regardless of the type of endangered or threatened. We must go References Cited status determination we are making. through a separate analysis to determine A complete list of references cited is The first step in our analysis of the whether the species is endangered or available on the Internet at http:// status of a species is to determine its threatened in the SPR. To determine www.regulations.gov at Docket Number status throughout all of its range. If we whether a species is endangered or FWS–R5–ES–2015–0136 and upon determine that the species is in danger threatened throughout an SPR, we will request from the New England Field of extinction, or likely to become so in use the same standards and Office (see ADDRESSES section). the foreseeable future, throughout all of methodology that we use to determine its range, we list the species as an if a species is endangered or threatened Author(s) endangered (or threatened) species and throughout its range. The primary author(s) of this no SPR analysis will be required. If the Depending on the biology of the document are the staff members of the species is neither in danger of extinction species, its range, and the threats it New England Field Office. nor likely to become so throughout all faces, it may be more efficient to address of its range, we determine whether the the ‘‘significant’’ question first, or the Authority species is in danger of extinction or status question first. Thus, if we The authority for this section is likely to become so throughout a determine that a portion of the range is section 4 of the Endangered Species Act significant portion of its range. If it is, not ‘‘significant,’’ we do not need to of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et we list the species as an endangered or determine whether the species is seq.). endangered or threatened there; if we a threatened species, respectively; if it is Dated: August 26, 2015. not, we conclude that listing the species determine that the species is not is not warranted. endangered or threatened in a portion of Daniel M. Ashe, When we conduct an SPR analysis, its range, we do not need to determine Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. we first identify any portions of the if that portion is ‘‘significant.’’ [FR Doc. 2015–22885 Filed 9–11–15; 11:15 am] species’ range that warrant further The threats currently affecting the BILLING CODE 4310–55–P consideration. The range of a species New England cottontail, without can theoretically be divided into consideration for the planned or portions in an infinite number of ways. implemented conservation efforts, are DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR However, there is no purpose to occurring throughout the species’ range. analyzing portions of the range that are Habitat loss, predation, and the effects Fish and Wildlife Service not reasonably likely to be significant of small population size are affecting the and endangered or threatened. To species relatively uniformly across its 50 CFR Part 17 identify only those portions that warrant range. In addition, the Conservation [Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2015–0129; further consideration, we determine Strategy and its specific actions will 4500030113] whether there is substantial information continue to be implemented throughout RIN 1018–BA93 indicating that (1) the portions may be the species’ range, and we have a high significant and (2) the species may be in level of certainty that those efforts will Endangered and Threatened Wildlife danger of extinction in those portions or be effective in addressing the species’ and Plants; Threatened Species Status likely to become so within the rangewide threats. Therefore, we find for Platanthera integrilabia (White foreseeable future. We emphasize that that factors affecting the species are Fringeless Orchid) answering these questions in the essentially uniform throughout its affirmative is not a determination that range, indicating no portion of the range AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, the species is endangered or threatened warrants further consideration of Interior. throughout a significant portion of its possible endangered or threatened ACTION: Proposed rule. range—rather it is a step in determining status under the Act. whether a more detailed analysis of the Our review of the best available SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and issue is required. In practice, a key part scientific and commercial information Wildlife Service (Service), propose to of this analysis is whether the threats indicates that the New England list Platanthera integrilabia (white are geographically concentrated in some cottontail is not in danger of extinction fringeless orchid), a plant species from way. If the threats to the species are (endangered) nor likely to become Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, affecting it uniformly throughout its endangered within the foreseeable Mississippi, South Carolina, and range, no portion is likely to warrant future (threatened), throughout all or a Tennessee, as a threatened species further consideration. Moreover, if any significant portion of its range. under the Endangered Species Act (Act). concentration of threats apply only to Therefore, we find that listing the New If we finalize this rule as proposed, it

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:46 Sep 14, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS