National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Draft Business Plan for the New England Cottontail March 24, 2009

NFWF NE Cotton Biz Plan.indd 1 8/12/09 10:40:06 AM What Is a Business Plan?

A business plan serves two broad, primary functions. First, it provides specific information to those (e.g., prospective investors) not familiar with the proposed or existing business, including its goals and the management strategy and financial and other resources necessary to attain those goals. Second, a business plan provides internal guidance to those who are active in the operation of the business, allowing all individuals to understand where the business is headed and the means by which it will get there. The plan helps keep the business from drifting away from its goals and key actions through careful articulation of a strategy. In the context of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s conservation efforts, business plans represent the strategies necessary to meet the conservation goals of Keystone and other initiatives. Each business plan emphasizes the type(s) and magnitude of the benefits that will be realized through the initiative, the monetary costs involved, and the potential obstacles (risks) to achieving those gains. Each of the Foundation’s business plans has three core elements: Conservation Outcomes: A concrete description of the outcomes to which the Foundation and grantees will hold ourselves accountable. Implementation Plan with Strategic Priorities and Performance Measures: A description of the specific strategies that are needed to achieve our conservation outcome and the quantitative measures by which we will measure success and make it possible to adaptively revise strategies in the face of underperformance. Funding and Resource Needs: An analysis of the financial, human and organizational resources needed to carry out these activities. The strategies and activities discussed in this plan do not represent solely the Foundation’s view of the actions necessary to achieve the identified conservation goals. Rather, it reflects the consensus or majority view of the many federal, state, academic or organization experts that we consulted with during plan development. In developing this business plan, the Foundation acknowledges that there are other ongoing and planned conservation activities that are aimed at, or indirectly benefit, keystone targets. This business plan is not meant to duplicate ongoing efforts but, rather, to strategically invest in areas where management, conservation, or funding gaps might exist in those broader conservation efforts. Hence, the aim of the business plan is to support the beneficial impacts brought about by the larger conservation community.

Draft | March 24, 2009 | i ii | March 24, 2009 | Draft Summary

This business plan maps out a 10 year plan to protect and restore New England cottontail populations and the ‘early successional habitat’ they depend on in Maine and New Hampshire. It was created in active collaborations with universities, agencies, and non-profit organizations involved in the cottontail’s conservation. The cottontail is one of four species — bog turtle, American woodcock, and golden-winged warbler — that the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation is targeting as part of a broader effort to conserve early successional habitat. This business plan will guide every aspect of the Foundation’s anticipated $3.5 million in grant-making associated with this species and its habitat. Ultimately we hope that the strategy and activities described herein are adopted by the broader community of agencies and organizations working on the same goals and responsible for the additional $6.2 million of investments identified as necessary to conserve the cottontail. The New England cottontail is a rabbit that is unique to the Northeastern United States. It has disappeared from approximately 86% of its former range, and has been petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Monitoring for the species demonstrates that declines in the species distribution continue and approximately 2/3 of all known occupied patches for the species are classified as habitat “sinks” because average mortality exceeds emigration. The goal of this plan is to turn a 5% – 9% annual decline into an 11% – 21% annual rate of increase in 10 years. To accomplish this goal resources will be focused on the following strategies: a. Restoring and creating habitat. Cottontails have too little remaining habitat and that that remains is of low quality. Activity — Restore, create and maintain at least 2,000 acres of high quality habitat. b. Protecting key habitat. Development threatens many of the most important areas for the conservation of cottontails. Activity — Protect at least 500 acres of core habitat. c. Managing landowner concerns about regulation. State protection of the cottontail and possibly federal protection under the Endangered Species Act have made landowners con- cerned about voluntarily increasing cottontail populations on their land. Activity — Provide regulatory assurances that reduce or eliminate landowner concerns about their flexibility to use land. d. Changing forest management practices. Forestry practices once created extensive habitat for cottontails and other species to use. Activity — Encourage slightly larger harvests and changed harvest practices to increase habitat availability. e. Expand markets for biomass-to-energy. Long-term survival of the cottontail depends on habitat being continually maintained. The ability to sell cleared woody debris and biomass to energy companies provides the best market opportunity to sustain habitat. Activity — Develop contracts with already established energy producers.

Draft | March 24, 2009 | iii iv | March 24, 2009 | Draft Contents

What Is a Business Plan? ...... i Summary...... iii What Is ‘Early Successional Habitat’?...... 1 Conservation Need...... 2 Conservation Outcomes...... 5 Implementation Plan...... 6 Funding Needs...... 14 Evaluating Success...... 15 Long-Term Foundation Support ...... 16 Ancillary Benefits...... 17 Range Map ...... 18 Acknowledgements...... 19

Draft | March 24, 2009 | v

What Is ‘Early Successional Habitat’?

Succession is the gradual replacement of one community of plants and associated wildlife with another community. In the Northeastern U.S. and Canada, gaps in the forest canopy created by fire, pest outbreaks, logging, agriculture, or beaver activity create important wetland, grassland, shrub and young forest habitats which are collectively called ‘early successional habitats.’ These early successional habitats are in decline throughout the region. Every state wildlife agency in the region has identified the conservation of early successional habitat as a top priority through their state wildlife action plans. It is a priority for the Ruffed Grouse Society, Wildlife Management Institute, Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve [add others working on early successional habitat]. Restoring and protecting early successional habitat provides open space, buffers important drinking water supplies, and helps maintain high wildlife diversity close to some of the most densely populated parts of America.

Figure 1. Succession is the gradual replacement of one community of plants and associated wildlife with another community.

Draft | March 24, 2009 | 1 Conservation Need

The New England cottontail is a rabbit species that is unique to the Northeastern United States. It has disappeared from approximately 86 percent of its former range, and has been petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act. The US Fish and Wildlife Service conducted a status assessment and found that listing of the cottontail was warranted, but precluded by other listing activities. Subsequently, the species was designated as an official candidate for listing. Due to the imminence and magnitude of the threats to the species, a listing priority number of 2 was assigned to the species, making it the highest priority listing action within Region 5 of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The States of New Hampshire and Maine have recently designated the species as “endangered” under their respective state endangered species laws. It is a priority for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource Conservation Service in both Maine and New Hampshire have made the cottontail a priority for conservation program funding. Among the thousands of plants and animals that are imperiled or at risk, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has recently designated this as one of 190 ‘spotlight species.’ Monitoring for the species demonstrates that declines in the species distribution continue. In New Hampshire in 2007, the species was recently found in only 14 of the 23 sites that it was known to occupy in 2004. Similarly, it was found in only 12 of the 53 Maine sites occupied in 2004. Approximately 2/3 of all known occupied patches for the species on a rangewide basis are classified as habitat “sinks” because mortality often exceeds emigration. The New England cottontail is (or was) a game species and many other species that depend upon this habitat are also prized by hunters. This includes the moose, white-tailed deer, ruffed grouse, and American woodcock. Expanding and restoring this habitat will help expand game resources for hunters and will expand the economic benefits that states and communities receive from hunters. It is a model species for conservation because habitat for the species is easily managed for and because the rabbit is most associated with a vegetative state that is easily created in a short timescale. Furthermore, as a result of the rabbit’s fecund nature, population response to additional habitat is likely to be rapid. The major threats to the persistence of early successional habitat and New England cottontail in Maine and New Hampshire are: ●●Human disruption of natural disturbance regimes including forest fires, beetle outbreaks, and beaver activity which once created and maintained large areas of suitable habitat. ●●Changed agricultural and forest management practices which have dramatically reduced forestry clear cut operations and led to more intensive use of agricultural lands. ●●Expanding land development and human populations that have: ◊ eliminated habitat (particularly in coastal areas) resulting in increased fragmentation of remaining habitat. ◊ elevated populations of native and introduced mammalian predators that increase mortality of cottontails and other wildlife. To reduce the decline of the cottontail and its habitat we seek to address these threats through the activities described in this plan. Additional threats also affect the cottontail, like the threat of introduced competitors and invasive plants. The logic model framework below shows how these threats contribute to ecological stresses on the cottontail. Working with experts we built a logic framework that provides a useful visual guide to the limiting factors on cottontail and early successional habitat conservation. Experts in Maine and New Hampshire have identified how the threats described above affect different ecological stresses. These

2 | March 24, 2009 | Draft direct threats are in turn driven by some indirect threats such as crop prices, landowner aware- ness of management needs, forestry and other resource policy and high land prices. Using an initial logic model as a starting point, we subsequently asked experts to identify which ecological stresses and threats were most important to address to reverse the decline of the cottontail and achieve the impacts described in this plan. The following logic framework (next page) shows the emphasis that experts placed on a small subset of stresses and threats. Based on this expert assessment, we expect to focus almost all of our strategy on activities that expand habitat by building private landowner support, creating disturbance regimes on forest and non-agricultural land and addressing development impacts. These activities will improve habitat quality which will lead to increase survival and improve dispersal. We expect to minimize investments in invasive species, removal of eastern cottontails, predator control, eliminating physical barriers to dispersal, lowering land prices, or changing management of agricultural lands.

Draft | March 24, 2009 | 3 problem, assess limiting factors, and prioritize key strategies. key prioritize and factors, limiting assess problem, declines. target conservation to contribute threats how understand better help to ments “if-then”state as read are arrows whose logic of chains several of composed typically are frameworks Logic Initiatives).Keystone representing a is framework logic A Framework Logic diagram of a set of relationships between certain factors believed to impact or lead to a conservation target (species target conservation a to lead or impact to believed factors certain between relationships of set a of diagram

Logic frameworks are used to define the conservation the define to used are frameworks Logic -

4 | March 24, 2009 | Draft Conservation Outcomes

Today, there are an estimated 4 – 6 blocks of habitat greater than 25 acres that are occupied by New England cottontails but none of these are believed to be viable in their present condition. A few scattered cottontail populations exist on smaller patches of habitat elsewhere in Maine and New Hampshire and none of these are viable. Many of these habitats are declining in quality, are isolated from other areas of habitat or are otherwise in need of management. In New Hampshire, less is known about the current status of occupied habitat but the species is unlikely to be much more numerous or secure. Cottontails have an annual population cycle with multiple generations born in spring and summer and high mortality. Experts estimate that the best habitat will support 0.6 cottontails/acre in winter when cottontail populations are at their lowest. Thus, the current total Maine and New Hampshire population is unlikely to be more than a few hundred individuals in winter. Without additional conservation investments, we expect that the trend of past declines will continue and cottontails will disappear from between 50 – 100% of currently occupied sites in the next 5-10 years. The 10-year goals of conservation efforts for the New England cottontail are the following: ●●In Maine, the goal is: ◊ To create, restore and maintain 20 blocks of occupied habitat that each support at least 25 acres of high quality habitat, which • are connected to smaller ‘satellite’ areas of suitable habitat, and • are interconnected (within ½ to ¾ of a mile) with other 25 acre blocks of habitat through movement corridors and smaller areas of suitable habitat. ●●In New Hampshire, the goal is: ◊ To create, restore and maintain six 500+ acre landscapes of occupied habitat that each support 150 – 250 acres of high quality habitat, which • are interconnected (within ½ to ¾ of a mile) with other habitat landscapes through movement corridors and smaller areas of suitable habitat. We believe that success in achieving these goals will result in an increase in the average winter total population size in Maine and New Hampshire by 500%. This effort will have succeeded in completing approximately 30% of all the conservation needs for the New England cottontail, with the remainder of activities needed in the states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, Vermont and Connecticut.

Draft | March 24, 2009 | 5 Implementation Plan

The following strategies describe the threats that New England cottontail and early successional habitat face in Maine and New Hampshire and discuss the activities that are important to address these threats and secure viable populations of the species. The strategies and outputs described are intended to take place over 10 years. Although additional threats affect the cottontail, the group of experts who helped develop this plan prioritized threats and the emphasis of this plan is on the highest priority threats. There are rough 10-year budget numbers assigned to some of the activities herein. If there is no budget next to an activity that activity is not clearly identified as required in order to achieve the biological impact described above (however in some circumstances, those activities are necessary but are already covered through other agency budgets or staff time). Addressing Threat 1 — Low survival caused by declining habitat quality and quantity New England cottontails are disappearing from early successional habitat patches because those patches themselves are disappearing, replaced by taller woodlands and forest that provide less forage and cover. As habitat conditions decline, the survival rates of young and adult cottontails declines, especially in winter when food resources are scarcest. Maturation of early successional habitat is a natural process. Much of the cottontail’s habitat has probably always been short-lived and the species is likely adapted to have relatively high dispersal ability so that animals that find themselves in low quality habitat can move elsewhere. What has changed is that the natural forces and human activities that once maintained a mosaic of relatively large patches of early successional habitat have changed. For example, as recently as 10 years ago, forestry practices once created large areas of high quality habitat on forest clearcuts; this practice has changed and the relatively few clearcuts are carried out today are also very small. Agriculture, especially small dairies, once provided a mosaic of regenerating habitat to support cottontail populations; today there are fewer dairies and more mixed operations where most acres are put into production and there is relatively little farmland that is left fallow for the time period needed to benefit cottontails. Rather than address the factors that have resulted in changed land use and disturbance regimes, experts agree that the highest priority need for cottontails is to mitigate these threats by 1) identifying the properties on which core populations will be maintained, 2) providing permanent or multi-year protection for those properties, and 3) creating, restoring, or maintaining high quality early successional habitat there. Individual parcels of habitat may wink in and out, but within a small localized geogra- phy, there will always be a significant acreage of habitat that is constantly being created. We assume that it will be more effective to permanently keep some areas as early successional rather than allow habitat to fully mature into forest before restoring it. However, because habitat will be of marginal quality while being restored, it will always be necessary to maintain a buffer of high quality habitat. Strategy 1: Habitat restoration and creation Habitat restoration and creation within designated habitat units is the fundamental activity that will allow cottontail populations to increase and new populations to be established. USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service is likely to be able to fund $1.0 – $1.5 million of this work over 10 years. The Foundation may provide non-federal match to some of these projects and will explicitly seek habitat restoration projects that offer the lowest per dollar total restoration cost for the greatest potential gain for cottontail populations.

6 | March 24, 2009 | Draft • Activity 1: Restore 1,500 acres of degraded habitat $$ — Approximately 1,500 acres of habitat need to be restored in areas where degraded habitat still exists. USDA-NRCS estimates that habitat restoration costs based on 2008 pricing may range from $60\acre for light brush control to $6,000/acre or more if mechanical and chemicial control of invasive species and high density native shrub plantings are needed. Restoration of hydrology and flows by removing tile drains and other obstructions may add cost but create more enduring early successional habitat. Much of this habitat restoration will occur on the edges of existing habitat occupied by cottontails, wherein the goal is to expand current habitat to a size that it can support a viable population. • Activity 2: Create 500 acres of new habitat $$ — Approximately 500 acres of new habitat need to be created because some of the identified habitat units simply do not have enough degraded habitat to restore.

Risk 1: Incentive payments may be necessary for private landowner participation It is possible that voluntary participation by landowners will be insufficient to supply the land and habitat needed and our strategy may eventually need to be revised to incorporate a new cost — incentive payments — that provide cash payments to landowners who put their lands to use for cottontail conservation. However, this approach should not be pursued until the supply of uncompen- sated participants has been exhausted.

Risk 2: Change in USDA program rules New rules for the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) under the recently enacted 2008 Farm Bill narrow eligibility to agricultural, forest and tribal land, and create payment caps that may prevent many previously eligible landowners from participating in USDA-funded habitat restoration activities. Thus, the ability of USDA-NRCS to contribute to habitat restoration costs may be lower than expected. Strategy 2: Land Acquisition and Easements Identify the best areas to support viable populations and manage units in which habitat will be con- tinuously maintained over time. • Activity 1: Map and prioritize value of land for cottontails In New Hampshire, analysis has already been completed so that the value of properties for cottontail conservation can be prioritized; that prioritization now needs to happen. Similar analysis is also underway in Maine and needs to be finalized to allow the remainder of this strategy to move forward. • Activity 2: Develop land protection strategy that minimizes cost Land is very expensive in this region of Maine and New Hampshire, ranging in price from $10,000 to $80,000 per acre (or greater). It is possible to achieve conservation goals for the cottontail with permanent protection of only an additional 25% of the needed lands (approximate 100 acres of fee simple acquisition and 400 acres of easements). This is contingent on voluntary landowner agreements being put into place on a significant remainder of unprotected corporate and private lands. $$ — An analysis is needed that combines the earlier analyses of biological value of properties for cottontail conservation with an analysis that estimates land protection costs; the intent of the analysis should be to prioritize areas for cottontail conservation that seeks to minimize land costs. Without doing so, land costs are likely to far exceed the budget available for the species.

Draft | March 24, 2009 | 7 • Activity 3: All parties agree upon land protection strategy Priority areas for the protection and restoration of blocks of habitat need to be agreed upon by conservation partners and that information made available so that subsequent conservation activities can be focused in those landscapes. In Maine, only acquisition in Cumberland and York County are priorities at present because these counties include the known range of cottontails and Maine state policy (at present) would not allow translocation of rabbits to other counties. • Activity 4: Acquire and secure easements on land $$ — Acquisition and easement must always proceed on an opportunistic basis as willing sellers make properties available. However, once investments have been initiated in a habitat block, subsequent investments should be focused on securing remaining land protection in this block that com- prises a core population area until completed.

Land Acquisition and Easements Land protection is by far the greatest expense associated with this conservation strategy. In Cumberland, York, Lincoln, Androscoggin, Kennebec, Sagadahoc and other counties in Maine and New Hampshire land that could be used for early successional habitat conservation costs between $1,000 to $250,000 per acre to acquire and approximately $750 to $188,000 per acre to ease. In addition, land protection provides no guarantee that habitat will be maintained. The more acreage that experts deem require protection, the greater the cost and the less money available for habitat restoration and management and the less attractive this conservation investment is, compared to other projects nationwide. We believe that by permanently protecting an additional 25% of populations and habitat units (beyond what has already been protected by 2008), sufficient habitat will be secure and other voluntary and short-term agreements will be sufficient to support the remainder of conservation goals.

8 | March 24, 2009 | Draft Addressing Threat 2 — Loss of disturbance regimes New England cottontail populations will never be stable in the long-term unless we address some of the threats that have led to the elimination of early successional habitat. Changing some of these threats — like development — is not feasible but we can change the patterns of disturbance on unde- veloped private lands. Experts believe that the only way to change land management practices is to put coordinators on the ground in both states who work directly with landowners and coordinate the restoration of early successional habitat, provide regulatory assurances, and recruit USDA and other funding to pay for restoration. New field personnel are needed because landowners have no incentive to undertake this work on their own and agency budget capacity to initiate this work is not available. Strategy 1: Managing private landowner concerns about regulation Real and perceived disincentives prevent many private landowners from carrying out or allowing early successional habitat management on their land. These disincentives exist in part because the species is already protected by the states and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is considering added the cottontail to the list of federally endangered species. Many landowners fear that their ability to use their land may be constrained if cottontails are present. $$ — Many of the activities described in this strategy depend upon the creation of new staff capacity to handle new tasks that cannot be completed by existing agency or NGO staff. In particular, providing regulatory assurances, landowner outreach, and habitat restoration planning. We propose to hire separate coordinators in both states who will be responsible for completing the majority of these activities. • Activity 1: Develop regulatory protections for landowners in New Hampshire Development of a programmatic Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA) is underway in New Hampshire. When it is finalized, it will allow any landowner to participate in habitat restoration activities without fear that doing so will create new regulatory obligations on their land. The Agreement will also create a vehicle through which short-term (10 -20 year) habitat management agreements are put in place on properties of private landowners who voluntarily participate, so there is relatively high certainty that suitable conditions will persist without the cost that would be incurred to purchase or ease the land. • Activity 2: Develop regulatory protections for landowners in Maine Development of an individual Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances is underway in Maine and will include protection and coverage under Maine’s state endangered species law. As above, this Agreement is essential to the success of habitat restoration in Maine.

Risk: Delay in approval Without this agreement, it will be impossible to create and restore habitat on many of the properties needed to achieve the conservation goals of this plan. It is essential that this activity be completed in the immediate future and that both states have the staff capacity to work with landowners to build participation in the Agreements and facilitate subsequent habitat restoration work.

Risk: Staffing needs $$ — Maine and New Hampshire have taken different approaches. In New Hampshire, the State Fish and Game Department is participating in a CCAA with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The State will have the authority to sign up private landowners under the agreement with relatively little paperwork or time delay; significant time commitments of state but not federal personnel will be needed once the agreement is in place. In Maine, individual landowners will negotiate agreements with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service which will require each landowner to negotiate a conservation plan and agreement,

Draft | March 24, 2009 | 9 and for the federal agency to review documents and provide public notice through the Federal Register of the planned agreement. It is possible that this individualized approach with be a disincentive to landowner participation; significant time commitments of federal but not state personnel are involved.

Risk: Increased landowner concerns impede participation Time is critical for either Candidate Conservation Agreement approach because if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided to add the cottontail to the list of endangered species additional landowners would not be able to participate under a CCAA. An alternative tool — a Safe Harbor Agreement — could be used, but developing and finalizing this new tool could take a significant amount of time and substantially delay conservation activities. Strategy 2: Change forest management and practices In New Hampshire and especially in Maine, forestry practices have changed in the last decade because state law and public opinion discourages the larger forest clearcuts that once created abun- dant early successional habitat. Most clearcuts completed today are done on 10 acres or less of land and provide too little habitat to support a viable population of cottontails or other species. • Activity 1: Larger clearcuts $$ — Encourage changes in forest harvest patterns to more often implement larger (> 25 acre) clearcuts where slope, water resources, and other biological resources make it reasonable to do so. • Activity 2: Identify practices which best create suitable plant communities $$ — Determine which forest treatments or practices are most successful at creating subsequent shrub and herbaceous stem density to provide suitable regenerating habitat. Determine how forest management practices could be manipulated to provide better food and shelter resources for resident and dispersing cottontails, specific to different types of forest present in the area.

Risk: Forest fragmentation Increasing the size of clearcuts and other clearings may necessarily fragment large patches of closed canopy forest which could in turn have adverse effects on forest interior wildlife. Adequate planning needs to be in place to ensure that activities taken to benefit cottontails and early successional species do not imperil other at risk wildlife and plants. Strategy 3: Create expanded markets for biomass Habitat restoration is expensive and will need to be repeated on a 10 – 15 year cycle in perpetuity to maintain the New England cottontail. Forest harvest including clearcutting may be relatively self- financing, but other practices will require additional capital. One of the best ways to minimize this risk may be to develop markets for slash and other woody material cleared during habitat management operations. While this material likely has little value in conventional wood product markets, it is potentially an excellent source of biomass fuel for biomass-to-energy plants that are already in operation in these states and for which there is likely to be expanding commercial capacity. • Activity 1: Secure contracts with biomass-to-energy companies $$ — Work should be initiated to secure contracts with biomass-to-energy companies so that habitat restoration and maintenance operations increasingly can depend upon an additional revenue stream to support costs. If revenue generated exceeds habitat restoration costs, landowners will also have a new cash incentive to manage their lands to benefit cottontails, independent of any need for government or philanthropic assistance. The profitability of this approach will depend upon market conditions and commodity prices.

10 | March 24, 2009 | Draft Strategy 4: Shifting American woodcock conservation activities Conservation activities are already proceeding in both states to expand habitat for the American woodcock and other priority wildlife. However, most management activities are occurring outside of the range of the New England cottontail. Therefore, as implemented today, these activities will not benefit cottontails. Further work is needed to evaluate current practice and possibly adjust management activities so the size and configuration of restored habitat supports American woodcock, New England cottontail, golden-winged warbler and a host of other species. Strategy 5: Outreach to increase public support for early successional habitat Many landowners believe that closed canopy forest rather than early successional habitat is the ‘natural’ condition of their property. If we can change the attitudes of some landowners so that they embrace the creation of early successional habitat, new lands will be available to the cottontail. Thus, educational outreach is a critical element of this conservation strategy. This is particularly important for landowners who have the resources to manage their own lands without grants or government assistance. A correctly designed public education campaign will only be important if it were successful in changing enough attitudes that a significant number of landowners changed how they managed their land to promote the survival of early successional species.

Risk: Broad outreach may miss target audience Many landowners do not have a bias against early successional habitat and directed outreach to them is likely to find more immediate success. These landowners are likely to be particularly response if planning and funding assistance (for habitat restoration) is also provided in concert with outreach activities. Addressing Threat 3 — Suitable habitat remains unoccupied because it is too isolated from existing New England cottontail populations Human-driven changes in the landscape have likely dramatically decreased the likelihood of dispersal across longer distances. Two new predators are common in this landscape — coyotes and domestic cats — and are known to be active predators of cottontails. Roads, especially large highways like Interstate 95, dissect the landscape into much more isolated blocks that prevent cottontails from moving or kill a large number of those that do attempt to disperse. Large areas of unbroken forest or of developed subdivision create new barriers to dispersal because they provide limited food resources or cover for dispersing cottontails. Experts believe that these forces are the principle rea- sons why relatively large blocks of suitable habitat that are isolated from existing populations have failed to be colonized by cottontails. Strategy 1: Move cottontails to suitable habitat Roads, predators, and unsuitable habitat are likely to be a permanent feature of the conservation landscape for cottontails for the foreseeable future. However, there are a number of relatively cost effective activities that can mitigate their effects on cottontail populations. • Activity 1: Develop cottontail translocation protocols The University of New Hampshire and New Hampshire Fish and Game are already working out protocols that will allow cottontails to be successfully translocated from currently declining and unviable habitat to areas that can support viable populations. Since cottontails are very sensitive to time in captivity, the protocol is focused on best practices to rapidly trap and move animals to new locations and on how to prepare habitat so that cottontails are more likely to find shelter and food in new habitat and thus survive.

Draft | March 24, 2009 | 11 • Activity 2: Prioritize sites into which cottontails should be moved Analysis needs to identify which areas provide enough suitable or restorable habitat to support viable cottontail populations and priorities and a timeline to translocate cottontails into these locations needs to be set. (Should be completed as part of same effort described under Easement strategy above.)

Risk: High predation may prevent successful establishment of new populations Mortality is likely to be greatest for translocated cottontails immediately after transfer, and during their first winter. The strategy that agencies are planning to pursue is to hold cottontails in captivity over the winter and release them early in spring when predator populations are lowest. However, if survival is still too low, it may be necessary to adjust strategy to instead focus on temporary control of predators for a few months before and after cottontails are initially transferred to improve survival through the first year.

Risk: Approval of Maine Legislature required In Maine, the state legislature requires that a recovery plan be in place before any translocation or movement of an endangered species can occur. Unless this policy is changed or the legislature approves this or another recovery plan for the species, the goals of this plan that depend upon moving animals will be impossible to achieve in Maine.

Risk: Deep winter snow may make apparently suitable habitat unsuitable It is possible that the depth of the winter snowpack, and not predation, roads, and other barriers are what has prevented cottontail populations from persisting in some areas of apparently suitable habitat. If this is the case, translocation efforts will fail to establish viable populations, but failure may be difficult to detect until winters with high snowfall occur. Strategy 2: Minimize required dispersal distances Managers have the opportunity to configure the location of habitat units such that heavily populated areas, high traffic roads, and large areas of unbroken forest are less likely to exist between habitat units. In general, this means that numerous core areas will be close enough together that cottontails are able to disperse among them from time to time, even though the areas generally function as separate populations. (Should be completed as part of same effort described under Easement strategy above.) Strategy 3: Protect dispersal habitat within and between habitat blocks Barriers prevent dispersal among habitat blocks that are isolated from one another, but successful dispersal is also at risk within habitat blocks. For example, New Hampshire is seeking to create 150- 250 acres of suitable habitat blocks embedded in 400-600 acre landscapes. It is critical that cottontails be able to disperse successfully within this landscape so they can colonize new habitat as it becomes available and leave habitat of declining quality. • Activity 1: Develop partnerships with power and transmission companies $$ — Power line rights-of-way provide valuable habitat for populations and dispersal habitat if they are managed in ways that promote cottontail conservation. Partnerships with electricity, natural gas and transmission corridor companies are a top priority and is likely to be a very cost-effective strategy because these businesses already have a fixed cost to manage corridor vegetation. Changes needed to enhance the benefit of corridors for cottontails are likely to be minimal. Companies may seek protection through the Candidate Conservation Agreements (CCAAs) describe above as a condition of changing any management activities. (Successful completion of this activity depends upon hir- ing coordinators as described above, and on existing agency and NGO relationships with energy and transmission companies.)

12 | March 24, 2009 | Draft Risk: Influence local land use planning Local land use planning is critical to success in maintaining the ability of cottontails to disperse within a landscape. However, this is an extremely difficult area of policy to influence and requires major time commitments and continuous follow-up to succeed. This activity is currently outside the scope of this business plan. It is critical that habitat blocks be configured so they are very close to at least one other habitat block, ensuring some connectivity. Otherwise, failure to change local land use plans might result in the permanent isolation of individual cottontail populations, lowering their conservation value. Addressing Threat 4 – Invasive species, inbreeding depression, poaching, domestic cats A number of other threats affect the survival of the New England cottontail, but experts have indi- cated that these are relatively minor threats that do not require activity at this time. Strategy 1: No activity on invasive plants Invasive plants now dominate many of the early successional habitats in which cottontails exist. It is unclear whether these provide better or worse forage and cover. Strategy 2: No activity to address eastern cottontail competition An invasive competitor — the Eastern cottontail — thrives in suburban and abandoned field habitat south of the Merrimack River. It does not occur in Maine and does not appear to be able to colonize New England cottontail habitat if the New England cottontail is established in that habitat first. It is possible that this threat will expand or that limited Eastern cottontail control may be necessary in advance of some conservation activities in New Hampshire. Strategy 3: No activity associated with poaching because it is not a current threat Hunting is allowed for Eastern cottontails in some parts of New Hampshire where New England cottontails do not occur. Poaching may occur in both states. However, neither hunting or poaching appear to be limiting factors for the New England cottontail. Strategy 4: No activity associated with inbreeding and genetic issues Although cottontail populations are very small, no current evidence suggests that inbreeding depression or other genetic issues are a problem that requires action. Strategy 5: No activity on domestic cats Domestic cats are likely predators of cottontails throughout their range because almost all cottontail populations exist in relatively close proximity to human settlements. Ongoing national education campaigns to encourage cat-owners to keep cats indoors may be benefiting cottontail, but it is unclear that additional targeted campaign work is needed in Maine and New Hampshire.

Draft | March 24, 2009 | 13 Funding Needs

Success in achieving the goals of this business plan depends upon the Foundation raising and spend- ing at least $3.5 million over 10 years on the strategies described herein. It also depends upon government and non-government agencies and organizations providing an additional $6.2 million over 10 years. USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service is likely to make a major contribution to this effort of approximately $1.0 to $1.5 million. Other partners who are already committed to making investments to New England cottontail conservation include New Hampshire Fish and Game, Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge, Maine Department of Conservation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Defense Fund, the University of New Hampshire, Wildlife Management Institute, American Forest Foundation… Table 1. Budget estimates for the first 10 years of New England cottontail conservation.

Budget Category Years 1-5 Years 6-10 Habitat Creation of 1,000 acres of new habitat $1.8 M $0.6 M Restoration of 1,000 – 1,500 acres of existing habitat $0.6 M Maintenance of new and restored habitat $0.3 M $0.5 M Land Protection Acquisition of 100 acres $1.2 M Easement purchase on 500 acres $1.0 M $2.3 M Coordination and outreach work focused on private lands $0.5 M $0.5 M Monitoring, research and analysis $0.5 M $0.3 M

14 | March 24, 2009 | Draft Evaluating Success

All conservation investments are made with a desire to have something change. Monitoring tells us whether that change is occurring. Evaluation tells us whether the combined set of investments being made are being designed and implemented to maximize that change. The Foundation will work with outside experts to prioritize proposals based on how well they fit in with the results chains and priorities identified in this plan. Success of funded projects will be evalu- ated based upon success in implementing proposed activities and achieving anticipated outcomes. As part of each project’s annual (for multi-year awards) and final reports, individual grantees will provide a summary of completed activities and key outcomes directly to NFWF. These would likely include outcome metrics identified at the initiative scale. Periodic expert evaluation of all investments funded under this initiative will occur and will help grantees to monitor key indicators to ensure that data across individual projects can be scaled up to programmatic and initiative levels. Findings from monitoring and evaluation activities will be used to con- tinuously learn from our grantmaking and inform future decision-making to ensure initiative success.

[This would be the location where we would put results chains and describe the indicators and measures we expect to see reporting on; and also describe any activities that the Foundation would sepa- rately fund to evaluate outcomes of the initiative]

Draft | March 24, 2009 | 15 Long-Term Foundation Support

This business plan lays out a strategy to achieve clear outcomes that benefit wildlife over a 10-year period. At that time, it is expected that the conservation actions partners have taken will have brought about new institutional and societal standards and environmental changes that will have set the population in a positive direction such that maintaining those successes or continuing them will be possible without further (or greatly reduced) NFWF funding. To help ensure that the population and other gains made in 10 years won’t be lost after the exit of NFWF funding, the partnership must seek development of solutions that are long-lasting, cost-effective, and can be maintained at lower levels of funding in the future. Therefore, part of the evaluations of this initiative will address that staying power and the likelihood that successful strategies will remain successful at lower management intensity and financial investment. The adaptive nature of this initiative will also allow NFWF and partners to regularly evaluate the strategies behind our objectives, make necessary course corrections or addition within the 10 year frame of this business plan. In some cases these corrections and additions may warrant increased investment by NFWF and other partners. However, it is also possible that NFWF would reduce or eliminate support for this initiative if periodic evaluation indicates that further investments are unlikely to be productive in the context of the intended outcomes.

16 | March 24, 2009 | Draft Ancillary Benefits

This initiative will have a measurable benefit for a host of other imperiled species which all are to some degree dependent on early successional habitat. We do not plan to monitor progress in achieving benefits for these species. The majority of these species have only a small range overlap with the New England cottontail so our ability to create significant benefits for the global range of each species are limited. Table 2. High priority species likely to benefit from activities directed toward the New England cottontail in Maine and New Hampshire. The magnitude of benefits are described in terms of how much of each of these species’ ranges overlap with that of the New England cottontail and, within that range, how much of a positive difference these activities will make. Check marks indicate that these activities are likely to offer the greatest benefits to each species.

Habitat Overall Habitat Species restoration or benefits Protection creation American woodcock < 1 % √ √ Blue-winged warbler < 1 % √ √ Golden-winged warbler < 1 % √ √ Prairie warbler < 1 % √ √ Blanding’s turtle 1-2% √ √ Clayton’s copper butterfly < 1 % √ √ American Redstart Black-billed Cuckoo Black Racer Blue-spotted Salamander Brown Thrasher Chestnut-sided Warbler Common gray fox Eastern Hognose Snake Eastern Towhee Field Sparrow Indigo Bunting Prairie Warbler Ruby-throated Hummingbird Ruffed Grouse Savannah Sparrow Spotted Turtle White-eyed Vireo White-throated Sparrow Wood Thrush Yellow-billed Cuckoo Yellow-breasted Chat

Draft | March 24, 2009 | 17 Range Map

18 | March 24, 2009 | Draft NFWF NE Cotton Biz Plan.indd 2 8/12/09 10:40:06 AM Acknowledgements

Mark Hudy, Forest Service Elizabeth Macklin, Trout Unlimited Kathy Wolf, Trout Unlimited About NFWF — The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation is a 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to funding sustainable conservation initiatives. Chartered by the United States Congress in 1984, NFWF leverages federal grants and private support to achieve maximum conservation impact. Recently, the Foundation — through its Keystone Initiatives — strategically repositioned itself to more effectively capture conservation gains by directing a substantial portion of its investments towards programs that had the greatest chance of successfully securing the long-term future of imperiled species. By lever- aging innovative program design from scientific experts, the Foundation is able to structure conservation programs that consistently achieve measurable and meaningful outcomes. [www.nfwf.org]

Draft | March 24, 2009 | 19