U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
News Release Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex Block Island NWR John H. Chafee NWR at Pettaquamscutt Cove Ninigret NWR Sachuest Point NWR Trustom Pond NWR 50 Bend Road, Charlestown, RI 02813 401/364-9124 Fax: 401/364-0170
For Immediate Release February 27, 2018 For Further Information Contact: Nick Ernst (401) 364-9124 ext. 4406 Charlie Vandemoer (401) 364-9124 ext. 4401
Fish and Wildlife Service Proposes to Reintroduce New England Cottontails on Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge, seeks Public Comment
Public Comments Accepted through March 25, 2018
The New England Cottontail is the only native rabbit in New England, and unlike the much more common eastern cottontail, is rare and of high conservation concern due to a dwindling population and fragmented habitats.
Thanks to efforts by a wide variety of states, conservation organizations, universities and zoo’s much is being done to help insure the survival of this species. The Roger Williams Zoo for example has been rearing these animals, which are then placed in an “acclimation “ pen at Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge, and then the animals are relocated to other areas in the State to either bolster existing populations or to create new ones.
In order to facilitate further conservation of this species, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to reintroduce New England Cottontail rabbits onto the Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge in order to establish a population. To help insure the success of the reintroduction effort, a small number of eastern cottontails could be live-trapped and moved to the barrier beach portion of the refuge. This will minimize competition between eastern cottontails and the New England Cottontail at the reintroduction site. The reintroduction effort is not anticipated to effect ongoing recreational activities, public use, or habitat management activities on the refuge.
A detailed description of the proposed action is available on the Ninigret NWR website at https://www.fws.gov/refuge/ninigret.
We would appreciate hearing your comments or concerns about the proposal. Comments will be accepted through March 25, 2018, and can be submitted to:
NEC Relocation Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge 50 Bend Road, Charlestown, RI 02813 ####
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Reintroduction of New England Cottontail (Sylvilagus transitionalis) on Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge February, 2018
I. Introduction
The New England cottontail (Sylvilagus transitionalis; NEC) requires dense thicket habitat which can be found only in early successional habitats, regenerating forests, and coastal barrens. Since 1960, the range of the NEC declined by an estimated 86 percent, and is now restricted to five geographically isolated populations located in Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York (Litvaitis et al. 2006). The primary cause of their decline is attributed to habitat loss and fragmentation due to human development and habitat succession (Litvaitis et al. 2008, Fuller and Tur 2012). Low genetic diversity threatens the remaining small populations making them more susceptible to extinction (Fenderson et al. 2011). Competition with eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus; EC), a species introduced to southern New England as a game species beginning in the 1930’s, is also believed to be a contributing factor to the decline of NEC (Fay and Chandler 1955, Litvaitis et al. 2006).
The New England cottontail was designated as a candidate species under the Endangered Species Act from 2006 through September 2015. During this time, a Technical and Executive committee made up of representatives from each of the six states with New England cottontail, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Resources Conservation Service, and the Wildlife Management Institute formed to coordinate conservation efforts for the species across the range. In 2012, the Executive Committee approved the Conservation Strategy for New England Cottontail (Conservation Strategy) outlining a full complement of tasks designed to promote the recovery, restoration, and conservation of NEC and its’ associated habitat. Among other things, the Conservation Strategy established NEC Focus Areas in each state, where habitat management and creation, captive breeding, population augmentation, and reintroduction of New England cottontails would be implemented within its historic range. These and other ongoing conservation efforts by a wide range of deeply committed partners, including state and Federal agencies, towns, land trusts, companies, and private landowners, contributed to the Service’s decision in September 2015 that Federal protection for NEC under the Endangered Species Act is not warranted (USFWS 2015).
In 2010, the NEC Technical Committee convened a Population Management Working Group consisting of conservationists from Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York and New Hampshire. In partnership with the Roger Williams Park Zoo in Providence, Rhode Island and the University of Rhode Island, the group initiated a captive breeding program to augment wild populations of NEC, and reintroduce cottontail to formerly occupied areas throughout their historic range. Acclimation pens were established at Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge in Rhode Island, and Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge in New Hampshire, to help transition zoo raised young to life in the wild. In 2012, the group successfully established a breeding colony of NEC on Patience Island in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island. A second captive breeding facility was established in 2015 at the Queen Zoo located in New York City. To date, New England cottontails from the captive breeding facilities, acclimation pens, and the Patience Island colony have been released at locations in Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Maine.
Purpose and Need for Action
The range of the New England Cottontail has drastically declined since the 1960’s, and without immediate human intervention, consistent with activities outlined in the Conservation Strategy; the long-term persistence of remaining populations is at risk. State-wide surveys to locate NEC in Rhode Island indicate there has been a severe population decline within the state. Excluding the breeding colony on Patience Island, and a more recent release to the mainland, New England cottontails have not been detected in Rhode Island since 2014 (RIDEM unpublished data). Population augmentation and reintroduction is an urgent objective identified in the New England Cottontail Conservation Strategy (Fuller and Tur 2012), and is necessary to bolster the small population size and recover the species in Rhode Island.
II. Management Objectives, Strategies, and Underlying Issues
1. Establish a self-sustaining population of New England cottontail at Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge to benefit recovery of the species in Rhode Island in accordance with Objective 405 of the New England cottontail Conservation Strategy. This will be accomplished through the release of captive reared individuals onto the Refuge.
Issue: A sharp decline in the population of New England cottontail has been documented in Rhode Island. The species was detected at only four locations in southern Rhode Island between the years 2012 -2014 (RIDEM unpublished data). These detections represent a single individual at each site, and visits to these areas in subsequent years have failed to detect any NEC and confirm the presence of a healthy population. Areas of suitable habitat throughout the state have become increasingly disconnected due to habitat fragmentation, limiting NEC dispersal between habitat patches. Small, isolated populations can be particularly vulnerable to local extinctions if immigration of new individuals is lacking and reproduction rates are insufficient to overcome mortality (Brown and Litvaitis 1995). At present, there are only two known locations in the state with NEC - an island population established in Narragansett Bay in 2011, and a mainland site where NEC were recently reintroduced. Given the decline in abundance and isolation of its remaining populations, it is unlikely that the Rhode Island population of NEC will recover without continued management actions. Additional reintroductions of NEC to mainland sites throughout Rhode Island are necessary to bolster depressed populations and counter the destabilizing effects of habitat fragmentation, isolation, and small population size.
2. Increase survival and reproduction rates for New England cottontail by temporarily reducing competition with sympatric eastern cottontail at the release site. This will be accomplished by live trapping and translocating eastern cottontail from the release site prior to reintroducing New England cottontail in accordance with Objective 406 of the Conservation Strategy.
Issue: The eastern cottontail is not native to New England. Thousands of eastern cottontails were introduced to the region in the 1900’s as a game species, brought in from the southwestern United States (Johnston 1972). The interaction between eastern cottontails and NEC in the wild is poorly understood, however several characteristics may give eastern cottontails a competitive advantage over NEC in places where their ranges now overlap. It has been suggested that a larger eye surface area allows the eastern cottontail to detect predators from a greater distance than NEC, enabling them to occupy a wider range of habitats including open meadows and lawns, compared to NEC (Smith and Litvaitis 1999). The adaptability of eastern cottontails to human altered landscapes has likely contributed to their success, and they are now more common than the NEC throughout Rhode Island and much of New England.
The precise mechanisms that may explain the gradual replacement of NEC by the eastern cottontail are not known. Biologists hypothesize that it may be some combination of the eastern cottontail’s better ability to evade predators or disperse into and use the available habitat, reproductive interference, or some other factor. Likely, the increase in eastern cottontails results from several subtle factors that, working together, in some way let this non-native rabbit gradually displace NEC from otherwise suitable habitat. A better understanding of the factors related to the relationship between the two species is one of the top priorities to reduce uncertainty and increase the effectiveness of the Conservation Strategy (Fuller and Tur 2012). In 2012, researchers in Connecticut initiated a study to determine the response of local NEC populations to eastern cottontail removal. Eastern cottontails were live-trapped and removed from several sites occupied by both cottontail species over two years. Preliminary analysis suggests removal of eastern cottontails from a given location can increase the proportion of NEC in the local rabbit population (Kilpatrick unpublished data 2013).
III. Proposed Action The preferred alternative and recommended action is to establish a genetically diverse and self-sustaining population of New England cottontail at Ninigret Wildlife Refuge. This would be accomplished by working with our conservation partners to (a) live trap and relocate eastern cottontail; (b) release NEC on the Refuge; and (c) monitor survival and reproduction of NEC at the release site where eastern cottontails were removed.
Figure1. Project Area for the proposed reintroduction of New England Cottontail at Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge.
A. Live trapping and translocating eastern cottontail. We propose trapping and relocating eastern cottontail from the project area prior to releasing New England cottontail on the Refuge. Preliminary studies suggest NEC populations may respond positively to the removal of eastern cottontail in locations where populations are sympatric. A removal study in Connecticut found a positive response to NEC numbers when 90 percent of eastern cottontails were removed from two sites where both species occurred. In the study, eastern cottontail numbers appeared to recover one year after removal (Kilpatrick unpublished data 2013). We fully anticipate eastern cottontail numbers will increase to pre- removal densities at the project site within one or two years. However, by temporarily removing competition between these species, we hope to provide NEC a period of time in which they can establish and reproduce without interference from eastern cottontail.
We anticipate translocating between 10 and 30 eastern cottontail annually for this project. Individual eastern cottontail would be live trapped from select locations within the project site between February and April, using Tomahawk style live traps. Trapping will be completed in accordance with existing cottontail trapping and handling procedures established by the University of Rhode Island’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). Traps will be set in the evening, checked in the morning and baited with apple slices. Trapping and transportation of cottontails will occur by state permitted or authorized personnel only. Once captured, eastern cottontails will be transported in the trap to the barrier beach unit of Ninigret NWR where they will be released (Figure 1).
B. Release of New England Cottontail through the Captive Rearing Program New England cottontails released through the captive rearing program may include cottontails from the Roger Williams Park Zoo or the Queens Zoo. Individuals recommended for release to Ninigret NWR will have been cleared by veterinarians for release and their genetic background will be taken into consideration before release to maximize genetic diversity of the reintroduced population. Cottontails will acclimate to natural conditions for 1-3 weeks in the one acre holding pen at Ninigret NWR prior to release on the Refuge. All animal care, custody, quarantine and genetic testing will conform to current standards documented by the New England Cottontail Technical Committee Population Management Working Group and approved by Rhode Island Department of Environmental Resources Division of Fish and Wildlife. The timeframe for release of captive reared cottontails may occur anytime between May and October. We anticipate releasing between 20 and 30 New England cottontail during the initial reintroduction and we will assess the number of individuals needed for subsequent releases on an annual basis. Release areas will be in habitat that provides food and cover and have lower densities of potential predators.
C. Monitoring New England cottontail will be monitored for survival in the short term and for successful reproduction in the long term by USFWS and RIDEM staff. Cottontails will be ear- tagged with a unique identification number and monitored via radio transmitter. Regular monitoring will occur during the first two weeks after release, when mortality rates are expected to be the highest. Monitoring of mortality rates will continue beyond the two weeks if possible and will be dependent on the battery life of the radio transmitter. Information on mortality, dispersal distance, and habitat use will be determined from the data collected. Long term monitoring will occur through fecal pellet collection. With advances in DNA analysis, individual cottontails can be identified which will allow us to determine if reproduction is occurring. Fecal pellet sampling will be conducted annually from January-March. Samples that are collected will be sent to the University of Rhode Island Conservation Genetics Laboratory for analysis.
IV. Current Conditions and Anticipated Environmental Effects
Location Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge is located in Washington County, Rhode Island in the town of Charlestown. The proposed project would occur within the 316 acre Ninigret Pond Unit and the 27.5 acre Barrier Beach Unit of the refuge (Figure 1). The Ninigret Pond Unit is located south of Route 1, which abuts the town-owned Ninigret Park to the north and east. Ninigret Pond defines the western and southern boundaries of the unit. The Barrier Beach Unit is located along East Beach, a three mile long barrier beach, with the Atlantic Ocean to the south, Ninigret Pond to the north, and state conservation lands to the east and west.
The New England Cottontail Conservation Strategy developed Focus Areas to concentrate recovery efforts for the species in each state. Ninigret NWR falls within Rhode Island’s Southwest Focus Area. Two of the goals set for the Southwest Focus Area include maintaining or creating 1,000 acres of shrubland habitat supporting a minimum of 500 New England cottontail. Ninigret NWR protects one of the largest tracts of contiguous maritime shrubland habitat in southern Rhode Island. Hurricanes and other natural disturbances associated with coastal environments help to maintain the habitat in an early successional state. For these reasons, the NEC Technical Committee’s Population Management Working Group identified Ninigret as a high priority parcel to reintroduce NEC in Rhode Island.
Vegetation The project area consists mainly of maritime shrubland and forest communities. Forest cover is dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum) and black cherry (Prunus serotina), followed by eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides, and gray birch (Betula populifolia). The shrubland and understory communities vary in height and composition but are typically dominated by northern arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum), sumacs (Rhus spp.), bayberry (Myrica pensylvanica), highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), shadbush (Amelanchier canadensis), or sweet-pepperbush (Clethora alnifolia). Non-native, invasive plants such as Asian bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), shrub honeysuckles (Lonicera spp), mutli-flora rose (Rosa multiflora) and autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata) occur throughout the project area at varying density. Vegetation in the Barrier Beach Unit consists of beach strand and back-dune associates including American beach grass (Ammophila breviligulata), switch grass (Panicum virgatum), beach rose (Rosa rugosa), small bayberry (Morella caroliniensis), and groundsel-bush (Baccharis halimifolia).
No negative impacts to vegetation are anticipated as a result of this project. We estimate there are approximately 130 acres of suitable habitat at Ninigret NWR capable of supporting between 65-130 New England cottontails. Previous releases on Patience Island, where the population is currently estimated at 77-123 individuals, provide no evidence to indicate that New England cottontails have negatively impacted the vegetation structure of the habitat there (McGreevy personal communication 2017). In the event of any unforeseen negative impacts observed to the population or habitat in the future, the transfer of individuals to other mainland sites would be considered as a means to control the population on Ninigret NWR. While such negative impacts are highly unanticipated, monitoring of the population and the habitat status will take place, and any and all negative impacts would be addressed.
We do not anticipate any negative impacts to vegetation at the Barrier Beach Unit of Ninigret NWR as a result of translocating 10-30 eastern cottontails annually. Eastern cottontails already occur on the Barrier Unit of Ninigret and along the 3 mile stretch of back-dune habitat of East Beach, and there is no apparent sign of excessive browse or associated habitat degradation. Furthermore, naturally high predation rates for this prey species should prevent the population from exceeding the carrying capacity of the habitat in this area.
Wildlife Resources Approximately 70 species are known to nest in the project area. The most abundant shrubland nesting birds include gray catbirds (Dumetella carolinensis), common yellowthroats (Geothlypis trichas), and red- winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus). Other birds using early successional shrub and grassland vegetation for nesting include white-eyed vireo (Vireo griseus), willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailii), prairie warbler (Setophaga discolor), and American woodcock (Scolopax minor).Wintering birds present on the refuge include northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), red- shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis), black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapilla), tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) and a variety of sparrows.
Resident mammals include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), coyote (Canis latrans), bobcat (Lynx rufus) rodents and bats. A wide variety of snakes, turtles, and frogs and other reptiles and amphibians use the beach dunes, interdunal depressions, shrublands, maritime forest and wetlands. Invertebrates such as bees, beetles, butterflies and other insects as well as soil invertebrates are found in all habitats.
The proposed project is not anticipated to adversely affect resident wildlife resources. New England cottontail is a native species, which up until recently, occurred in the project area. The removal of eastern cottontails from the Ninigret Salt Pond Unit is expected to represent natural losses due to predation, and given the high abundance of eastern cottontail in the surrounding area, this should not impact the overall population in any significant way. Eastern cottontails that are released on the Ninigret Barrier Beach Unit will likely disperse throughout the refuge and onto the surrounding state conservation land. There is approximately 130 acres of back dune shrubland habitat along East Beach, capable of supporting and additional 10-30 eastern cottontail annually. Naturally high predation rates for eastern cottontail, in addition to rabbit hunting that is permitted on state conservation land, should maintain the population at or below carrying capacity, and ensure there is not a significant increase in competition with other resident wildife species for resources.
Tularemia Tularemia is a disease of wildlife and humans that is caused by the bacterium Francisella tularensis. Tulerimia has been reported in over 250 animal species including humans, and can cause epidemics and epizootics (WHO 2007). There are two subspecies recognized in the United States, the more virulent F.t. tularensis (type A) and, and the milder F.t. holarctica (type B) (Morner 1992). Cottontail rabbits (Sylvigus spp.) and rodents are the primary host for Type A. Type B is reported in aquatic mammals including muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus) and beaver (Castor canadensis) (Mörner 1992).
The bacterium can be transmitted to humans through various routes including arthropod bites, ingestion, inhalation, or direct contact with infected tissue. There is no human to human transmission. Ticks are considered the primary vector for the transmission of tularemia between mammals. Tick species reported as carriers of F. tularensis include the dog tick (Dermacentor variablilis), the wood tick (Dermacentor andersoni), and the lone star tick (Amblyomma americanum) (CDC 2016).
Observed clinical signs in wild rabbits are often variable or unnoticed (Davidson 2009 ). In humans, the clinical signs and symptoms of tularemia depend, in part, on the route of infection. The ulceroglandular form, in which an ulcer develops at the site of infection and is accompanied by swelling of the lymph nodes, is most common. The less common but more severe pneumonic form develops after inhalation of the bacteria (Feldman et al. 2003). Tularemia can be fatal to humans if left untreated. Prior to modern antibiotics, the fatality rate of type A tularemia was 5- 15%, and as high as 30-60% in its most severe cases. That number is currently less than 2% (Dennis et. al, 2001). In the United States, an average of 164 cases of tularemia was reported annually between 2006 and 2016. The majority of these cases occurred in Arkansas, Missouri, South Dakota, and Oklahoma (CDC 2018). Reports of human cases of tularemia are relatively uncommon for New England, with the exception of some historical occurrences in Massachusetts. From the year 2006 to 2016, there were 80 human cases of tularemia reported in Massachusetts (CDC website statistics 2018). During this same time period there were no reported cases in Rhode Island or Maine; one case in Connecticut; two cases in Vermont; and four cases in New Hampshire.
The project is not expected to cause any adverse effects to human health or wildlife health. Cases of tularemia in humans are extremely rare in Rhode Island, with no reported cases from 1990- 2016 (CDC 2018). With so few reported human cases, tularemia is not currently considered a major public health concern in Rhode Island, and consequently there is little monitoring to determine its prevalence in the environment (McBride, personal communication 2018). Existing protocols require health screenings of all NEC at the captive breeding facilities prior to their release, ensuring tularemia-infected rabbits would not be inadvertently introduced to the refuge. While it is possible that tularemia infected eastern cottontails could be present and transported within the project area, the lack of human reported cases to date, despite having a high abundance of eastern cottontails in the state, suggest that there would not be an increased risk of tularemia exposure to public health as a result of this project.
Recreational Use Wildlife dependent recreation permitted at Ninigret NWR include: deer hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation. Among these recreational uses, deer hunting is the only activity that would potentially occur in areas where cottontails are trapped or released. However, all of the actions associated with this project would occur from February through October, when there is no deer hunting on the refuge. The project would have no effect on these public activities.
Consistency with applicable Federal Law
National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57, as amended)
This Act requires that actions authorized or carried out on National Wildlife Refuges be conducted so as to be consistent with the purposes for which a refuge are established, provide for diversity, and allow appropriate wildlife dependent uses. The Act requires development of long term Comprehensive Conservation Plans to help guide refuge management.
The Ninigret Point NWR was established for purposes of providing an inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds, and for other reasons. A Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) was approved for the Ninigret NWR in 2001. The CCP emphasizes management of wildlife habitats to sustain migratory birds, to provide safe and well maintained facilities, and to emphasize wildlife dependent recreational opportunities where compatible with the refuge purposes.
The project fulfills and satisfies requirements of this law by (a) improving habitat conditions for migratory birds and other native species; and the project does not detract from (b) providing safe and well maintained facilities; and (c) providing for wildlife dependent recreational opportunities.
Endangered Species Act of 1972 (7 U.S.C. § 136, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.).
A unique rare plant site, containing eight species the State of Rhode Island considers rare or endangered, lies within the grassland habitat on Ninigret NWR. The rare species include colicroot (Aletris farinosa), slimspike three-awn (Aristida longespica), yellow- fringed orchids (Platanthera ciliaris), tall- and few-flowered nutrushes (Scleria triglomerata, S. paucifolia), marsh milkwort (Polygala cruciata), little ladies' tresses (Spiranthes tuberosa), and Indiangrass (Sorgastrum nutans) (Killingbeck et al. 1998). Eastern cottontail are abundant on the Refuge, and New England cottontail were present on the Refuge until at least 2006, and no observed impacts to rare plants from either cottontail species have been observed. Furthermore, in the unlikely event that negative impacts are noted, fencing would be put up around rare plant populations for protection. The project would have no effect on these plant species.
Piping plover (Charadrius melodus), a federally threatened species, have nested either on the barrier beach portion of the refuge or on the adjacent Ninigret Conservation Area every year since 1993. Piping plover typically breed on beaches from April through July. The activities associated with this project will not occur in piping plover habitat, and therefore would have no effect on this species
Least tern (Sterna antillarium), a state-listed threatened species, nests on the barrier beach portion of the refuge or on adjacent Ninigret Conservation Area, in similar habitat as piping plovers. This project would have no effect on least terns. The New England Cottontail is considered a species of greatest conservation need in Rhode Island, requiring large blocks of un-fragmented shrub habitat in order for viable populations to exist. The presence of NEC was confirmed at Ninigret NWR as recently as 2006; however, they are no longer thought to occur on the refuge. The project is expected to have a positive impact to New England cottontail, as establishing another reproducing population in the northeast landscape will help ensure future survival of this species. It is estimated that Ninigret NWR could support a population of 65-130 cottontails, which once established, could serve as source population for reintroductions at other locations in the future.
Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), a federally threatened species, may occur in at Ninigret NWR, however no known hibernacula or maternity roosts occur in the project area. The project will have no effect on this species.
John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resource Act of 1982 (PL 97-348, as amended )
This federal law prohibits the use of federal funds within coastal barrier resource units designated under the act, unless certain exemptions are met. The federal law is implemented by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and determinations under the Act, when an activity is on a National Wildlife Refuge or part of a refuge activity, is delegated to the project leader/refuge manager.
The project area lies within coastal barrier unit D05/D05P, which includes Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge and adjacent areas. This project meets the following exceptions as detailed in Section 6 of the Act:
(6) any of the following actions or projects, but only if the making available of expenditures or assistance therefore is consistent with the purposes of this Act: (A) Projects for the study, management, protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources and habitats, including, but not limited to, acquisition of fish and wildlife habitats and related lands, (B) stabilization projects for fish and wildlife habitats, and recreational projects.
This project is part of a larger conservation strategy designed to recover the New England cottontail throughout its historic range. The establishment of a self-sustaining population of New England cottontail at Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge would contribute to this conservation strategy, and is the primary goal and objective in pursing this project.
The purposes of the Act are:
Minimize loss of human life by discouraging development in high risk areas;
reduce wasteful expenditure of federal resources; and protect the natural resources associated with coastal barriers.
This project is consistent with these objectives because (a) it will not encourage new development in coastal area; (b) will not result in a waste of federal funding; and (c) the project is specifically designed to protect and enhance natural resources associated with the coastal barrier unit.
The Service, based on this analysis, finds that this project is fully consistent with the Coastal Resource Barrier Act of 1982 (as amended).
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA; Public Law 89-665; 54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq.) This legislation is intended to preserve historical and archaeological sites in the United States of America. The project area is located within an area historically occupied by the Narragansett Indian Tribe. More recently, it was the former home of the Charlestown Naval Auxiliary Air Station during World War II. A burial site for the Narragansett Indians was discovered during the construction of the naval station runways and was recorded with the Rhode Island Historic Preservation and Heritage Commission. The past military activities affected archeological resources at Ninigret NWR and only a few locations on the refuge have intact soils. These areas are considered highly sensitive for archeological resources. There would be no disturbance to any soils as a result of this project.
The Service finds that this project is not likely to impact historic properties or sites potentially eligible for listing in the historic register.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
This Act requires federal agencies to evaluate proposed actions (including alternatives), assess their consequences to the environment, and where appropriate to solicit public comment on the proposal. This document constitutes the Service’s evaluation of project effects on the environment, and is being made available for public review and comment. Any public comments received will be evaluated as part of this review.
Selection of a No Action alternative would result in maintaining current conditions. Refuge staff would not take any proactive measures towards establishing a population of New England cottontail at Ninigret NWR. Potential habitat would still be protected, but a self- sustaining population would not be established. Recovery of the species in Rhode Island would be hindered, and the cumulative effects may negatively impact the species as a whole. The drastic population decline throughout the state, in addition to habitat fragmentation which acts as a barrier to natural dispersal and colonization, make it unlikely that New England cottontail would recover without human intervention. Under a No Action alternative, the potential would be lost to host a substantial population of New England cottontails on the Refuge, which may serve as a source population for establishing additional populations throughout the state or the species historic range. A No Action alternative may also negatively impact range-wide population goals set forth in the Conservation Strategy and may jeopardize the long-term survival of the species.
Literature Cited
Brown, A.L. and J.A. Litvaitis. 1995. Habitat features associated with predation of New England cottontails: what scale is appropriate? Can. J. Zool. 73: 1005-1011.
Dennis, D.T. 2001. Tularemia as a biological weapon- Medical and public health management. Journal of the American Medical Association. 258 (21): 2763-2773.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 2016).Tularemia. https://www.cdc.gov/tularemia/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 2018).Tularemia statistics. https://www.cdc.gov/tularemia/statistics/index.html
Fay, F.H., and E.H. Chandler. 1955. The geographical and ecological distribution of cottontail rabbits in Massachuesetss. Journal of Mammalogy 36(3):415-424.
Feldman, K. A., Stiles-Enos, D., Julian, K., Matyas, B. T., Telford, S. R., Chu, M. C. Hayes, E. B. (2003). Tularemia on Martha’s Vineyard: seroprevalence and occupational risk. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 9(3), 350-354.
Fenderson, L.E., A.I. Kovach, J.A. Litvaitis, and M.K. Litvaitis. 2011. Population genetic structure and history of fragmented remnant populations of the New England cottontail (Sylvilagus transitionalis). Conservation Genetics 12:943-958.
Fuller, S. and A. Tur. 2012. Conservation Strategy for the New England Cottontail (Sylvilagus transitionalis). Available at www.newenglandcottontail.org
Johnston, J.E. 1972. Identification and distribution of cottontail rabbits in Southern New England. M.S. Thesis, University of Connecticut, Storrs. 70 pp
Kilpatrick, H. Supervising Wildlife Biologist. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, North Franklin, CT. Personal communication.
Litvaitis, J.A. and Tash, J.P. 2006. Status, habitat features associated with remnant populations, and identification of sites for restoration and translocation of New England cottontails. Final Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Litvaitis, J. A., M.S. Barbour, A.L. Brown, A.I. Kovach, M.K. Litvaitis, J.D. Oehler, B.L. Probert, D.F. Smith, J. P. Tash, and R. Villafuerte. 2008. Testing Mulitple Hypotheses to Identify Causes of the Decline of a Lagomoarh Species: The New Engalnd Cottontail as a Case Study. Pages 1667-185 in P. Alves, N. Ferrand, and K. Hackländer, editors. Lagomorph Biology. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Keller, P. and K. Killingbeck. 2004. Evaluation of rare plant dynamics in response to ongoing management strategies at the Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge. Final Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
McBride, M. Director of Veterinary Services, Roger Williams Park Zoo. Personal communication.
McGreevy T.J. Director of Wildlife Conservation Genetics Laboratory, University of Rhode Island. Personal communication
Mörner T, 1992. The ecology of tularaemia. Rev. Sci. Tech.11(4): 1123–30.
Smith, D.F. and J.A. Litvaitis. 2000. Foraging strategies of sympatric lagomorphs: implications for differential success in fragmented landscapes. Can. J. Zool. 78:2134- 2141.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).2015. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the New England Cottontail as an Endangered or Threatened Species. September 15, 2015. 80 FR 55286. 19 pp. Accessed February, 2018, at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-15/pdf/2015- 22885.pdf
World Health Organization Guidelines on Tularemia. 2007. Accessed February, 2018 at https://www.cdc.gov/tularemia/resources/whotularemiamanual.pdf