80_FR_34711 80 FR 34595 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing Eastern Puma (=Cougar) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

80 FR 34595 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing Eastern Puma (=Cougar) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 116 (June 17, 2015)

Page Range34595-34605
FR Document2015-14931

The best available scientific and commercial data indicate that the eastern puma (=cougar) (Puma (=Felis) concolor couguar) is extinct. Therefore, under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to remove this subspecies from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. This proposed action is based on a thorough review of all available information, which indicates that there is no evidence of the existence of either an extant population or individuals of the eastern puma and that, for various reasons, it is highly unlikely that an eastern puma population could remain undetected over the time span since the last confirmed sighting was documented in 1938.

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 116 (Wednesday, June 17, 2015)
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 116 (Wednesday, June 17, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34595-34605]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14931]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2015-0001; 50120-1113-000]
RIN 1018-AY05


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing Eastern 
Puma (=Cougar) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The best available scientific and commercial data indicate 
that the eastern puma (=cougar) (Puma (=Felis) concolor couguar) is 
extinct. Therefore, under the authority of the Endangered Species Act 
of 1973, as amended, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), 
propose to remove this subspecies from the Federal List of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife. This proposed action is based on a thorough 
review of all available information, which indicates that there is no 
evidence of the existence of either an extant population or individuals 
of the eastern puma and that, for various reasons, it is highly 
unlikely that an eastern puma population could remain undetected over 
the time span since the last confirmed sighting was documented in 1938.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
August 17, 2015. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. 
Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for public 
hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT by August 3, 2015. Informational webinars will be scheduled 
upon request.

ADDRESSES: Written comments: You may submit comments by one of the 
following methods:
    Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the search box, type FWS-R5-ES-2015-001 which 
is the docket number for this proposed rule. Then, click on the search 
button. In the Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the 
Document Type heading, click on the box next to ``Proposed Rule'' to 
locate this document. When you have located the correct document, you 
may submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment Now!''
    By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R5-ES-2015-0001, U.S. Fish & Wildlife 
Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
    We will post all comments at: http://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Information Requested below, for more information).
    Copies of documents: This proposed rule and and primary supporting 
documents are available at: http://www.regulations.gov. In addition, 
the supporting files for this proposed rule will be available for 
public inspection, by appointment and during normal business hours, at 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Maine Field Office, 17 Godfrey 
Drive, Suite #2, Orono, ME 04473, and on the Eastern Cougar Web site 
at: http://www.fws.gov/northeast/ECougar.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions and requests for additional 
information may be directed to Martin Miller, Northeast Regional 
Office, telephone 413-253-8615, or to Mark McCollough, Maine Field 
Office, telephone 207-866-3344, extension 115. Individuals who are 
hearing- or speech-impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 1-
800-877-8337 for TTY assistance. General information regarding the 
eastern puma and the delisting process may also be accessed at: http://www.fws.gov/northeast/ECougar.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and effective as possible. Therefore, we invite tribal 
and governmental agencies, the scientific community, and other 
interested parties to submit comments and new data regarding this 
proposed rule. In particular, we are seeking targeted information and 
comments concerning the following:
    (1) The persistence or extinction of a breeding population of the 
eastern puma subspecies within its historical range;
    (2) Verifiable reports or evidence of wild-origin pumas within the 
historical range of the eastern puma subspecies;
    (3) Our analysis of the status of the eastern puma; and
    (4) The taxonomy of North American pumas.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include. Bear in 
mind that comments simply advocating or opposing the proposed action 
without providing supporting information will be noted but not 
considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 
(Act), directs that determinations as to whether any species is an 
endangered species or threatened species shall be made ``solely on the 
basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you 
send comments only to an address listed in ADDRESSES. All comments must 
be submitted to http://www.regulations.gov, hand delivered, or 
postmarked by the deadline specified in DATES. If you submit 
information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission--
including any personal identifying information--will be posted on the 
Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes 
personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your 
document

[[Page 34596]]

that we withhold this information from public review; however, we 
cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all 
hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available 
for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment 
during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Maine Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    In making a final decision on this proposal, we will take into 
consideration the comments and any additional information we receive 
during the public comment period. Such communications could lead to a 
final rule that differs from this proposal.

Public Hearing

    Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act provides for one or more public 
hearings on this proposal, if requested. We must receive requests for 
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section within 45 days after the date of this 
Federal Register publication (see DATES). We will schedule public 
hearings on this proposal, if any are requested, and announce the 
dates, times, and places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain 
reasonable accommodations, in the Federal Register at least 15 days 
before the first hearing.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our policy, ``Notice of Interagency Cooperative 
Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities,'' which 
was published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert 
opinion of at least three appropriate independent specialists regarding 
scientific data and analyses contained in this proposed rule. We will 
send copies of this proposed rule to peer reviewers immediately 
following its publication in the Federal Register. The purpose of such 
review is to ensure that our decisions are based on scientifically 
sound data, assumptions, and analysis.

Background

    This proposed rule is based on detailed information and indepth 
analyses contained in the Service's 5-year review for the eastern puma 
(USFWS 2011, entire), which can be accessed at: http://www.fws.gov/northeast/ECougar. That review includes a thorough discussion of the 
eastern puma's biology, historical records, and analysis of 
contemporary sightings. We also take into account information that has 
become available since 2011, noting that this information corroborates 
the 5-year review's analysis. All references cited in the 2011 review 
and this proposed rule are maintained on file at the Service's Maine 
Field Office (see ADDRESSES).

Previous Federal Actions

    Under the Act, we maintain a List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife (List) at 50 CFR 17.11 and a List of Endangered and Threatened 
Plants at 50 CFR 17.12. On June 4, 1973 (38 FR 14678), we listed the 
eastern puma (=cougar), Puma (=Felis) concolor couguar, as an 
endangered subspecies (using the common name of eastern cougar). At 
that time, critical habitat was not provided for under the Act; 
consequently, critical habitat was not designated for the eastern 
cougar. The principal factors leading to the listing of the eastern 
puma were widespread persecution (poisoning, trapping, hunting, and 
bounties), decline of forested habitat, and near-extirpation of white-
tailed deer populations during the 1800s, which together resulted in 
the extirpation of most eastern puma populations by 1900.
    A Service status review of the puma in North America, including the 
eastern puma, was issued in 1976 (Nowak 1976). This review, along with 
status reviews by some States and Canadian provinces (e.g., van Zyll de 
Jong and van Ingen 1978, R.L. Downing newsletters from 1979 to 1982), 
suggested that a large number of unverified public reports may be 
evidence of a persisting, native breeding population of eastern pumas. 
Such reports led the Service to retain the eastern puma on the List 
until such time as either a breeding population or extinction could be 
verified.
    The Eastern Cougar Recovery Plan was approved in 1982 (USFWS 1982). 
During plan preparation, R.L. Downing conducted field surveys and 
investigated sighting reports and concluded that ``no breeding cougar 
populations have been substantiated within the former range of F.c. 
couguar since the 1920s.'' Nonetheless, the recovery plan states that 
the eastern cougar could be reclassified from endangered to threatened 
when one population containing at least 50 breeding adults was found or 
established. It further states that the eastern cougar could be removed 
from the List when at least three populations were found or 
established, with each containing more than 50 breeding adults. Since 
the plan's approval, no breeding populations have been found, nor have 
any individual pumas known to be F.c. couguar (such individuals would 
form the basis of a founder population). Thus, neither of the recovery 
criteria was ever met.
    Section 4(c)(2) of the Act requires that we conduct a review of 
listed species at least once every 5 years to determine: (1) Whether a 
species no longer meets the definition of an endangered species or 
threatened species and should be removed from the List (i.e., 
delisted), (2) whether a species listed as endangered more properly 
meets the definition of threatened and should be reclassified to 
threatened (i.e., downlisted), or (3) whether a species listed as 
threatened more properly meets the definition of endangered and should 
be reclassified to endangered. In accordance with 50 CFR 424.11(d), we 
will consider a species for delisting only if the best scientific and 
commercial data substantiate that the species is neither endangered nor 
threatened for one or more of the following reasons: (1) The species is 
considered extinct, (2) the species is considered recovered, or (3) the 
data available when the species was listed, or the interpretation of 
such data, were in error.
    Between 1979 and 1991, the eastern puma was included in three 
cursory 5-year reviews conducted by the Service: A 1979 review of all 
domestic and foreign species listed prior to 1975 (44 FR 29566, May 21, 
1979), a 1985 review of all species listed before 1976 and from 1979 to 
1980 (50 FR 29901, July 22, 1985), and a 1991 review of all species 
listed before 1991 (56 FR 56882, November 6, 1991). None of these 
reviews recommended a change from the eastern puma's listing 
classification as endangered.
    On January 29, 2007, we published a Federal Register notice 
announcing a 5-year review specific to the eastern puma and nine other 
species, and we requested information from the public concerning the 
eastern puma (72 FR 4018). The assessment of the eastern puma's current 
status, completed on January 28, 2011 (USFWS 2011), found no evidence 
of the existence of either an extant population or individual eastern 
pumas, and concluded, therefore, the subspecies should be considered 
extinct. The assessment thus concluded that the eastern puma does not 
meet the definition of either an endangered species or a threatened 
species under section 3 of the Act.

Assessment of Species Status

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 
424) set forth the procedures for listing species, reclassifying 
species, and removing species from listed status.

[[Page 34597]]

``Species'' is defined by the Act as including any species or 
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population 
segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds 
when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). To determine whether a species should 
be listed as endangered or threatened, we assess the likelihood of its 
continued existence based on the five factors described in section 
4(a)(1) of the Act (see Consideration of Factors Under Section 4(a)(1) 
of the Act). A species may be reclassified or removed from the List on 
the same basis. With regard to delisting a species due to extinction, 
``a sufficient period of time must be allowed before delisting to 
indicate clearly that the species is extinct'' (50 CFR 424.11(d)(1)).
    According to these standards, we must determine whether the eastern 
puma is a valid subspecies and whether the subspecies is still extant 
in order to determine its appropriate listing status. The following 
sections thus examine the biological and legal information considered 
to be most germane to the status of the eastern puma as a valid, extant 
subspecies before looking at factors that may affect the its continued 
existence.

Overview

    The eastern puma (Puma (=Felis) concolor couguar) is treated as a 
subspecies of the puma. The species is also known by many other common 
names, including, among others, cougar, catamount, mountain lion, 
panther, painter, and wildcat. As explained in the 5-year review (USFWS 
2011, pp. 4-5), the puma is the most widely distributed land mammal in 
the New World and is one of the most adaptable mammals in the northern 
hemisphere. At the time of European contact, the puma occurred 
throughout most of South, Central, and North America. In North America, 
breeding populations still occupy about one-third of their historical 
range but are now absent from central and eastern North America outside 
Florida. The puma is documented historically from eastern North America 
to about 45 degrees north latitude (roughly equating to the colonial-
era range of its primary ungulate prey, white-tailed deer) in a variety 
of habitats from swamps and everglades in the Southeast to temperate 
forests in the Northeast. Aside from presence reports, few historical 
records exist regarding the natural history of the eastern puma.

Current Legal Status

    The eastern puma is one of three subspecies of puma that are 
federally listed as endangered species under the Act; the others are 
the Florida panther (Puma (=Felis) concolor coryi), listed in 1967 (32 
FR 4001, March 11, 1967), and the Costa Rican puma (Puma (=Felis) 
concolor costaricensis), listed in 1976 (41 FR 24062, June 14, 1976). 
Both the Florida panther and Costa Rican puma remain extant, albeit 
extremely rare.
    In Canada, the first status review of the eastern puma by the 
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) in 
1978 assigned endangered status to the taxon Puma concolor couguar 
based on puma reports in Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes provinces. 
In 1998, the Canadian eastern puma listing was changed from the 
Endangered to the Data Deficient or Indeterminate category for Ontario, 
Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia.
    The eastern cougar (=puma) is listed as endangered in the 
International Union for Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) Mammal Red Data 
Book (IUCN 1982). The subspecies is also classified as an Appendix I 
animal under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered 
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which provides protection from 
international trade.
    Legal protections at the State and provincial levels are discussed 
under ``Historical Range, Abundance, and Distribution'' below.

Biological Status

    Taxonomy and Genetics: The eastern puma 5-year review (USFWS 2011, 
pp. 29-35) provides a full discussion of the taxonomic history of this 
subspecies. As indicated in that review, the current practice is to 
refer to the species as Puma concolor (Linnaeus 1771) and the eastern 
subspecies as Puma concolor couguar.
    There is ongoing debate about the taxonomic assignment of puma 
subspecies, including the question as to whether North American pumas 
comprise a single subspecies or multiple subspecies. In particular, 
there has been disagreement about whether the scientific community 
should accept the use of genetics as the driving factor in puma 
taxonomy, as was done by Culver et al. (2000, entire). The Service's 
position is that until a comprehensive evaluation of the subspecies 
status of North American pumas, including genetic, morphometric, and 
behavioral analyses, is completed, the best available information 
continues to support the assignment of the eastern taxon to Puma 
concolor couguar as distinct from other North American subspecies.
    In recognizing the eastern puma as a valid subspecies, and thus a 
valid listed entity, we next evaluate whether the subspecies should be 
determined extinct. It is important to note that assessing the 
biological status of the eastern puma as a subspecies does not preclude 
eventual taxonomic revision.
    Biology and Life History: There is little basis for believing that 
the ecology of eastern pumas was significantly different from puma 
ecology elsewhere on the continent. Our biological understanding of the 
eastern puma, therefore, is derived from studies conducted in various 
regions of North America and, to the extent possible, from eastern puma 
historical records and museum specimens. This information is detailed 
in the status review (USFWS 2011) on pages 6 through 8.
    Historical Range, Abundance, and Distribution: Details and 
citations for the following summary are provided in the status review 
(USFWS 2011, pp. 8-29 and 36-56). Although a lack of reliable sightings 
and historical records makes it difficult to estimate past abundance 
and distribution, the available information is discussed below.
    In eastern North America at the time of European contact, the puma 
ranged from Florida to southern Quebec and remained abundant through 
much of eastern North America during the colonial era. Despite its 
apparent early abundance, however, only 26 historical specimens of 
eastern pumas, from seven eastern States and one Canadian province 
within the subspecies' historical range, reside in museums or other 
collections.
    Based on this admittedly small number of specimens and other scant 
evidence, Young and Goldman (1946) described the historical range of 
Felis concolor couguar as southeastern Ontario, southern Quebec, and 
New Brunswick in Canada, and a region bounded from Maine to Michigan, 
Illinois, Kentucky, and South Carolina in the eastern United States. 
The Service's recovery plan for the eastern cougar describes a similar 
range (USFWS 1982, pp. 1-2), although the range is mapped a little 
farther north into Ontario. The recovery plan also maps Felis concolor 
schorgerii, named as a subspecies after Young and Goldman (1946) was 
published, to the west and F.c. coryi to the south of the eastern 
puma's range.
    The most recently published assessment of the puma in eastern 
Canada, conducted by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife 
in Canada (COSEWIC) (Scott 1998), maps

[[Page 34598]]

the puma's range throughout southern Ontario and Manitoba. The eastern 
subspecies is not stipulated in Scott's (1998) range description; 
indeed, the review questioned whether the eastern puma was ever a valid 
subspecies. Other authors have also discussed the past distribution of 
pumas in Canada without acknowledging them as the eastern subspecies. 
Rosette (2011) asserts that native, free-roaming pumas of unknown 
origin may continue to survive in Ontario while conceding that no 
evidence of their presence has been documented for almost 100 years. In 
Manitoba, on the other hand, several authors have documented a 
relatively consistent record of pumas, but there is no evidence that 
these are eastern pumas or that the subspecies ever occurred that far 
west.
    The historical literature indicates that puma populations were 
thought to have been largely extirpated in eastern North America 
(except for Florida and perhaps the Smoky Mountains) by the 1870s, and 
in the Midwest by 1900. According to many historical accounts, pumas 
were greatly feared and were also persecuted as competitors for game 
and occasional predators of livestock. Eastern puma populations also 
decreased as habitat conditions for the puma's primary prey base, 
white-tailed deer, changed dramatically during this time. By the mid- 
to late-1800s, human settlement patterns resulted in the extirpation of 
deer from much of eastern North America. The last records of pumas in 
most of the eastern States and provinces, from approximately 1790 to 
1890, coincided with loss of deer populations and habitat.
    By 1929, eastern pumas were believed to be ``virtually extinct,'' 
and Young and Goldman (1946) concurred that ``they became extinct many 
years ago.'' On the other hand, puma records from New Brunswick in 1932 
and Maine in 1938 suggest that a population may have persisted in 
northernmost New England and eastern Canada.
    In the Service's 1976 status review (Nowak 1976), R.M. Nowak stated 
his belief that the large number of unverified sightings of pumas 
constituted evidence that certain other populations had also survived 
or had become reestablished in the central and eastern parts of the 
continent and may have increased in number since the 1940s. Further, as 
stated in the Eastern Cougar Recovery Plan (USFWS 1982, pp. 4, 7), R.L. 
Downing believed it possible that a small population may have persisted 
in the southern Appalachians into the 1920s. Nonetheless, the field 
surveys he conducted and the reports he investigated prior to writing 
the recovery plan led him to conclude that ``no breeding cougar 
populations have been substantiated within the former range of F. c. 
couguar since the 1920s'' (USFWS 1982, p. 6). Scott's (1998) COSEWIC 
review also concluded that ``there is no objective evidence (actual 
cougar specimens or other unequivocal confirmation) for the continuous 
presence of cougars since the last century anywhere in eastern Canada 
or the eastern United States outside of Florida,'' and that ``there is 
circumstantial evidence for virtual or complete extirpation'' from 
central Ontario eastward.
    The known status of the eastern puma within its historical range is 
summarized in table 1, below. A more detailed discussion of the 
historical status, current confirmed and unconfirmed puma sightings, 
potential habitat, and legal protection (also see Current Legal Status 
above) of the eastern puma in the states and provinces is provided in 
the 5-year status review (USFWS 2011, pp. 8-26). To summarize, eastern 
pumas historically were considered generally common and widespread; 
however, by the late 1800s, eastern pumas were believed to be 
extirpated from most of their range. As indicated in table 1, the 
majority of the most recent confirmed reports date from the mid-1800s 
to around 1930. Later reports are thought to be indicative of 
dispersers of western pumas, as in Missouri, or released animals, as in 
Newfoundland. Although there now appears to be adequate habitat and 
prey for pumas in various portions of the subspecies' historical range, 
the many decades of habitat loss and near-extirpation of the puma's 
primary prey, white-tailed deer, bring into question the continued 
survival and reproduction of eastern pumas over that time.

                                                   Table 1--Eastern Puma Status by State and Province
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Most recent confirmed                           Current status in
        State or province           Historical status     or verifiable report    Potential habitat             wild               Legal protection
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut.....................  Historically common..  1842.................  56 square miles        Considered extirpated  State species of special
                                                                                 (mi\2\) (145 square                           concern, with no open
                                                                                 kilometers (km\2\));                          season and possession
                                                                                 limited.                                      prohibited.
Delaware........................  Disappeared in late    .....................  Not described........  Considered extirpated  Possession of carnivores
                                   1700s.                                                                                      permitted under stringent
                                                                                                                               conditions.
Illinois........................  Uncertain taxonomy;    .....................  Southern Illinois....  Considered             No State endangered
                                   disappeared before                                                   extirpated; possible   species status, but some
                                   1870.                                                                dispersal of western   level of protection from
                                                                                                        pumas into the         hunting; permit required
                                                                                                        State; no breeding     for possession of
                                                                                                        population.            dangerous animals.
Indiana.........................  Historical records     1851.................  Not described........  Considered extirpated  No legal protection;
                                   are rare.                                                                                   private possession
                                                                                                                               permitted.
Kentucky........................  Widely distributed     .....................  Statewide; ample prey  Considered extirpated  State listed as
                                   historically;                                 base.                                         extirpated; private
                                   disappeared before                                                                          possession of dangerous
                                   1900.                                                                                       wildlife banned.
Maine...........................  Historically rare....  1938.................  ~17,064 mi\2\ (44,196  Considered extirpated  State listed as
                                                                                 km\2\).                                       extirpated; perpetual
                                                                                                                               closed season; permit
                                                                                                                               required for possession
                                                                                                                               of captive animals.

[[Page 34599]]

 
Maryland........................  Occurred Statewide...  Late 1800s?            Western Maryland.....  Considered extirpated  State listed as endangered-
                                                                                                                               extirpated; protected
                                                                                                                               from take; permit
                                                                                                                               required for possession
                                                                                                                               of captive animals, but
                                                                                                                               no permits have been
                                                                                                                               issued.
Massachusetts...................  Occurred Statewide...  1858.................  No large habitat       Considered extirpated  Included on State list due
                                                                                 blocks.                                       to Federal designation;
                                                                                                                               protected with closed
                                                                                                                               season and other
                                                                                                                               regulations.
Michigan........................  Occurred in much of    1906.................  Upper and Lower        Current reports        State listed as endangered
                                   State.                                        Peninsulas; ample      considered to be       species; pumas cannot be
                                                                                 prey base.             dispersers of          privately held as pets.
                                                                                                        western pumas into
                                                                                                        the state; no
                                                                                                        breeding population.
Missouri........................  Historically common;   1966; taxonomy         Southeastern           Current confirmed      Classified as extirpated
                                   taxonomy uncertain.    uncertain.             Missouri; ample prey   sightings considered   but protected under
                                                                                 base.                  to be dispersers of    Wildlife Code provisions.
                                                                                                        western pumas into
                                                                                                        the State; no
                                                                                                        breeding population.
New Hampshire...................  Historically rare....  Late 1800s...........  Northern New           Considered extirpated  State-protected species;
                                                                                 Hampshire; limited.                           possession of wild
                                                                                                                               felines illegal except
                                                                                                                               for educational purposes.
New Jersey......................  Historically common    1830 to 1840.........  No large habitat       Considered extirpated  Not on the State
                                   Statewide.                                    blocks.                                       endangered species list;
                                                                                                                               possession of dangerous
                                                                                                                               species permitted for
                                                                                                                               scientific holding,
                                                                                                                               animal exhibitor,
                                                                                                                               zoological holding, or
                                                                                                                               animal dealer.
New York........................  Occurred Statewide...  1894.................  Adirondack area; low   Considered extirpated  Protected by State
                                                                                 prey density.                                 Endangered Species Act;
                                                                                                                               State issues permits for
                                                                                                                               possession, sale, and
                                                                                                                               breeding of big cats.
North Carolina..................  Historically common..  1920.................  Western and            No physical evidence   State protected as an
                                                                                 southeastern coastal   to confirm sightings.  endangered species; no
                                                                                 North Carolina;                               open season; permit
                                                                                 ample prey base.                              required for captive
                                                                                                                               pumas.
Ohio............................  Historically           .....................  No large habitat       Considered extirpated  Not on the State
                                   uncommon;                                     blocks.                                       endangered species list;
                                   disappeared by 1850.                                                                        no State protective
                                                                                                                               regulations.
Pennsylvania....................  Common Statewide.....  1914.................  Northern Allegheny     Considered extirpated  State listed as
                                                                                 Plateau and north-                            extirpated; no open
                                                                                 central                                       season; exotic wildlife
                                                                                 Pennsylvania; ample                           permit required for
                                                                                 prey base.                                    possession.
Rhode Island....................  Early records are      1848.................  No large habitat       Considered extirpated  Classified as extirpated;
                                   scant.                                        blocks.                                       permit required for
                                                                                                                               possession of native
                                                                                                                               wildlife or their
                                                                                                                               hybrids.
South Carolina..................  Present until 1850...  .....................  Northwest portion of   No confirmed evidence  State listed as endangered
                                                                                 State; ample prey      of occurrences or a    with protection from
                                                                                 base.                  population.            take; possession
                                                                                                                               prohibited.
Tennessee.......................  Historically present   1930.................  Areas in central and   Considered extirpated  Permit required for
                                   Statewide; common in                          eastern Tennessee.                            possession of dangerous
                                   western portion of                                                                          animals.
                                   State.
Vermont.........................  Historically reported  1881.................  Large forested         Considered to be no    State listed as
                                   as both rare and                              blocks; adequate       longer present.        endangered; protected
                                   common.                                       prey density.                                 under State Endangered
                                                                                                                               Species Act; permit
                                                                                                                               required for possession
                                                                                                                               of big cats.
Virginia........................  Historically           1882.................  Western mountains;     No confirmed records   State listed as
                                   plentiful in coastal                          ample prey base.       since the 1880s.       endangered; protected
                                   lowlands and western                                                                        under State Endangered
                                   mountains.                                                                                  Species Act; import
                                                                                                                               permit required for wild
                                                                                                                               felines.
Washington, DC..................  Native to area.......  1913.................  None available.......  Considered extirpated  Private possession of
                                                                                                                               pumas prohibited.

[[Page 34600]]

 
West Virginia...................  Historically common..  1901.................  Extensive and          Considered extirpated  State listed; protected
                                                                                 widespread; ample                             under the State ESA;
                                                                                 prey base.                                    permit required to
                                                                                                                               import, hold, or sell
                                                                                                                               native or exotic felines.
Wisconsin.......................  Historically common;   1909.................  Assumed to have        Confirmed records      Not currently protected.
                                   uncertain taxonomy.                           adequate habitat and   since 1994, possibly
                                                                                 prey base.             of another
                                                                                                        subspecies and
                                                                                                        illegally released
                                                                                                        pumas; no known
                                                                                                        breeding population.
Manitoba........................  Pumas historically     .....................  Abundant habitat and   Not considered         Pumas not included on
                                   occurred throughout                           prey, but snow depth   extirpated;            Provincial endangered
                                   province; not                                 may be limiting.       insufficient           species list, but
                                   considered to be the                                                 evidence to            considered a Species of
                                   eastern subspecies.                                                  determine current      Special Concern.
                                                                                                        status.
New Brunswick...................  Historical records     1932.................  Northern New           Small number may be    Listed as endangered under
                                   unreliable.                                   Brunswick; low prey    present, of unknown    the Provincial Endangered
                                                                                 densities.             origin and taxonomy;   Species Act.
                                                                                                        lack of evidence of
                                                                                                        a viable population.
Newfoundland....................  Not native to          .....................  Not described........  Sightings believed to  Not currently protected.
                                   province, illegally                                                  be of released
                                   introduced in 1960.                                                  animals or their
                                                                                                        progeny.
Nova Scotia.....................  No verified reports;   .....................  Not described........  No verified records..  Not listed on the
                                   may have extended                                                                           Provincial list of
                                   into area coincident                                                                        endangered species, but
                                   to deer expansion in                                                                        protected by Provincial
                                   early 1900s.                                                                                regulations.
Ontario.........................  Historically reported  1908.................  Large forested         Considered extirpated  Not protected under
                                   as both rare and                              blocks; ample prey                            Provincial Endangered
                                   common.                                       base.                                         Species Act.
Prince Edward Island............  No known historical    .....................  Not described........  No known occurrences.  Not currently protected.
                                   records.
Quebec..........................  Occurred province-     1920.................  Habitat and prey       Considered extirpated  Not currently protected.
                                   wide; common south                            available.             despite recent
                                   of St. Lawrence                                                      reports.
                                   River.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current Biological Status of Pumas in Eastern North America: Our 
conclusions regarding the current biological status of the eastern puma 
rely upon three lines of evidence: (1) The detectability of wild pumas, 
(2) contemporary accounts of puma sightings in eastern North America as 
evidence of the continued existence of eastern pumas, and (3) the time 
since the last verified eastern puma occurrence. Recognizing that 
extinction cannot be demonstrated with absolute certainty (i.e., it is 
a probabilistic determination), the totality of evidence for the 
eastern puma provides a basis for drawing robust conclusions about the 
true status of this subspecies, as discussed below. A more detailed 
discussion and references are provided in the 5-year status review 
(USFWS 2011, pp. 36-56).
    Detectability of pumas: This line of evidence addresses the 
question of how likely it is that eastern puma individuals or 
populations could continue to persist without being detected. If 
entities are difficult to detect, lack of confirmed sightings may not 
be indicative of absence; however, if detectability is known to be 
high, it is much more likely that lack of sightings is evidence of 
absence. For the eastern puma, detectability differs between 
individuals and populations. Although individual pumas are difficult to 
detect, determining the presence of a puma population is possible with 
a reasonable amount of effort.
    Detection of single, transient pumas is particularly problematic 
because they cover such a large range and leave behind little sign of 
their occupation (e.g., scrapes, kills, and tracks) in any one place. 
The best prospect for detecting these animals is through tracks left 
during their extensive daily movement in the snowy regions of North 
America.
    Numerous searches and surveys have been undertaken to detect the 
presence of individual pumas, either directly or as part of large 
carnivore studies, and, by extension, puma populations in eastern North 
America. Searches have been conducted in areas reputed to harbor pumas, 
and reports of puma sightings have been investigated

[[Page 34601]]

extensively. Surveys have utilized a variety of techniques, including 
trail transects with motion-sensing cameras, hair trap posts and 
rubbing pads, and snow-covered road surveys to detect the tracks or 
signs of pumas.
    Such studies have yielded few positive results in eastern North 
America. However, in other parts of North America, pumas have been 
readily detected through searches and surveys. Additionally, pumas have 
been detected as a result of road kills; even in areas with small 
extant populations (such as Florida and South Dakota) and low road 
densities, pumas killed on roads are reported nearly every month of the 
year. In contrast, although road mortalities have been documented in 
the eastern United States and Canada in recent years, the reports are 
irregular, and in the rare instances where individuals have been 
verified as wild pumas, they have originated outside the eastern puma's 
historical range.
    Overall, pumas have been readily detectable in areas of North 
America outside the historical range of the eastern puma. We can thus 
conclude that pumas and, in particular, puma populations, could be 
detected with a reasonable amount of effort if present in eastern North 
America. We further conclude that the searches, surveys, and efforts to 
verify sightings by the public since the 1950s constitute a reasonable 
effort, as discussed below and detailed in the 5-year review (USFWS 
2011, pp. 26-29). However, despite the detectability of pumas, no 
evidence has been presented to verify the continued existence of the 
eastern subspecies or of any breeding population of pumas within its 
historical range.
    Contemporary accounts of pumas in eastern North America as evidence 
of the continuing existence of the subspecies: As discussed in the 5-
year review (USFWS 2011, pp. 36-38), renewed interest in puma 
conservation over the past 60 years has resulted not only in a 
profusion of reported sightings by the public but also efforts by 
scientists to determine the presence of pumas in eastern North America. 
We summarize these accounts below and discuss whether they constitute a 
basis for concluding that the eastern puma remains extant.
    There were few reports of pumas in eastern North America between 
the late 1800s and the 1940s and 1950s (see ``Historical Range, 
Abundance, and Distribution'' above). The number of reports increased 
in the 1950s, and states, provinces, and puma organizations began 
maintaining databases of puma sightings. The increased reporting 
coincided with coverage in the popular press and assertions by 
biologists and other writers that there was sufficient evidence to 
believe that the eastern puma still existed. It also coincided with a 
growing number of pumas in the North American pet trade.
    A surge in reported sightings followed in the 1960s and 1970s, 
again coincident with publications claiming that a relic population of 
pumas from the northeastern United States and eastern Canada was 
repopulating eastern North America. Although based mostly on 
questionable evidence, many--including wildlife biologists--accepted 
this hypothesis without critical scientific review.
    The sheer volume of anecdotal reports was cited as evidence for the 
continued existence of pumas, although few of these reports were ever 
substantiated. By the 1970s, puma advocacy groups had been established, 
and they, along with many independent researchers and advocates, were 
investigating sightings and promoting puma recovery. This led to the 
1973 listing of the eastern cougar, even though there was no physical 
evidence showing that populations existed at that time.
    Since listing, thousands of reports have been collected by wildlife 
agencies and puma organizations, including hundreds of puma sightings 
by reliable witnesses where physical evidence was not available. Most 
recently, during preparation of the eastern puma 5-year review (from 
2007 to 2010), 60 reports of pumas were considered to have some 
likelihood of validity based on verified identification of tracks; 
photographic evidence; genetic, hair, or scat samples; or discovery of 
carcasses (USFWS 2011, appendix B). It is important to note that none 
of these reports was verified as the eastern subspecies.
    A number of formal studies have been undertaken to determine the 
presence of pumas in eastern North America. One study (Michigan 
Wildlife Conservancy 2003) detected pumas, but the results and 
methodology were subsequently contested. Elsewhere in the Midwest, 
pumas have been detected with trail cameras. A puma sighted in 
Wisconsin was verified in January 2008 and shot in Chicago, Illinois, 
in April 2008. This animal was determined to be of North American 
origin with characteristics similar to South Dakota pumas. In 2009, 
another Wisconsin puma was treed and photographed on several occasions; 
DNA analysis was not available for this animal. In eastern Canada, a 
survey of the Maritime provinces from 2001 to 2004 (Gauthier et al. 
2005, entire) confirmed six samples as puma. Of these six samples, 
several were found to be of South American origin, indicating that 
released or escaped captive pumas are also present in the wild, while 
others were verified as North American genotypes without being able to 
determine if they were of captive or wild origin.
    Overall, most of the surveys conducted by wildlife biologists in 
eastern North America--some of which have targeted pumas while others 
have targeted different species (e.g., wolves, lynx)-- have failed to 
detect any sign or evidence of the presence of pumas. Details of each 
survey effort are provided in the eastern puma 5-year review (USFWS 
2011, pp. 26-29 and appendix B).
    Many puma sightings are reported as ``eyewitness'' accounts; this 
type of report has increased with the availability of Internet search 
engines and is sometimes spurred by news articles that encourage others 
to report observations. The reliability of such accounts can depend on 
time of day, experience level of the observer, duration of the 
observation, and observer trustworthiness. Insufficient field 
identification and tracking skills, as well as photographs of single 
tracks rather than a series of tracks, may further compromise 
reliability. Based on our assessment of puma eyewitness accounts (USFWS 
2011, pp. 36-42), it appears that 90 to 95 percent of puma sightings 
and vocalizations reported by the public involve instances of 
misidentification and, at times, deliberate hoaxes.
    Although documention of sightings by the public in areas where 
pumas are uncommon can be useful--particularly where protocols for puma 
sightings and analysis have been established--compilations of 
unconfirmed sighting reports can also produce a large volume of cogent 
but misleading information. The problem with treating anecdotal 
sightings as empirical evidence is compounded when such observations 
are supplemented by inconclusive physical evidence such as indistinct 
photographs. Typically, as a species becomes rarer, the proportion of 
false positives increases; thus, even the most tangible evidence of a 
puma must be followed by further inquiry to identify it as a wild 
specimen and ascertain its origins.
    Over the past 50 years, thousands of puma sightings have been 
investigated, at substantial public and private expense. Only a small 
percentage of investigations have resulted in collection of evidence 
that could be interpreted or further analyzed, and only a small 
percentage of the analyses have provided irrefutable proof of a

[[Page 34602]]

wild puma. The most recent case was a male puma killed on a highway in 
Milford, Connecticut, in 2011. Genetic analysis of the animal 
determined that its origin was a population in South Dakota, indicating 
that it was a transient western puma; the same animal had been 
documented in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and northern New York prior to 
arriving in Connecticut.
    Despite the large number of contemporary eastern puma accounts, few 
of the surveys and investigations of puma reports have provided 
verifiable evidence of the presence of pumas, irrespective of origin, 
in eastern North America, and even fewer have provided irrefutable 
proof of a wild puma. Nonetheless, verified puma occurrences have 
occurred with enough frequency in eastern North America (approximately 
15 puma carcasses have been documented in eastern North America north 
of Florida since 1950) to encourage a widespread belief that a cryptic 
eastern puma population continues to persist.
    In considering whether all this constitutes evidence of an extant 
eastern puma population, three possible hypotheses have been 
considered: First, that the observed animals are members of a 
persistent relic population; second, that they are released or escaped 
captives; or, third, that they are dispersers from source populations 
outside of the region. These hypotheses are discussed, in turn, below.
    1. A relic population of pumas has survived in eastern North 
America. Although some hypothesize that the eastern puma has survived 
in eastern North America since colonial times, the continued existence 
of a puma population in eastern North America is not corroborated by 
the historical record, the history of white-tailed deer, or our current 
understanding of puma ecology (USFWS 2011, pp. 43-46).
    As noted above, most eastern pumas were thought to have been 
virtually extirpated by the late 1800s. Had members of the subspecies 
survived, they should have been detectable. With some exceptions (e.g., 
later records in Maine and New Brunswick) authors document a near-
absence of records from the late 1800s to the 1950s. Further, despite 
the verified reports of pumas mentioned above, whenever we have been 
able to determine the origins of these pumas, they have been shown to 
be either captive pumas (generally South American pumas or their 
progeny) or dispersers from western populations. None of these animals 
has been confirmed as the eastern subspecies.
    A number of population viability analyses indicate that both a 
minimum population size and minimum area of high-quality habitat are 
needed for long-term puma persistence. The probability of population 
persistence also depends on favorable demographic factors. Studies to 
date indicate, very approximately, that puma populations consisting of 
fewer than 15 to 20 animals and occupying less than 386 to 772 mi\2\ 
(1,000 to 2,000 km\2\) of high-quality habitat would be unlikely to 
persist over the long term, particularly in the face of any adverse 
genetic effects (USFWS 2011, pp. 8 and 46). Effects of postsettlement 
persecution of eastern pumas, compounded by loss of habitat and the 
near-extirpation of white-tailed deer, severely reduced the probability 
of persistence using both of these measures. Pumas likely survived 
longest in remaining large forest tracts where deer were not extirpated 
and at the northern periphery of their historical range as deer shifted 
northward (which would explain the later puma records in Maine and New 
Brunswick). To survive elsewhere in the East, puma populations would 
have had to persist for decades with extremely low or absent 
populations of their primary prey, and such persistence is doubtful. 
Even in northern regions, deer populations were greatly reduced, and 
snow depths there would have been limiting for pumas.
    This information, along with the total absence of verified 
contemporary eastern puma records, suggests that a remnant population 
of eastern pumas is highly unlikely to have survived two centuries of 
intense human exploitation and persecution, habitat changes, and near-
eradication of its primary prey. Further, were a relic puma population 
to have survived, the rebounding of deer populations along with 
protections from take under the Act would have likely resulted in a 
corresponding increase in documentation of eastern puma presence and 
increased likelihood of deterction. Given the lack of verified 
contemporary records, we therefore find no evidence to support the 
hypothesis that an undetected relic population of eastern pumas remains 
extant.
    2. Pumas occurring in eastern North America are released or escaped 
pets. Since the mid-1900s, there has been speculation that perhaps all 
pumas observed in eastern North America (outside of Florida) are 
escaped or released captive animals. The findings regarding this 
hypothesis, presented in the 5-year review (USFWS 2011) on pp. 47-51 
and in Appendix B, are summarized below.
    Genetic techniques are now available to determine if puma specimens 
are of North American origin and therefore more likely to be wild 
animals. Captive puma enthusiasts apparently favor Central and South 
American animals, and it can be assumed that pumas found in eastern 
North America with South American DNA are escaped or released captives 
or their progeny. Since the early 1990s, 24 puma genetic samples have 
been collected within the historic range of the eastern puma and tested 
using a variety of techniques (USFWS 2011, Appendix B). Of these, about 
one-third were found to be of Central or South American origin, one-
third were of North American origin, and one-third were identified as 
pumas but of unknown origin.
    In addition to genetic evidence, the increasing frequency of 
reported puma sightings in the eastern United States and Canada 
correlates with the increased private ownership, trade, and breeding of 
pumas that began in the 1940s and 1950s. Zoos formerly sold or gave 
pumas to individuals or dealers, although this is strictly prohibited 
today and there currently is a ban on breeding pumas in zoos. More 
recently, Internet sales of exotic cats have flourished, illustrating 
the continuing ease of acquiring captive pumas. This situation is 
exacerbated in some States by enforcement challenges, and these States' 
lack of information about the number and disposition of captive pumas 
within their borders. Overall, there are likely thousands of privately-
held (both legally and illegally) pumas in the eastern United States, 
dwarfing the number of pumas in zoos.
    Released or escaped pumas are documented in numerous accounts, 
along with frequent reports of such pumas being recaptured (USFWS 2011, 
pp. 49-50). It has also been found that individual captive pumas may 
successfully adapt to conducive conditions in the wild. If released or 
escaped captives initially avoid recapture or death, they most likely 
become wandering transients. Overall, it may be possible, although 
unlikely, for individual captive pumas to transition into a wild 
existence, establish home ranges, and, like other transient pumas, 
persist with low detectability.
    Nonetheless, the likelihood of escaped or released captive pumas 
establishing breeding populations is minimal, both because transient 
pumas are unlikely to recolonize new areas unless there is an adjacent 
resident puma population, and because their survival prospects are 
generally low. The multiple reports we have received of pumas in a 
geographic location over a period of months (but not years) could 
constitute actual observations of

[[Page 34603]]

escaped animals. However, if these animals are declawed or defanged, 
they have little chance of surviving over the long term, particularly 
at rates needed to establish a population. Further, few of the many 
reported sightings of puma kittens in eastern North America, which 
would be indicative of a breeding population, have been substantiated 
(USFWS 2011, p. 51).
    We conclude that the evidence supports the hypothesis that pumas 
recently found in eastern North America are released or escaped captive 
animals, with the exception of some animals in Illinois, Wisconsin, and 
other midwestern States that are dispersing from more westward 
populations (see discussion below). Genetic and isotope techniques are 
improving, which will help distinguish whether pumas of North American 
ancestry are of wild or captive origin.
    3. Pumas in eastern North America are dispersers from breeding 
populations to the west and south. Breeding puma populations in 
proximity to the eastern puma's historical range occur in Manitoba, 
North Dakota, South Dakota, possibly Nebraska and Oklahoma, and 
Florida. The Service's 5-year review discusses the likelihood of 
immigration of pumas to eastern North America from these populations 
(USFWS 2011, pp. 51-56).
    Regarding dispersal from Florida, there was little evidence until 
recently that the Florida panther population was expanding northward, 
but since 1998, four tagged and several unmarked animals have crossed 
the Caloosahatchee River, previously thought to be a barrier to 
northward expansion. In addition, an adult male puma killed in Georgia 
in 2008 originated in Florida. Nonetheless, given the many other 
substantial barriers to dispersal, it is considered highly unlikely 
that Florida panthers are dispersing out of Florida with enough 
frequency to establish populations elsewhere in the Southeast, although 
adequate prey and habitat are available in Georgia.
    As to dispersal from the West, puma populations in most western 
States are believed to be at historically high levels, and breeding 
populations have expanded their ranges eastward. Dispersing pumas have 
been reported since 1990 in the Midwest, primarily west of the 
Mississippi River and possibly the Great Lakes Region, with over 130 
confirmed puma records documented in Wisconsin, Illinois, Nebraska, 
Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, and Iowa.
    These records confirm that eastward dispersal from breeding 
populations of western pumas is occurring, especially from North and 
South Dakota (note the previous mention of a South Dakota puma killed 
in Connecticut in 2011). Confirmed records of wild-origin pumas exist 
in many States and provinces bordering the western and northern 
peripheries of the eastern puma's historical range, and most States in 
the Midwest now acknowledge the presence of wild pumas. Further, 
persistent puma presence has been documented in a few areas (Missouri, 
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska), suggesting that individual pumas are 
successfully surviving in the wild and may have established home 
ranges.
    Suitable, albeit sometimes fragmented, habitat and an adequate prey 
base are available for pumas in the Midwest and Great Lakes regions, 
with large populations of white-tailed deer occurring throughout the 
region. Moreover, numerous dispersal corridors leading to highly 
suitable habitat areas in the Midwest have been identified within 
feasible dispersal distances for pumas. Although dispersing pumas 
frequently travel along deer-rich riparian corridors and generally 
avoid human-dominated landscapes, pumas are known to disperse across 
large expanses of inhospitable habitat. Roads and railroad rights-of-
way and associated brush belts also provide dispersal corridors. The 
upper Midwest Region is the most favorable route for cougars 
repopulating the East from the Dakotas, and Manitoba's puma population 
may be a potential source for animals observed in Ontario, northern 
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
    Although individual males are known to disperse over long 
distances, the establishment of puma populations in the Midwest and 
Great Lakes regions is less likely to occur unless breeding range 
expansion is facilitated. Female pumas do not move far from their natal 
areas, and male pumas compete for access to females; that is, in 
addition to adequate food and cover, dispersing males search for areas 
occupied by one or more resident females. Thus, range expansion is 
unlikely unless females disperse--or are released--into new habitats. 
As would be expected, most of the recent Midwest puma records are of 
males.
    Given evidence of growing puma populations in the West, increased 
dispersal, and availability of dispersal corridors and prey in the 
Midwest, we conclude that wild-origin pumas (primarily males) will 
continue to disperse into the midwestern States and into the historical 
range of the eastern puma and are the likely source of any wild pumas 
that currently exist in eastern North America.
    Summary: First, it is important to note that the alternative 
hypotheses for the continuing presence of pumas in eastern North 
America are not mutually exclusive. Physical evidence indicates that 
pumas recently found in eastern North America are released or escaped 
captive animals, with the exception of some wild animals in the Midwest 
(and one documented in Connecticut) that are dispersing from western 
populations. The evidence also suggests that these are transient pumas 
with little potential for naturally establishing breeding populations.
    Most significantly, no evidence whatsoever has been found to show 
that either individual eastern pumas or any relic populations of the 
eastern puma subspecies remain extant in eastern North America.
    Time since last verified eastern puma report: The most recently 
confirmed records of pumas native to eastern North America are from 
Tennessee (1930), New Brunswick (1932), and Maine (1938). These records 
coincide with the extirpation of white-tailed deer in most of its range 
in the 1800s, with the exception of some remaining large forest tracts, 
and a shift toward the northern periphery of its historical range 
during that time. Reports of pumas were made by reputable observers in 
Missouri as late as 1966, but the taxonomy of these animals has long 
been in question.
    It is notable that areas in eastern North America that still 
support extant populations of native pumas (e.g., Florida and Manitoba) 
have had a long and continuous record of confirmed occurrences. In 
contrast, a long-term record of verified puma occurrences is lacking in 
regions of eastern North America outside Florida.
    Given the puma's life span, generally thought to be 10 to 11 years, 
it is extremely implausible that non-breeding eastern pumas could have 
persisted in the wild under conditions of habitat loss and lack of 
their primary prey base and without being detected for over six 
decades. It is equally if not more unlikely that breeding populations 
of the subspecies could have gone undetected for that long. Based on 
how improbable it is that eastern puma individuals or populations could 
have weathered such a long period of habitat and prey loss, along with 
the lack of either a recent report or a long-term record of eastern 
puma occurrences, we conclude that the time since the last verified 
eastern puma record is indicative of the long-term absence of this 
subspecies.

[[Page 34604]]

    Summary: Overall, we find that pumas (except for single transients) 
are reasonably detectable, that no contemporary puma sightings in 
eastern North America have been verified as the eastern puma subspecies 
since 1938, and that it is extremely unlikely that either individuals 
or eastern puma populations could have survived the long period during 
which most of their habitat was lost and their primary prey base was 
nearly extirpated. We therefore determine the eastern puma subspecies 
to be extinct.

Consideration of Factors Under Section 4(a)(1) of the Act

    As mentioned under Assessment of Species Status above, section 4 of 
the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth 
the procedures for listing, reclassifying, or removing species from 
listed status. When we evaluate whether a species should be listed as 
an endangered species or threatened species, we must consider the five 
listing factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The 
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the 
species' habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, 
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or 
predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and 
(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' continued 
existence. We must consider these same factors in reclassifying a 
species or removing it from the List.
    The principal factors leading to the listing of the eastern puma 
were widespread persecution (poisoning, trapping, hunting, and 
bounties), decline of forested habitat, and near-extirpation of white-
tailed deer populations during the 1800s. These impacts led to the 
extirpation of most eastern puma populations by 1900.
    However, because we have determined that all populations of pumas 
described as the eastern puma, Puma (=Felis) concolor couguar, have 
been extirpated, analysis of the five factors under section 4(a)(1) of 
the Act, which apply to threats facing extant species, is tragically 
irrelevant. As stated above, given the period of time that has passed 
without verification of even a single eastern puma, the Service 
believes that the last remaining members of this subspecies perished 
decades ago. Therefore, the eastern puma is no longer extant and 
logically can no longer be an endangered species or threatened species 
because of any of the five factors.

Conclusion

    Widespread persecution, decline of forested habitat, and near-
extirpation of white-tailed deer populations during the 1800s led to 
the loss of most eastern puma populations by 1900. Although individual 
pumas were taken as late as 1932 in New Brunswick and 1938 in Maine, 
neither the Service's 5-year status review (USFWS 2011) nor information 
that has become available since then has yielded any convincing 
evidence to support the hypothesis that small, cryptic populations of 
the subspecies continue to persist anywhere within its historical 
range, including northern New England and eastern Canada. These 
findings are supported by the most recent Canadian Wildlife Service 
status review (Scott 1998) and by analyses in the revised Florida 
Panther Recovery Plan (USFWS 2008). We therefore conclude that the 
subspecies Puma (=Felis) concolor couguar, or eastern puma (=cougar), 
was likely extirpated from eastern North America prior to its listing 
in 1973, noting, however, that extirpation had not been substantiated 
at that time.
    We further conclude that although there have been thousands of puma 
sightings in eastern North America since the 1950s, most are a case of 
mistaken identity. We acknowledge that a small number of pumas are 
occasionally encountered in the wild in eastern North America within 
the historical range of the listed eastern puma. Based on the best 
available scientific evidence, however, we conclude that these are 
escaped or released captive animals, or dispersers from western puma 
populations, not the eastern puma subspecies. Breeding of escaped or 
released individuals, if it occurs, appears to be an extremely rare 
event, and there is no evidence of any population established from 
escaped or released captive animals.
    Although it is improbable that pumas can disperse regularly out of 
Florida, puma range expansion may be occurring in the Midwest from the 
West. Several wild-origin pumas have been confirmed in that region and 
are likely dispersers from western populations that have reached 
carrying capacity. Dispersal into the Midwest will likely increase in 
frequency as long as western puma populations continue to grow.
    With regard to puma taxonomy, we recognize the ongoing debate among 
scientists about the taxonomic assignment of puma subspecies and 
whether genetics should be the driving factor in puma taxonomy. 
Although Culver et al.'s (2000, entire) genetic analysis injected 
significant uncertainties into current puma taxonomy, we have concluded 
that until a comprehensive evaluation (including genetic, morphometric, 
and behavioral analyses) of North American pumas is completed, the best 
available information continues to support the assignment of the 
eastern taxon to Puma (=Felis) concolor couguar. We further note that 
these taxonomic questions do not affect the determinations in this 
proposed rule regarding the listed entity's biological status.
    Taking all these considerations into account, we conclude that the 
taxon Puma (=Felis) concolor couguar is extinct.

Proposed Determination

    After a thorough review of all available information, we have 
determined that the subspecies Puma (=Felis) concolor couguar is 
extinct. Based upon this determination and taking into consideration 
the definitions of ``endangered species'' and ``threatened species'' 
contained in the Act and the reasons for delisting as specified in 50 
CFR 424.11(d), we propose to remove the eastern puma from the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. However, since the Service has determined the eastern cougar 
to be extinct, this proposed rule, if made final, would remove any 
Federal conservation measures for any individual pumas (except 
dispersing Florida panthers) that may subsequently be found within the 
historical range of the eastern puma.

Effects of the Rule

    This proposal, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.11 to remove 
the eastern puma from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 
due to extinction. The prohibitions and conservation measures provided 
by the Act would no longer apply to this subspecies. There is no 
designated critical habitat for the eastern puma.

Post-Delisting Monitoring

    Section 4(g)(1) of the Act, added in the 1988 reauthorization, 
requires us to implement a program, in cooperation with the States, to 
monitor for not less than 5 years the status of all species that have 
recovered and been removed from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened

[[Page 34605]]

Wildlife and Plants (50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12). Based upon the results of 
more than 25 years of investigating sporadic reports of sightings and 
our conclusion that the eastern puma is extinct, post-delisting 
monitoring is not warranted.

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (a) Be logically organized;
    (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us 
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For 
example, you should tell us the names of the sections or paragraphs 
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, 
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that an environmental assessment or an 
environmental impact statement, as defined under the authority of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in 
connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the 
Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination 
in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal 
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make 
information available to Tribes. Accordingly, the Service communicated 
with Tribes during the 5-year review process, and we are notifying 
Tribes of our activities regarding this proposal to delist the eastern 
puma based on extinction.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this document and in the 
5-year review upon which this proposal is based is available upon 
request from the Service's Maine Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT). References are also posted on http://www.fws.gov/northeast/ECougar.

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of 
the Maine Field Office and the Hadley, Massachusetts, Regional Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245, unless 
otherwise noted.


Sec.  17.11  [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h) by removing the entry for ``Puma (=cougar), 
eastern'' under ``Mammals'' in the ``List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife.''

    Dated: May 22, 2015.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-14931 Filed 6-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4310-55-P



                                                                        Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 116 / Wednesday, June 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules                                            34595

                                                    The Services will hold a public                       reasons, it is highly unlikely that an                 speech-impaired may call the Federal
                                                  hearing in Mangilao, Guam. Interested                   eastern puma population could remain                   Relay Service at 1–800–877–8337 for
                                                  parties may provide oral or written                     undetected over the time span since the                TTY assistance. General information
                                                  comments at this hearing, which will be                 last confirmed sighting was documented                 regarding the eastern puma and the
                                                  held on July 15, 2015 from 6 to 8 p.m.,                 in 1938.                                               delisting process may also be accessed
                                                  with an informational open house                        DATES: We will accept comments                         at: http://www.fws.gov/northeast/
                                                  starting at 5:30 p.m., at the Multi-                    received or postmarked on or before                    ECougar.
                                                  Purpose Room of the School of Business                  August 17, 2015. Comments submitted                    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
                                                  and Public Administration, University                   electronically using the Federal
                                                  of Guam, Mangilao, Guam 96923.                          eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES                      Information Requested
                                                  Special Accommodations                                  below) must be received by 11:59 p.m.                     We intend that any final action
                                                                                                          Eastern Time on the closing date. We                   resulting from this proposed rule will be
                                                    These hearings will be physically                     must receive requests for public                       based on the best scientific and
                                                  accessible to people with disabilities.                 hearings, in writing, at the address                   commercial data available and be as
                                                  Requests for sign language                              shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION                       accurate and effective as possible.
                                                  interpretation or other accommodations                  CONTACT by August 3, 2015.                             Therefore, we invite tribal and
                                                  should be directed to Jennifer Schultz                  Informational webinars will be                         governmental agencies, the scientific
                                                  (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT)                   scheduled upon request.                                community, and other interested parties
                                                  as soon as possible, but no later than 7                ADDRESSES: Written comments: You may                   to submit comments and new data
                                                  business days prior to the hearing date.                submit comments by one of the                          regarding this proposed rule. In
                                                     Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.                    following methods:                                     particular, we are seeking targeted
                                                    Dated: June 5, 2015.                                     Electronically: Go to the Federal                   information and comments concerning
                                                  Samuel D. Rauch III,                                    eRulemaking Portal: http://                            the following:
                                                  Deputy Assistant Administrator for
                                                                                                          www.regulations.gov. In the search box,                   (1) The persistence or extinction of a
                                                  Regulatory Programs, National Marine                    type FWS–R5–ES–2015–001 which is                       breeding population of the eastern puma
                                                  Fisheries Service.                                      the docket number for this proposed                    subspecies within its historical range;
                                                    Dated: June 10, 2015.                                 rule. Then, click on the search button.                   (2) Verifiable reports or evidence of
                                                  Gary Frazer,
                                                                                                          In the Search panel on the left side of                wild-origin pumas within the historical
                                                                                                          the screen, under the Document Type                    range of the eastern puma subspecies;
                                                  Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
                                                  Service.
                                                                                                          heading, click on the box next to                         (3) Our analysis of the status of the
                                                                                                          ‘‘Proposed Rule’’ to locate this                       eastern puma; and
                                                  [FR Doc. 2015–14906 Filed 6–16–15; 8:45 am]
                                                                                                          document. When you have located the                       (4) The taxonomy of North American
                                                  BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
                                                                                                          correct document, you may submit a                     pumas.
                                                                                                          comment by clicking on ‘‘Comment                          Please include sufficient information
                                                  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR                              Now!’’                                                 with your submission (such as scientific
                                                                                                             By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or                journal articles or other publications) to
                                                  Fish and Wildlife Service                               hand-delivery to: Public Comments                      allow us to verify any scientific or
                                                                                                          Processing, Attn: FWS–R5–ES–2015–                      commercial information you include.
                                                  50 CFR Part 17                                          0001, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, MS:                Bear in mind that comments simply
                                                                                                          BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls                        advocating or opposing the proposed
                                                  [Docket No. FWS–R5–ES–2015–0001;                        Church, VA 22041–3803.                                 action without providing supporting
                                                  50120–1113–000]                                            We will post all comments at:                       information will be noted but not
                                                  RIN 1018–AY05                                           http://www.regulations.gov. This                       considered in making a determination,
                                                                                                          generally means that we will post any                  as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Endangered
                                                  Endangered and Threatened Wildlife                      personal information you provide us                    Species Act of 1973, as amended (16
                                                  and Plants; Removing Eastern Puma                       (see Information Requested below, for                  U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), directs that
                                                  (=Cougar) From the Federal List of                      more information).                                     determinations as to whether any
                                                  Endangered and Threatened Wildlife                         Copies of documents: This proposed                  species is an endangered species or
                                                                                                          rule and and primary supporting                        threatened species shall be made ‘‘solely
                                                  AGENCY:   Fish and Wildlife Service,                    documents are available at: http://
                                                  Interior.                                                                                                      on the basis of the best scientific and
                                                                                                          www.regulations.gov. In addition, the                  commercial data available.’’
                                                  ACTION: Proposed rule.                                  supporting files for this proposed rule                   You may submit your comments and
                                                  SUMMARY:   The best available scientific                will be available for public inspection,               materials concerning the proposed rule
                                                  and commercial data indicate that the                   by appointment and during normal                       by one of the methods listed in
                                                  eastern puma (=cougar) (Puma (=Felis)                   business hours, at the U.S. Fish and                   ADDRESSES. We request that you send
                                                  concolor couguar) is extinct. Therefore,                Wildlife Service’s Maine Field Office,                 comments only to an address listed in
                                                  under the authority of the Endangered                   17 Godfrey Drive, Suite #2, Orono, ME                  ADDRESSES. All comments must be
                                                  Species Act of 1973, as amended, we,                    04473, and on the Eastern Cougar Web                   submitted to http://
                                                  the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service                      site at: http://www.fws.gov/northeast/                 www.regulations.gov, hand delivered, or
                                                  (Service), propose to remove this                       ECougar.                                               postmarked by the deadline specified in
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  subspecies from the Federal List of                     FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:                       DATES. If you submit information via
                                                  Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.                     Questions and requests for additional                  http://www.regulations.gov, your entire
                                                  This proposed action is based on a                      information may be directed to Martin                  submission—including any personal
                                                  thorough review of all available                        Miller, Northeast Regional Office,                     identifying information—will be posted
                                                  information, which indicates that there                 telephone 413–253–8615, or to Mark                     on the Web site. If your submission is
                                                  is no evidence of the existence of either               McCollough, Maine Field Office,                        made via a hardcopy that includes
                                                  an extant population or individuals of                  telephone 207–866–3344, extension                      personal identifying information, you
                                                  the eastern puma and that, for various                  115. Individuals who are hearing- or                   may request at the top of your document


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:32 Jun 16, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00056   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM   17JNP1


                                                  34596                 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 116 / Wednesday, June 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

                                                  that we withhold this information from                  information that has become available                  to be F.c. couguar (such individuals
                                                  public review; however, we cannot                       since 2011, noting that this information               would form the basis of a founder
                                                  guarantee that we will be able to do so.                corroborates the 5-year review’s                       population). Thus, neither of the
                                                  We will post all hardcopy submissions                   analysis. All references cited in the 2011             recovery criteria was ever met.
                                                  on http://www.regulations.gov.                          review and this proposed rule are                         Section 4(c)(2) of the Act requires that
                                                     Comments and materials we receive,                   maintained on file at the Service’s                    we conduct a review of listed species at
                                                  as well as supporting documentation                     Maine Field Office (see ADDRESSES).                    least once every 5 years to determine:
                                                  used in preparing this proposed rule,                                                                          (1) Whether a species no longer meets
                                                                                                          Previous Federal Actions                               the definition of an endangered species
                                                  will be available for public inspection
                                                  on http://www.regulations.gov, or by                      Under the Act, we maintain a List of                 or threatened species and should be
                                                  appointment during normal business                      Endangered and Threatened Wildlife                     removed from the List (i.e., delisted), (2)
                                                  hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife                     (List) at 50 CFR 17.11 and a List of                   whether a species listed as endangered
                                                  Service, Maine Field Office (see FOR                    Endangered and Threatened Plants at 50                 more properly meets the definition of
                                                  FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).                           CFR 17.12. On June 4, 1973 (38 FR                      threatened and should be reclassified to
                                                     In making a final decision on this                   14678), we listed the eastern puma                     threatened (i.e., downlisted), or (3)
                                                  proposal, we will take into                             (=cougar), Puma (=Felis) concolor                      whether a species listed as threatened
                                                  consideration the comments and any                      couguar, as an endangered subspecies                   more properly meets the definition of
                                                  additional information we receive                       (using the common name of eastern                      endangered and should be reclassified
                                                  during the public comment period.                       cougar). At that time, critical habitat                to endangered. In accordance with 50
                                                  Such communications could lead to a                     was not provided for under the Act;                    CFR 424.11(d), we will consider a
                                                  final rule that differs from this proposal.             consequently, critical habitat was not                 species for delisting only if the best
                                                                                                          designated for the eastern cougar. The                 scientific and commercial data
                                                  Public Hearing                                          principal factors leading to the listing of            substantiate that the species is neither
                                                     Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act provides               the eastern puma were widespread                       endangered nor threatened for one or
                                                  for one or more public hearings on this                 persecution (poisoning, trapping,                      more of the following reasons: (1) The
                                                  proposal, if requested. We must receive                 hunting, and bounties), decline of                     species is considered extinct, (2) the
                                                  requests for public hearings, in writing,               forested habitat, and near-extirpation of              species is considered recovered, or (3)
                                                  at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER                 white-tailed deer populations during the               the data available when the species was
                                                  INFORMATION CONTACT section within 45                   1800s, which together resulted in the                  listed, or the interpretation of such data,
                                                  days after the date of this Federal                     extirpation of most eastern puma                       were in error.
                                                  Register publication (see DATES). We                    populations by 1900.                                      Between 1979 and 1991, the eastern
                                                  will schedule public hearings on this                     A Service status review of the puma                  puma was included in three cursory 5-
                                                  proposal, if any are requested, and                     in North America, including the eastern                year reviews conducted by the Service:
                                                  announce the dates, times, and places of                puma, was issued in 1976 (Nowak                        A 1979 review of all domestic and
                                                  those hearings, as well as how to obtain                1976). This review, along with status                  foreign species listed prior to 1975 (44
                                                  reasonable accommodations, in the                       reviews by some States and Canadian                    FR 29566, May 21, 1979), a 1985 review
                                                  Federal Register at least 15 days before                provinces (e.g., van Zyll de Jong and van              of all species listed before 1976 and
                                                  the first hearing.                                      Ingen 1978, R.L. Downing newsletters                   from 1979 to 1980 (50 FR 29901, July
                                                                                                          from 1979 to 1982), suggested that a                   22, 1985), and a 1991 review of all
                                                  Peer Review                                             large number of unverified public                      species listed before 1991 (56 FR 56882,
                                                     In accordance with our policy,                       reports may be evidence of a persisting,               November 6, 1991). None of these
                                                  ‘‘Notice of Interagency Cooperative                     native breeding population of eastern                  reviews recommended a change from
                                                  Policy for Peer Review in Endangered                    pumas. Such reports led the Service to                 the eastern puma’s listing classification
                                                  Species Act Activities,’’ which was                     retain the eastern puma on the List until              as endangered.
                                                  published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR                        such time as either a breeding                            On January 29, 2007, we published a
                                                  34270), we will seek the expert opinion                 population or extinction could be                      Federal Register notice announcing a 5-
                                                  of at least three appropriate                           verified.                                              year review specific to the eastern puma
                                                  independent specialists regarding                         The Eastern Cougar Recovery Plan                     and nine other species, and we
                                                  scientific data and analyses contained in               was approved in 1982 (USFWS 1982).                     requested information from the public
                                                  this proposed rule. We will send copies                 During plan preparation, R.L. Downing                  concerning the eastern puma (72 FR
                                                  of this proposed rule to peer reviewers                 conducted field surveys and                            4018). The assessment of the eastern
                                                  immediately following its publication in                investigated sighting reports and                      puma’s current status, completed on
                                                  the Federal Register. The purpose of                    concluded that ‘‘no breeding cougar                    January 28, 2011 (USFWS 2011), found
                                                  such review is to ensure that our                       populations have been substantiated                    no evidence of the existence of either an
                                                  decisions are based on scientifically                   within the former range of F.c. couguar                extant population or individual eastern
                                                  sound data, assumptions, and analysis.                  since the 1920s.’’ Nonetheless, the                    pumas, and concluded, therefore, the
                                                                                                          recovery plan states that the eastern                  subspecies should be considered
                                                  Background                                              cougar could be reclassified from                      extinct. The assessment thus concluded
                                                    This proposed rule is based on                        endangered to threatened when one                      that the eastern puma does not meet the
                                                  detailed information and indepth                        population containing at least 50                      definition of either an endangered
                                                  analyses contained in the Service’s                     breeding adults was found or                           species or a threatened species under
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  5-year review for the eastern puma                      established. It further states that the                section 3 of the Act.
                                                  (USFWS 2011, entire), which can be                      eastern cougar could be removed from
                                                  accessed at: http://www.fws.gov/                        the List when at least three populations               Assessment of Species Status
                                                  northeast/ECougar. That review                          were found or established, with each                     Section 4 of the Act and its
                                                  includes a thorough discussion of the                   containing more than 50 breeding                       implementing regulations (50 CFR part
                                                  eastern puma’s biology, historical                      adults. Since the plan’s approval, no                  424) set forth the procedures for listing
                                                  records, and analysis of contemporary                   breeding populations have been found,                  species, reclassifying species, and
                                                  sightings. We also take into account                    nor have any individual pumas known                    removing species from listed status.


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:32 Jun 16, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00057   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM   17JNP1


                                                                        Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 116 / Wednesday, June 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules                                             34597

                                                  ‘‘Species’’ is defined by the Act as                    listed as endangered species under the                    In recognizing the eastern puma as a
                                                  including any species or subspecies of                  Act; the others are the Florida panther                valid subspecies, and thus a valid listed
                                                  fish or wildlife or plants, and any                     (Puma (=Felis) concolor coryi), listed in              entity, we next evaluate whether the
                                                  distinct population segment of any                      1967 (32 FR 4001, March 11, 1967), and                 subspecies should be determined
                                                  species of vertebrate fish or wildlife                  the Costa Rican puma (Puma (=Felis)                    extinct. It is important to note that
                                                  which interbreeds when mature (16                       concolor costaricensis), listed in 1976                assessing the biological status of the
                                                  U.S.C. 1532(16)). To determine whether                  (41 FR 24062, June 14, 1976). Both the                 eastern puma as a subspecies does not
                                                  a species should be listed as endangered                Florida panther and Costa Rican puma                   preclude eventual taxonomic revision.
                                                  or threatened, we assess the likelihood                 remain extant, albeit extremely rare.                     Biology and Life History: There is
                                                  of its continued existence based on the                    In Canada, the first status review of               little basis for believing that the ecology
                                                  five factors described in section 4(a)(1)               the eastern puma by the Committee on                   of eastern pumas was significantly
                                                  of the Act (see Consideration of Factors                the Status of Endangered Wildlife in                   different from puma ecology elsewhere
                                                  Under Section 4(a)(1) of the Act). A                    Canada (COSEWIC) in 1978 assigned                      on the continent. Our biological
                                                  species may be reclassified or removed                  endangered status to the taxon Puma                    understanding of the eastern puma,
                                                  from the List on the same basis. With                   concolor couguar based on puma                         therefore, is derived from studies
                                                  regard to delisting a species due to                    reports in Ontario, Quebec, and the                    conducted in various regions of North
                                                  extinction, ‘‘a sufficient period of time               Maritimes provinces. In 1998, the                      America and, to the extent possible,
                                                  must be allowed before delisting to                     Canadian eastern puma listing was                      from eastern puma historical records
                                                  indicate clearly that the species is                    changed from the Endangered to the                     and museum specimens. This
                                                  extinct’’ (50 CFR 424.11(d)(1)).                        Data Deficient or Indeterminate category               information is detailed in the status
                                                     According to these standards, we                     for Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick,                    review (USFWS 2011) on pages 6
                                                  must determine whether the eastern                      and Nova Scotia.                                       through 8.
                                                  puma is a valid subspecies and whether                                                                            Historical Range, Abundance, and
                                                                                                             The eastern cougar (=puma) is listed
                                                  the subspecies is still extant in order to                                                                     Distribution: Details and citations for
                                                                                                          as endangered in the International
                                                  determine its appropriate listing status.                                                                      the following summary are provided in
                                                                                                          Union for Conservation of Nature’s
                                                  The following sections thus examine the                                                                        the status review (USFWS 2011, pp. 8–
                                                                                                          (IUCN) Mammal Red Data Book (IUCN
                                                  biological and legal information                                                                               29 and 36–56). Although a lack of
                                                                                                          1982). The subspecies is also classified
                                                  considered to be most germane to the                                                                           reliable sightings and historical records
                                                                                                          as an Appendix I animal under the
                                                  status of the eastern puma as a valid,                                                                         makes it difficult to estimate past
                                                                                                          Convention on International Trade in                   abundance and distribution, the
                                                  extant subspecies before looking at
                                                                                                          Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and                   available information is discussed
                                                  factors that may affect the its continued
                                                                                                          Flora (CITES), which provides                          below.
                                                  existence.
                                                                                                          protection from international trade.                      In eastern North America at the time
                                                  Overview                                                   Legal protections at the State and                  of European contact, the puma ranged
                                                     The eastern puma (Puma (=Felis)                      provincial levels are discussed under                  from Florida to southern Quebec and
                                                  concolor couguar) is treated as a                       ‘‘Historical Range, Abundance, and                     remained abundant through much of
                                                  subspecies of the puma. The species is                  Distribution’’ below.                                  eastern North America during the
                                                  also known by many other common                         Biological Status                                      colonial era. Despite its apparent early
                                                  names, including, among others, cougar,                                                                        abundance, however, only 26 historical
                                                  catamount, mountain lion, panther,                         Taxonomy and Genetics: The eastern                  specimens of eastern pumas, from seven
                                                  painter, and wildcat. As explained in                   puma 5-year review (USFWS 2011, pp.                    eastern States and one Canadian
                                                  the 5-year review (USFWS 2011, pp. 4–                   29–35) provides a full discussion of the               province within the subspecies’
                                                  5), the puma is the most widely                         taxonomic history of this subspecies. As               historical range, reside in museums or
                                                  distributed land mammal in the New                      indicated in that review, the current                  other collections.
                                                  World and is one of the most adaptable                  practice is to refer to the species as                    Based on this admittedly small
                                                  mammals in the northern hemisphere.                     Puma concolor (Linnaeus 1771) and the                  number of specimens and other scant
                                                  At the time of European contact, the                    eastern subspecies as Puma concolor                    evidence, Young and Goldman (1946)
                                                  puma occurred throughout most of                        couguar.                                               described the historical range of Felis
                                                  South, Central, and North America. In                      There is ongoing debate about the                   concolor couguar as southeastern
                                                  North America, breeding populations                     taxonomic assignment of puma                           Ontario, southern Quebec, and New
                                                  still occupy about one-third of their                   subspecies, including the question as to               Brunswick in Canada, and a region
                                                  historical range but are now absent from                whether North American pumas                           bounded from Maine to Michigan,
                                                  central and eastern North America                       comprise a single subspecies or multiple               Illinois, Kentucky, and South Carolina
                                                  outside Florida. The puma is                            subspecies. In particular, there has been              in the eastern United States. The
                                                  documented historically from eastern                    disagreement about whether the                         Service’s recovery plan for the eastern
                                                  North America to about 45 degrees                       scientific community should accept the                 cougar describes a similar range
                                                  north latitude (roughly equating to the                 use of genetics as the driving factor in               (USFWS 1982, pp. 1–2), although the
                                                  colonial-era range of its primary                       puma taxonomy, as was done by Culver                   range is mapped a little farther north
                                                  ungulate prey, white-tailed deer) in a                  et al. (2000, entire). The Service’s                   into Ontario. The recovery plan also
                                                  variety of habitats from swamps and                     position is that until a comprehensive                 maps Felis concolor schorgerii, named
                                                  everglades in the Southeast to temperate                evaluation of the subspecies status of                 as a subspecies after Young and
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  forests in the Northeast. Aside from                    North American pumas, including                        Goldman (1946) was published, to the
                                                  presence reports, few historical records                genetic, morphometric, and behavioral                  west and F.c. coryi to the south of the
                                                  exist regarding the natural history of the              analyses, is completed, the best                       eastern puma’s range.
                                                  eastern puma.                                           available information continues to                        The most recently published
                                                                                                          support the assignment of the eastern                  assessment of the puma in eastern
                                                  Current Legal Status                                    taxon to Puma concolor couguar as                      Canada, conducted by the Committee on
                                                    The eastern puma is one of three                      distinct from other North American                     the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
                                                  subspecies of puma that are federally                   subspecies.                                            Canada (COSEWIC) (Scott 1998), maps


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:32 Jun 16, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00058   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM   17JNP1


                                                  34598                         Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 116 / Wednesday, June 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

                                                  the puma’s range throughout southern                              provinces, from approximately 1790 to                       century anywhere in eastern Canada or
                                                  Ontario and Manitoba. The eastern                                 1890, coincided with loss of deer                           the eastern United States outside of
                                                  subspecies is not stipulated in Scott’s                           populations and habitat.                                    Florida,’’ and that ‘‘there is
                                                  (1998) range description; indeed, the                                By 1929, eastern pumas were believed                     circumstantial evidence for virtual or
                                                  review questioned whether the eastern                             to be ‘‘virtually extinct,’’ and Young and                  complete extirpation’’ from central
                                                  puma was ever a valid subspecies. Other                           Goldman (1946) concurred that ‘‘they                        Ontario eastward.
                                                  authors have also discussed the past                              became extinct many years ago.’’ On the
                                                  distribution of pumas in Canada                                   other hand, puma records from New                             The known status of the eastern puma
                                                  without acknowledging them as the                                 Brunswick in 1932 and Maine in 1938                         within its historical range is
                                                  eastern subspecies. Rosette (2011)                                suggest that a population may have                          summarized in table 1, below. A more
                                                  asserts that native, free-roaming pumas                           persisted in northernmost New England                       detailed discussion of the historical
                                                  of unknown origin may continue to                                 and eastern Canada.                                         status, current confirmed and
                                                  survive in Ontario while conceding that                              In the Service’s 1976 status review                      unconfirmed puma sightings, potential
                                                  no evidence of their presence has been                            (Nowak 1976), R.M. Nowak stated his                         habitat, and legal protection (also see
                                                  documented for almost 100 years. In                               belief that the large number of                             Current Legal Status above) of the
                                                  Manitoba, on the other hand, several                              unverified sightings of pumas                               eastern puma in the states and
                                                  authors have documented a relatively                              constituted evidence that certain other                     provinces is provided in the 5-year
                                                  consistent record of pumas, but there is                          populations had also survived or had                        status review (USFWS 2011, pp. 8–26).
                                                  no evidence that these are eastern                                become reestablished in the central and                     To summarize, eastern pumas
                                                  pumas or that the subspecies ever                                 eastern parts of the continent and may                      historically were considered generally
                                                  occurred that far west.                                           have increased in number since the                          common and widespread; however, by
                                                    The historical literature indicates that                        1940s. Further, as stated in the Eastern                    the late 1800s, eastern pumas were
                                                  puma populations were thought to have                             Cougar Recovery Plan (USFWS 1982,                           believed to be extirpated from most of
                                                  been largely extirpated in eastern North                          pp. 4, 7), R.L. Downing believed it
                                                                                                                                                                                their range. As indicated in table 1, the
                                                  America (except for Florida and perhaps                           possible that a small population may
                                                                                                                                                                                majority of the most recent confirmed
                                                  the Smoky Mountains) by the 1870s,                                have persisted in the southern
                                                                                                                    Appalachians into the 1920s.                                reports date from the mid-1800s to
                                                  and in the Midwest by 1900. According
                                                                                                                    Nonetheless, the field surveys he                           around 1930. Later reports are thought
                                                  to many historical accounts, pumas
                                                  were greatly feared and were also                                 conducted and the reports he                                to be indicative of dispersers of western
                                                  persecuted as competitors for game and                            investigated prior to writing the                           pumas, as in Missouri, or released
                                                  occasional predators of livestock.                                recovery plan led him to conclude that                      animals, as in Newfoundland. Although
                                                  Eastern puma populations also                                     ‘‘no breeding cougar populations have                       there now appears to be adequate
                                                  decreased as habitat conditions for the                           been substantiated within the former                        habitat and prey for pumas in various
                                                  puma’s primary prey base, white-tailed                            range of F. c. couguar since the 1920s’’                    portions of the subspecies’ historical
                                                  deer, changed dramatically during this                            (USFWS 1982, p. 6). Scott’s (1998)                          range, the many decades of habitat loss
                                                  time. By the mid- to late-1800s, human                            COSEWIC review also concluded that                          and near-extirpation of the puma’s
                                                  settlement patterns resulted in the                               ‘‘there is no objective evidence (actual                    primary prey, white-tailed deer, bring
                                                  extirpation of deer from much of eastern                          cougar specimens or other unequivocal                       into question the continued survival
                                                  North America. The last records of                                confirmation) for the continuous                            and reproduction of eastern pumas over
                                                  pumas in most of the eastern States and                           presence of cougars since the last                          that time.

                                                                                                     TABLE 1—EASTERN PUMA STATUS BY STATE AND PROVINCE
                                                                                                                   Most recent
                                                                                                                    confirmed                                      Current status in
                                                       State or province                   Historical status                              Potential habitat                                          Legal protection
                                                                                                                   or verifiable                                         wild
                                                                                                                      report

                                                  Connecticut ..................         Historically com-         1842 .........        56 square miles          Considered extir-      State species of special concern, with
                                                                                           mon.                                            (mi2) (145               pated.                 no open season and possession
                                                                                                                                           square kilo-                                    prohibited.
                                                                                                                                           meters (km2));
                                                                                                                                           limited.
                                                  Delaware ......................        Disappeared in late       ...................   Not described ........   Considered extir-      Possession of carnivores permitted
                                                                                           1700s.                                                                   pated.                 under stringent conditions.
                                                  Illinois ...........................   Uncertain tax-            ...................   Southern Illinois ....   Considered extir-      No State endangered species status,
                                                                                           onomy; dis-                                                              pated; possible        but some level of protection from
                                                                                           appeared before                                                          dispersal of           hunting; permit required for posses-
                                                                                           1870.                                                                    western pumas          sion of dangerous animals.
                                                                                                                                                                    into the State; no
                                                                                                                                                                    breeding popu-
                                                                                                                                                                    lation.
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  Indiana .........................      Historical records        1851 .........        Not described ........   Considered extir-      No legal protection; private possession
                                                                                           are rare.                                                                pated.                 permitted.
                                                  Kentucky ......................        Widely distributed        ...................   Statewide; ample         Considered extir-      State listed as extirpated; private pos-
                                                                                           historically; dis-                              prey base.               pated.                 session     of   dangerous      wildlife
                                                                                           appeared before                                                                                 banned.
                                                                                           1900.
                                                  Maine ...........................      Historically rare .....   1938 .........        ∼17,064 mi2              Considered extir-      State listed as extirpated; perpetual
                                                                                                                                           (44,196 km2).            pated.                 closed season; permit required for
                                                                                                                                                                                           possession of captive animals.



                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014         16:32 Jun 16, 2015     Jkt 235001   PO 00000      Frm 00059       Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM    17JNP1


                                                                               Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 116 / Wednesday, June 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules                                                        34599

                                                                                         TABLE 1—EASTERN PUMA STATUS BY STATE AND PROVINCE—Continued
                                                                                                                 Most recent
                                                                                                                  confirmed                                      Current status in
                                                      State or province                  Historical status                              Potential habitat                                         Legal protection
                                                                                                                 or verifiable                                         wild
                                                                                                                    report

                                                  Maryland ......................      Occurred State-           Late                  Western Maryland         Considered extir-      State listed as endangered-extirpated;
                                                                                        wide.                      1800s?                                         pated.                 protected from take; permit required
                                                                                                                                                                                         for possession of captive animals,
                                                                                                                                                                                         but no permits have been issued.
                                                  Massachusetts .............          Occurred State-           1858 .........        No large habitat         Considered extir-      Included on State list due to Federal
                                                                                        wide.                                            blocks.                  pated.                 designation; protected with closed
                                                                                                                                                                                         season and other regulations.
                                                  Michigan ......................      Occurred in much          1906 .........        Upper and Lower          Current reports        State listed as endangered species;
                                                                                        of State.                                        Peninsulas;              considered to be       pumas cannot be privately held as
                                                                                                                                         ample prey base.         dispersers of          pets.
                                                                                                                                                                  western pumas
                                                                                                                                                                  into the state; no
                                                                                                                                                                  breeding popu-
                                                                                                                                                                  lation.
                                                  Missouri .......................     Historically com-         1966; tax-   Southeastern Mis-                 Current confirmed      Classified as extirpated but protected
                                                                                         mon; taxonomy             onomy        souri; ample prey                 sightings consid-      under Wildlife Code provisions.
                                                                                         uncertain.                uncertain.   base.                             ered to be dis-
                                                                                                                                                                  persers of west-
                                                                                                                                                                  ern pumas into
                                                                                                                                                                  the State; no
                                                                                                                                                                  breeding popu-
                                                                                                                                                                  lation.
                                                  New Hampshire ...........            Historically rare .....   Late 1800s            Northern New             Considered extir-      State-protected species; possession of
                                                                                                                                        Hampshire; lim-           pated.                 wild felines illegal except for edu-
                                                                                                                                        ited.                                            cational purposes.
                                                  New Jersey ..................        Historically com-         1830 to               No large habitat         Considered extir-      Not on the State endangered species
                                                                                         mon Statewide.            1840.                 blocks.                  pated.                 list; possession of dangerous spe-
                                                                                                                                                                                         cies permitted for scientific holding,
                                                                                                                                                                                         animal exhibitor, zoological holding,
                                                                                                                                                                                         or animal dealer.
                                                  New York .....................       Occurred State-           1894 .........        Adirondack area;         Considered extir-      Protected by State Endangered Spe-
                                                                                        wide.                                            low prey density.        pated.                 cies Act; State issues permits for
                                                                                                                                                                                         possession, sale, and breeding of
                                                                                                                                                                                         big cats.
                                                  North Carolina .............         Historically com-         1920 .........        Western and              No physical evi-       State protected as an endangered
                                                                                         mon.                                           southeastern              dence to confirm       species; no open season; permit re-
                                                                                                                                        coastal North             sightings.             quired for captive pumas.
                                                                                                                                        Carolina; ample
                                                                                                                                        prey base.
                                                  Ohio .............................   Historically uncom-       ...................   No large habitat         Considered extir-      Not on the State endangered species
                                                                                         mon; dis-                                      blocks.                   pated.                 list; no State protective regulations.
                                                                                         appeared by
                                                                                         1850.
                                                  Pennsylvania ...............         Common Statewide          1914 .........        Northern Allegheny       Considered extir-      State listed as extirpated; no open
                                                                                                                                         Plateau and              pated.                 season; exotic wildlife permit re-
                                                                                                                                         north-central                                   quired for possession.
                                                                                                                                         Pennsylvania;
                                                                                                                                         ample prey base.
                                                  Rhode Island ...............         Early records are         1848 .........        No large habitat         Considered extir-      Classified as extirpated; permit re-
                                                                                         scant.                                          blocks.                  pated.                 quired for possession of native wild-
                                                                                                                                                                                         life or their hybrids.
                                                  South Carolina .............         Present until 1850        ...................   Northwest portion        No confirmed evi-      State listed as endangered with pro-
                                                                                                                                        of State; ample           dence of occur-        tection from take; possession prohib-
                                                                                                                                        prey base.                rences or a pop-       ited.
                                                                                                                                                                  ulation.
                                                  Tennessee ...................        Historically present      1930 .........        Areas in central         Considered extir-      Permit required for possession of dan-
                                                                                         Statewide; com-                                 and eastern Ten-         pated.                 gerous animals.
                                                                                         mon in western                                  nessee.
                                                                                         portion of State.
                                                  Vermont .......................      Historically re-          1881 .........        Large forested           Considered to be       State listed as endangered; protected
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                                                         ported as both                                  blocks; adequate         no longer              under State Endangered Species
                                                                                         rare and com-                                   prey density.            present.               Act; permit required for possession
                                                                                         mon.                                                                                            of big cats.
                                                  Virginia .........................   Historically plentiful    1882 .........        Western moun-            No confirmed           State listed as endangered; protected
                                                                                         in coastal low-                                tains; ample prey         records since the      under State Endangered Species
                                                                                         lands and west-                                base.                     1880s.                 Act; import permit required for wild
                                                                                         ern mountains.                                                                                  felines.
                                                  Washington, DC ..........            Native to area .......    1913 .........        None available ......    Considered extir-      Private possession of pumas prohib-
                                                                                                                                                                  pated.                 ited.



                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014       16:32 Jun 16, 2015     Jkt 235001   PO 00000      Frm 00060       Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM    17JNP1


                                                  34600                       Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 116 / Wednesday, June 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

                                                                                        TABLE 1—EASTERN PUMA STATUS BY STATE AND PROVINCE—Continued
                                                                                                              Most recent
                                                                                                               confirmed                                      Current status in
                                                      State or province                Historical status                             Potential habitat                                         Legal protection
                                                                                                              or verifiable                                         wild
                                                                                                                 report

                                                  West Virginia ...............       Historically com-       1901 .........        Extensive and            Considered extir-      State listed; protected under the State
                                                                                        mon.                                          widespread;              pated.                 ESA; permit required to import, hold,
                                                                                                                                      ample prey base.                                or sell native or exotic felines.
                                                  Wisconsin ....................      Historically com-       1909 .........        Assumed to have          Confirmed records      Not currently protected.
                                                                                        mon; uncertain                                adequate habitat         since 1994, pos-
                                                                                        taxonomy.                                     and prey base.           sibly of another
                                                                                                                                                               subspecies and
                                                                                                                                                               illegally released
                                                                                                                                                               pumas; no
                                                                                                                                                               known breeding
                                                                                                                                                               population.
                                                  Manitoba ......................     Pumas historically      ...................   Abundant habitat         Not considered ex-     Pumas not included on Provincial en-
                                                                                        occurred                                      and prey, but            tirpated; insuffi-     dangered species list, but consid-
                                                                                        throughout prov-                              snow depth may           cient evidence to      ered a Species of Special Concern.
                                                                                        ince; not consid-                             be limiting.             determine cur-
                                                                                        ered to be the                                                         rent status.
                                                                                        eastern sub-
                                                                                        species.
                                                  New Brunswick ............          Historical records      1932 .........        Northern New             Small number may       Listed as endangered under the Pro-
                                                                                        unreliable.                                   Brunswick; low           be present, of         vincial Endangered Species Act.
                                                                                                                                      prey densities.          unknown origin
                                                                                                                                                               and taxonomy;
                                                                                                                                                               lack of evidence
                                                                                                                                                               of a viable popu-
                                                                                                                                                               lation.
                                                  Newfoundland ..............         Not native to prov-     ...................   Not described ........   Sightings believed     Not currently protected.
                                                                                       ince, illegally in-                                                     to be of released
                                                                                       troduced in 1960.                                                       animals or their
                                                                                                                                                               progeny.
                                                  Nova Scotia .................       No verified reports;    ...................   Not described ........   No verified records    Not listed on the Provincial list of en-
                                                                                        may have ex-                                                                                  dangered species, but protected by
                                                                                        tended into area                                                                              Provincial regulations.
                                                                                        coincident to
                                                                                        deer expansion
                                                                                        in early 1900s.
                                                  Ontario .........................   Historically re-        1908 .........        Large forested           Considered extir-      Not protected under Provincial Endan-
                                                                                        ported as both                                blocks; ample            pated.                 gered Species Act.
                                                                                        rare and com-                                 prey base.
                                                                                        mon.
                                                  Prince Edward Island ..             No known historical     ...................   Not described ........   No known occur-        Not currently protected.
                                                                                        records.                                                              rences.
                                                  Quebec ........................     Occurred province-      1920 .........        Habitat and prey         Considered extir-      Not currently protected.
                                                                                        wide; common                                  available.               pated despite re-
                                                                                        south of St. Law-                                                      cent reports.
                                                                                        rence River.



                                                    Current Biological Status of Pumas in                      in the 5-year status review (USFWS                             Detection of single, transient pumas is
                                                  Eastern North America: Our conclusions                       2011, pp. 36–56).                                           particularly problematic because they
                                                  regarding the current biological status of                      Detectability of pumas: This line of                     cover such a large range and leave
                                                  the eastern puma rely upon three lines                       evidence addresses the question of how                      behind little sign of their occupation
                                                  of evidence: (1) The detectability of wild                   likely it is that eastern puma individuals                  (e.g., scrapes, kills, and tracks) in any
                                                  pumas, (2) contemporary accounts of                          or populations could continue to persist                    one place. The best prospect for
                                                  puma sightings in eastern North                              without being detected. If entities are                     detecting these animals is through
                                                  America as evidence of the continued                         difficult to detect, lack of confirmed                      tracks left during their extensive daily
                                                  existence of eastern pumas, and (3) the                      sightings may not be indicative of                          movement in the snowy regions of
                                                  time since the last verified eastern puma                    absence; however, if detectability is                       North America.
                                                  occurrence. Recognizing that extinction                      known to be high, it is much more likely                       Numerous searches and surveys have
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  cannot be demonstrated with absolute                         that lack of sightings is evidence of                       been undertaken to detect the presence
                                                  certainty (i.e., it is a probabilistic                       absence. For the eastern puma,                              of individual pumas, either directly or
                                                  determination), the totality of evidence                     detectability differs between individuals                   as part of large carnivore studies, and,
                                                  for the eastern puma provides a basis for                    and populations. Although individual                        by extension, puma populations in
                                                  drawing robust conclusions about the                         pumas are difficult to detect,                              eastern North America. Searches have
                                                  true status of this subspecies, as                           determining the presence of a puma                          been conducted in areas reputed to
                                                  discussed below. A more detailed                             population is possible with a reasonable                    harbor pumas, and reports of puma
                                                  discussion and references are provided                       amount of effort.                                           sightings have been investigated


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014       16:32 Jun 16, 2015   Jkt 235001    PO 00000    Frm 00061       Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM    17JNP1


                                                                        Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 116 / Wednesday, June 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules                                           34601

                                                  extensively. Surveys have utilized a                    coverage in the popular press and                      be of South American origin, indicating
                                                  variety of techniques, including trail                  assertions by biologists and other                     that released or escaped captive pumas
                                                  transects with motion-sensing cameras,                  writers that there was sufficient                      are also present in the wild, while
                                                  hair trap posts and rubbing pads, and                   evidence to believe that the eastern                   others were verified as North American
                                                  snow-covered road surveys to detect the                 puma still existed. It also coincided                  genotypes without being able to
                                                  tracks or signs of pumas.                               with a growing number of pumas in the                  determine if they were of captive or
                                                     Such studies have yielded few                        North American pet trade.                              wild origin.
                                                  positive results in eastern North                          A surge in reported sightings followed                 Overall, most of the surveys
                                                  America. However, in other parts of                     in the 1960s and 1970s, again                          conducted by wildlife biologists in
                                                  North America, pumas have been                          coincident with publications claiming                  eastern North America—some of which
                                                  readily detected through searches and                   that a relic population of pumas from                  have targeted pumas while others have
                                                  surveys. Additionally, pumas have been                  the northeastern United States and                     targeted different species (e.g., wolves,
                                                  detected as a result of road kills; even                eastern Canada was repopulating                        lynx)— have failed to detect any sign or
                                                  in areas with small extant populations                  eastern North America. Although based                  evidence of the presence of pumas.
                                                  (such as Florida and South Dakota) and                  mostly on questionable evidence,                       Details of each survey effort are
                                                  low road densities, pumas killed on                     many—including wildlife biologists—                    provided in the eastern puma 5-year
                                                  roads are reported nearly every month                   accepted this hypothesis without                       review (USFWS 2011, pp. 26–29 and
                                                  of the year. In contrast, although road                 critical scientific review.                            appendix B).
                                                  mortalities have been documented in                        The sheer volume of anecdotal reports                  Many puma sightings are reported as
                                                  the eastern United States and Canada in                 was cited as evidence for the continued                ‘‘eyewitness’’ accounts; this type of
                                                  recent years, the reports are irregular,                existence of pumas, although few of                    report has increased with the
                                                  and in the rare instances where                         these reports were ever substantiated.                 availability of Internet search engines
                                                  individuals have been verified as wild                  By the 1970s, puma advocacy groups                     and is sometimes spurred by news
                                                  pumas, they have originated outside the                 had been established, and they, along                  articles that encourage others to report
                                                  eastern puma’s historical range.                        with many independent researchers and                  observations. The reliability of such
                                                     Overall, pumas have been readily                     advocates, were investigating sightings                accounts can depend on time of day,
                                                  detectable in areas of North America                    and promoting puma recovery. This led                  experience level of the observer,
                                                  outside the historical range of the                     to the 1973 listing of the eastern cougar,             duration of the observation, and
                                                  eastern puma. We can thus conclude                      even though there was no physical                      observer trustworthiness. Insufficient
                                                  that pumas and, in particular, puma                     evidence showing that populations                      field identification and tracking skills,
                                                  populations, could be detected with a                   existed at that time.                                  as well as photographs of single tracks
                                                  reasonable amount of effort if present in                  Since listing, thousands of reports                 rather than a series of tracks, may
                                                  eastern North America. We further                       have been collected by wildlife agencies               further compromise reliability. Based on
                                                  conclude that the searches, surveys, and                and puma organizations, including                      our assessment of puma eyewitness
                                                  efforts to verify sightings by the public               hundreds of puma sightings by reliable                 accounts (USFWS 2011, pp. 36–42), it
                                                  since the 1950s constitute a reasonable                 witnesses where physical evidence was                  appears that 90 to 95 percent of puma
                                                  effort, as discussed below and detailed                 not available. Most recently, during                   sightings and vocalizations reported by
                                                  in the 5-year review (USFWS 2011, pp.                   preparation of the eastern puma 5-year                 the public involve instances of
                                                  26–29). However, despite the                            review (from 2007 to 2010), 60 reports                 misidentification and, at times,
                                                  detectability of pumas, no evidence has                 of pumas were considered to have some                  deliberate hoaxes.
                                                  been presented to verify the continued                  likelihood of validity based on verified                  Although documention of sightings by
                                                  existence of the eastern subspecies or of               identification of tracks; photographic                 the public in areas where pumas are
                                                  any breeding population of pumas                        evidence; genetic, hair, or scat samples;              uncommon can be useful—particularly
                                                  within its historical range.                            or discovery of carcasses (USFWS 2011,                 where protocols for puma sightings and
                                                     Contemporary accounts of pumas in                    appendix B). It is important to note that              analysis have been established—
                                                  eastern North America as evidence of                    none of these reports was verified as the              compilations of unconfirmed sighting
                                                  the continuing existence of the                         eastern subspecies.                                    reports can also produce a large volume
                                                  subspecies: As discussed in the 5-year                     A number of formal studies have been                of cogent but misleading information.
                                                  review (USFWS 2011, pp. 36–38),                         undertaken to determine the presence of                The problem with treating anecdotal
                                                  renewed interest in puma conservation                   pumas in eastern North America. One                    sightings as empirical evidence is
                                                  over the past 60 years has resulted not                 study (Michigan Wildlife Conservancy                   compounded when such observations
                                                  only in a profusion of reported sightings               2003) detected pumas, but the results                  are supplemented by inconclusive
                                                  by the public but also efforts by                       and methodology were subsequently                      physical evidence such as indistinct
                                                  scientists to determine the presence of                 contested. Elsewhere in the Midwest,                   photographs. Typically, as a species
                                                  pumas in eastern North America. We                      pumas have been detected with trail                    becomes rarer, the proportion of false
                                                  summarize these accounts below and                      cameras. A puma sighted in Wisconsin                   positives increases; thus, even the most
                                                  discuss whether they constitute a basis                 was verified in January 2008 and shot in               tangible evidence of a puma must be
                                                  for concluding that the eastern puma                    Chicago, Illinois, in April 2008. This                 followed by further inquiry to identify
                                                  remains extant.                                         animal was determined to be of North                   it as a wild specimen and ascertain its
                                                     There were few reports of pumas in                   American origin with characteristics                   origins.
                                                  eastern North America between the late                  similar to South Dakota pumas. In 2009,                   Over the past 50 years, thousands of
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  1800s and the 1940s and 1950s (see                      another Wisconsin puma was treed and                   puma sightings have been investigated,
                                                  ‘‘Historical Range, Abundance, and                      photographed on several occasions;                     at substantial public and private
                                                  Distribution’’ above). The number of                    DNA analysis was not available for this                expense. Only a small percentage of
                                                  reports increased in the 1950s, and                     animal. In eastern Canada, a survey of                 investigations have resulted in
                                                  states, provinces, and puma                             the Maritime provinces from 2001 to                    collection of evidence that could be
                                                  organizations began maintaining                         2004 (Gauthier et al. 2005, entire)                    interpreted or further analyzed, and
                                                  databases of puma sightings. The                        confirmed six samples as puma. Of                      only a small percentage of the analyses
                                                  increased reporting coincided with                      these six samples, several were found to               have provided irrefutable proof of a


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:32 Jun 16, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00062   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM   17JNP1


                                                  34602                 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 116 / Wednesday, June 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

                                                  wild puma. The most recent case was a                     A number of population viability                     North American origin and therefore
                                                  male puma killed on a highway in                        analyses indicate that both a minimum                  more likely to be wild animals. Captive
                                                  Milford, Connecticut, in 2011. Genetic                  population size and minimum area of                    puma enthusiasts apparently favor
                                                  analysis of the animal determined that                  high-quality habitat are needed for long-              Central and South American animals,
                                                  its origin was a population in South                    term puma persistence. The probability                 and it can be assumed that pumas found
                                                  Dakota, indicating that it was a transient              of population persistence also depends                 in eastern North America with South
                                                  western puma; the same animal had                       on favorable demographic factors.                      American DNA are escaped or released
                                                  been documented in Minnesota,                           Studies to date indicate, very                         captives or their progeny. Since the
                                                  Wisconsin, and northern New York                        approximately, that puma populations                   early 1990s, 24 puma genetic samples
                                                  prior to arriving in Connecticut.                       consisting of fewer than 15 to 20                      have been collected within the historic
                                                     Despite the large number of                          animals and occupying less than 386 to                 range of the eastern puma and tested
                                                  contemporary eastern puma accounts,                     772 mi2 (1,000 to 2,000 km2) of high-                  using a variety of techniques (USFWS
                                                  few of the surveys and investigations of                quality habitat would be unlikely to                   2011, Appendix B). Of these, about one-
                                                  puma reports have provided verifiable                   persist over the long term, particularly               third were found to be of Central or
                                                  evidence of the presence of pumas,                      in the face of any adverse genetic effects             South American origin, one-third were
                                                  irrespective of origin, in eastern North                (USFWS 2011, pp. 8 and 46). Effects of                 of North American origin, and one-third
                                                  America, and even fewer have provided                   postsettlement persecution of eastern                  were identified as pumas but of
                                                  irrefutable proof of a wild puma.                       pumas, compounded by loss of habitat                   unknown origin.
                                                  Nonetheless, verified puma occurrences                  and the near-extirpation of white-tailed                  In addition to genetic evidence, the
                                                  have occurred with enough frequency in                  deer, severely reduced the probability of              increasing frequency of reported puma
                                                  eastern North America (approximately                    persistence using both of these                        sightings in the eastern United States
                                                  15 puma carcasses have been                             measures. Pumas likely survived longest                and Canada correlates with the
                                                  documented in eastern North America                     in remaining large forest tracts where                 increased private ownership, trade, and
                                                  north of Florida since 1950) to                         deer were not extirpated and at the                    breeding of pumas that began in the
                                                  encourage a widespread belief that a                    northern periphery of their historical                 1940s and 1950s. Zoos formerly sold or
                                                  cryptic eastern puma population                         range as deer shifted northward (which                 gave pumas to individuals or dealers,
                                                  continues to persist.                                   would explain the later puma records in                although this is strictly prohibited today
                                                     In considering whether all this                      Maine and New Brunswick). To survive                   and there currently is a ban on breeding
                                                                                                          elsewhere in the East, puma populations                pumas in zoos. More recently, Internet
                                                  constitutes evidence of an extant eastern
                                                                                                          would have had to persist for decades                  sales of exotic cats have flourished,
                                                  puma population, three possible
                                                                                                          with extremely low or absent                           illustrating the continuing ease of
                                                  hypotheses have been considered: First,
                                                                                                          populations of their primary prey, and                 acquiring captive pumas. This situation
                                                  that the observed animals are members
                                                                                                          such persistence is doubtful. Even in                  is exacerbated in some States by
                                                  of a persistent relic population; second,
                                                                                                          northern regions, deer populations were                enforcement challenges, and these
                                                  that they are released or escaped
                                                                                                          greatly reduced, and snow depths there                 States’ lack of information about the
                                                  captives; or, third, that they are
                                                                                                          would have been limiting for pumas.                    number and disposition of captive
                                                  dispersers from source populations
                                                                                                            This information, along with the total               pumas within their borders. Overall,
                                                  outside of the region. These hypotheses
                                                                                                          absence of verified contemporary                       there are likely thousands of privately-
                                                  are discussed, in turn, below.
                                                                                                          eastern puma records, suggests that a                  held (both legally and illegally) pumas
                                                     1. A relic population of pumas has                   remnant population of eastern pumas is                 in the eastern United States, dwarfing
                                                  survived in eastern North America.                      highly unlikely to have survived two                   the number of pumas in zoos.
                                                  Although some hypothesize that the                      centuries of intense human exploitation                   Released or escaped pumas are
                                                  eastern puma has survived in eastern                    and persecution, habitat changes, and                  documented in numerous accounts,
                                                  North America since colonial times, the                 near-eradication of its primary prey.                  along with frequent reports of such
                                                  continued existence of a puma                           Further, were a relic puma population                  pumas being recaptured (USFWS 2011,
                                                  population in eastern North America is                  to have survived, the rebounding of deer               pp. 49–50). It has also been found that
                                                  not corroborated by the historical                      populations along with protections from                individual captive pumas may
                                                  record, the history of white-tailed deer,               take under the Act would have likely                   successfully adapt to conducive
                                                  or our current understanding of puma                    resulted in a corresponding increase in                conditions in the wild. If released or
                                                  ecology (USFWS 2011, pp. 43–46).                        documentation of eastern puma                          escaped captives initially avoid
                                                     As noted above, most eastern pumas                   presence and increased likelihood of                   recapture or death, they most likely
                                                  were thought to have been virtually                     deterction. Given the lack of verified                 become wandering transients. Overall, it
                                                  extirpated by the late 1800s. Had                       contemporary records, we therefore find                may be possible, although unlikely, for
                                                  members of the subspecies survived,                     no evidence to support the hypothesis                  individual captive pumas to transition
                                                  they should have been detectable. With                  that an undetected relic population of                 into a wild existence, establish home
                                                  some exceptions (e.g., later records in                 eastern pumas remains extant.                          ranges, and, like other transient pumas,
                                                  Maine and New Brunswick) authors                          2. Pumas occurring in eastern North                  persist with low detectability.
                                                  document a near-absence of records                      America are released or escaped pets.                     Nonetheless, the likelihood of
                                                  from the late 1800s to the 1950s.                       Since the mid-1900s, there has been                    escaped or released captive pumas
                                                  Further, despite the verified reports of                speculation that perhaps all pumas                     establishing breeding populations is
                                                  pumas mentioned above, whenever we                      observed in eastern North America                      minimal, both because transient pumas
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  have been able to determine the origins                 (outside of Florida) are escaped or                    are unlikely to recolonize new areas
                                                  of these pumas, they have been shown                    released captive animals. The findings                 unless there is an adjacent resident
                                                  to be either captive pumas (generally                   regarding this hypothesis, presented in                puma population, and because their
                                                  South American pumas or their                           the 5-year review (USFWS 2011) on pp.                  survival prospects are generally low.
                                                  progeny) or dispersers from western                     47–51 and in Appendix B, are                           The multiple reports we have received
                                                  populations. None of these animals has                  summarized below.                                      of pumas in a geographic location over
                                                  been confirmed as the eastern                             Genetic techniques are now available                 a period of months (but not years) could
                                                  subspecies.                                             to determine if puma specimens are of                  constitute actual observations of


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:32 Jun 16, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00063   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM   17JNP1


                                                                        Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 116 / Wednesday, June 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules                                            34603

                                                  escaped animals. However, if these                      western pumas is occurring, especially                 wild pumas that currently exist in
                                                  animals are declawed or defanged, they                  from North and South Dakota (note the                  eastern North America.
                                                  have little chance of surviving over the                previous mention of a South Dakota                        Summary: First, it is important to note
                                                  long term, particularly at rates needed to              puma killed in Connecticut in 2011).                   that the alternative hypotheses for the
                                                  establish a population. Further, few of                 Confirmed records of wild-origin pumas                 continuing presence of pumas in eastern
                                                  the many reported sightings of puma                     exist in many States and provinces                     North America are not mutually
                                                  kittens in eastern North America, which                 bordering the western and northern                     exclusive. Physical evidence indicates
                                                  would be indicative of a breeding                       peripheries of the eastern puma’s                      that pumas recently found in eastern
                                                  population, have been substantiated                     historical range, and most States in the               North America are released or escaped
                                                  (USFWS 2011, p. 51).                                    Midwest now acknowledge the presence                   captive animals, with the exception of
                                                     We conclude that the evidence                        of wild pumas. Further, persistent puma                some wild animals in the Midwest (and
                                                  supports the hypothesis that pumas                      presence has been documented in a few                  one documented in Connecticut) that
                                                  recently found in eastern North America                 areas (Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota,                      are dispersing from western
                                                  are released or escaped captive animals,                Nebraska), suggesting that individual                  populations. The evidence also suggests
                                                  with the exception of some animals in                   pumas are successfully surviving in the                that these are transient pumas with little
                                                  Illinois, Wisconsin, and other                          wild and may have established home                     potential for naturally establishing
                                                  midwestern States that are dispersing                   ranges.                                                breeding populations.
                                                  from more westward populations (see                        Suitable, albeit sometimes                             Most significantly, no evidence
                                                  discussion below). Genetic and isotope                  fragmented, habitat and an adequate                    whatsoever has been found to show that
                                                  techniques are improving, which will                    prey base are available for pumas in the               either individual eastern pumas or any
                                                  help distinguish whether pumas of                       Midwest and Great Lakes regions, with                  relic populations of the eastern puma
                                                  North American ancestry are of wild or                  large populations of white-tailed deer                 subspecies remain extant in eastern
                                                  captive origin.                                         occurring throughout the region.                       North America.
                                                     3. Pumas in eastern North America                    Moreover, numerous dispersal corridors                    Time since last verified eastern puma
                                                  are dispersers from breeding                            leading to highly suitable habitat areas               report: The most recently confirmed
                                                  populations to the west and south.
                                                                                                          in the Midwest have been identified                    records of pumas native to eastern North
                                                  Breeding puma populations in
                                                                                                          within feasible dispersal distances for                America are from Tennessee (1930),
                                                  proximity to the eastern puma’s
                                                                                                          pumas. Although dispersing pumas                       New Brunswick (1932), and Maine
                                                  historical range occur in Manitoba,
                                                                                                          frequently travel along deer-rich                      (1938). These records coincide with the
                                                  North Dakota, South Dakota, possibly
                                                                                                          riparian corridors and generally avoid                 extirpation of white-tailed deer in most
                                                  Nebraska and Oklahoma, and Florida.
                                                                                                          human-dominated landscapes, pumas                      of its range in the 1800s, with the
                                                  The Service’s 5-year review discusses
                                                                                                          are known to disperse across large                     exception of some remaining large forest
                                                  the likelihood of immigration of pumas
                                                                                                          expanses of inhospitable habitat. Roads                tracts, and a shift toward the northern
                                                  to eastern North America from these
                                                                                                          and railroad rights-of-way and                         periphery of its historical range during
                                                  populations (USFWS 2011, pp. 51–56).
                                                     Regarding dispersal from Florida,                    associated brush belts also provide                    that time. Reports of pumas were made
                                                  there was little evidence until recently                dispersal corridors. The upper Midwest                 by reputable observers in Missouri as
                                                  that the Florida panther population was                 Region is the most favorable route for                 late as 1966, but the taxonomy of these
                                                  expanding northward, but since 1998,                    cougars repopulating the East from the                 animals has long been in question.
                                                  four tagged and several unmarked                        Dakotas, and Manitoba’s puma                              It is notable that areas in eastern
                                                  animals have crossed the                                population may be a potential source for               North America that still support extant
                                                  Caloosahatchee River, previously                        animals observed in Ontario, northern                  populations of native pumas (e.g.,
                                                  thought to be a barrier to northward                    Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan.                    Florida and Manitoba) have had a long
                                                  expansion. In addition, an adult male                      Although individual males are known                 and continuous record of confirmed
                                                  puma killed in Georgia in 2008                          to disperse over long distances, the                   occurrences. In contrast, a long-term
                                                  originated in Florida. Nonetheless,                     establishment of puma populations in                   record of verified puma occurrences is
                                                  given the many other substantial                        the Midwest and Great Lakes regions is                 lacking in regions of eastern North
                                                  barriers to dispersal, it is considered                 less likely to occur unless breeding                   America outside Florida.
                                                  highly unlikely that Florida panthers are               range expansion is facilitated. Female                    Given the puma’s life span, generally
                                                  dispersing out of Florida with enough                   pumas do not move far from their natal                 thought to be 10 to 11 years, it is
                                                  frequency to establish populations                      areas, and male pumas compete for                      extremely implausible that non-
                                                  elsewhere in the Southeast, although                    access to females; that is, in addition to             breeding eastern pumas could have
                                                  adequate prey and habitat are available                 adequate food and cover, dispersing                    persisted in the wild under conditions
                                                  in Georgia.                                             males search for areas occupied by one                 of habitat loss and lack of their primary
                                                     As to dispersal from the West, puma                  or more resident females. Thus, range                  prey base and without being detected
                                                  populations in most western States are                  expansion is unlikely unless females                   for over six decades. It is equally if not
                                                  believed to be at historically high levels,             disperse—or are released—into new                      more unlikely that breeding populations
                                                  and breeding populations have                           habitats. As would be expected, most of                of the subspecies could have gone
                                                  expanded their ranges eastward.                         the recent Midwest puma records are of                 undetected for that long. Based on how
                                                  Dispersing pumas have been reported                     males.                                                 improbable it is that eastern puma
                                                  since 1990 in the Midwest, primarily                       Given evidence of growing puma                      individuals or populations could have
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  west of the Mississippi River and                       populations in the West, increased                     weathered such a long period of habitat
                                                  possibly the Great Lakes Region, with                   dispersal, and availability of dispersal               and prey loss, along with the lack of
                                                  over 130 confirmed puma records                         corridors and prey in the Midwest, we                  either a recent report or a long-term
                                                  documented in Wisconsin, Illinois,                      conclude that wild-origin pumas                        record of eastern puma occurrences, we
                                                  Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri,                  (primarily males) will continue to                     conclude that the time since the last
                                                  and Iowa.                                               disperse into the midwestern States and                verified eastern puma record is
                                                     These records confirm that eastward                  into the historical range of the eastern               indicative of the long-term absence of
                                                  dispersal from breeding populations of                  puma and are the likely source of any                  this subspecies.


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:32 Jun 16, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00064   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM   17JNP1


                                                  34604                 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 116 / Wednesday, June 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

                                                     Summary: Overall, we find that                       Conclusion                                             uncertainties into current puma
                                                  pumas (except for single transients) are                   Widespread persecution, decline of                  taxonomy, we have concluded that until
                                                  reasonably detectable, that no                          forested habitat, and near-extirpation of              a comprehensive evaluation (including
                                                  contemporary puma sightings in eastern                  white-tailed deer populations during the               genetic, morphometric, and behavioral
                                                  North America have been verified as the                 1800s led to the loss of most eastern                  analyses) of North American pumas is
                                                  eastern puma subspecies since 1938,                     puma populations by 1900. Although                     completed, the best available
                                                  and that it is extremely unlikely that                  individual pumas were taken as late as                 information continues to support the
                                                  either individuals or eastern puma                      1932 in New Brunswick and 1938 in                      assignment of the eastern taxon to Puma
                                                  populations could have survived the                     Maine, neither the Service’s 5-year                    (=Felis) concolor couguar. We further
                                                  long period during which most of their                  status review (USFWS 2011) nor                         note that these taxonomic questions do
                                                  habitat was lost and their primary prey                 information that has become available                  not affect the determinations in this
                                                  base was nearly extirpated. We therefore                since then has yielded any convincing                  proposed rule regarding the listed
                                                  determine the eastern puma subspecies                   evidence to support the hypothesis that                entity’s biological status.
                                                  to be extinct.                                          small, cryptic populations of the                        Taking all these considerations into
                                                                                                          subspecies continue to persist anywhere                account, we conclude that the taxon
                                                  Consideration of Factors Under Section                                                                         Puma (=Felis) concolor couguar is
                                                  4(a)(1) of the Act                                      within its historical range, including
                                                                                                          northern New England and eastern                       extinct.
                                                     As mentioned under Assessment of                     Canada. These findings are supported                   Proposed Determination
                                                  Species Status above, section 4 of the                  by the most recent Canadian Wildlife
                                                  Act and its implementing regulations                                                                              After a thorough review of all
                                                                                                          Service status review (Scott 1998) and                 available information, we have
                                                  (50 CFR part 424) set forth the                         by analyses in the revised Florida
                                                  procedures for listing, reclassifying, or                                                                      determined that the subspecies Puma
                                                                                                          Panther Recovery Plan (USFWS 2008).                    (=Felis) concolor couguar is extinct.
                                                  removing species from listed status.                    We therefore conclude that the
                                                  When we evaluate whether a species                                                                             Based upon this determination and
                                                                                                          subspecies Puma (=Felis) concolor                      taking into consideration the definitions
                                                  should be listed as an endangered                       couguar, or eastern puma (=cougar), was
                                                  species or threatened species, we must                                                                         of ‘‘endangered species’’ and
                                                                                                          likely extirpated from eastern North                   ‘‘threatened species’’ contained in the
                                                  consider the five listing factors                       America prior to its listing in 1973,
                                                  described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:                                                                       Act and the reasons for delisting as
                                                                                                          noting, however, that extirpation had                  specified in 50 CFR 424.11(d), we
                                                  (A) The present or threatened                           not been substantiated at that time.
                                                  destruction, modification, or                                                                                  propose to remove the eastern puma
                                                                                                             We further conclude that although                   from the List of Endangered and
                                                  curtailment of the species’ habitat or                  there have been thousands of puma
                                                  range; (B) overutilization for                                                                                 Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11.
                                                                                                          sightings in eastern North America since
                                                  commercial, recreational, scientific, or                the 1950s, most are a case of mistaken                 Available Conservation Measures
                                                  educational purposes; (C) disease or                    identity. We acknowledge that a small                     Conservation measures provided to
                                                  predation; (D) the inadequacy of                        number of pumas are occasionally                       species listed as endangered or
                                                  existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E)                 encountered in the wild in eastern                     threatened under the Act include
                                                  other natural or manmade factors                        North America within the historical                    recognition, recovery actions,
                                                  affecting the species’ continued                        range of the listed eastern puma. Based                requirements for Federal protection, and
                                                  existence. We must consider these same                  on the best available scientific evidence,             prohibitions against certain practices.
                                                  factors in reclassifying a species or                   however, we conclude that these are                    However, since the Service has
                                                  removing it from the List.                              escaped or released captive animals, or                determined the eastern cougar to be
                                                     The principal factors leading to the                 dispersers from western puma                           extinct, this proposed rule, if made
                                                  listing of the eastern puma were                        populations, not the eastern puma                      final, would remove any Federal
                                                  widespread persecution (poisoning,                      subspecies. Breeding of escaped or                     conservation measures for any
                                                  trapping, hunting, and bounties),                       released individuals, if it occurs,                    individual pumas (except dispersing
                                                  decline of forested habitat, and near-                  appears to be an extremely rare event,                 Florida panthers) that may subsequently
                                                  extirpation of white-tailed deer                        and there is no evidence of any                        be found within the historical range of
                                                  populations during the 1800s. These                     population established from escaped or                 the eastern puma.
                                                  impacts led to the extirpation of most                  released captive animals.
                                                  eastern puma populations by 1900.                          Although it is improbable that pumas                Effects of the Rule
                                                     However, because we have                             can disperse regularly out of Florida,                   This proposal, if made final, would
                                                  determined that all populations of                      puma range expansion may be occurring                  revise 50 CFR 17.11 to remove the
                                                  pumas described as the eastern puma,                    in the Midwest from the West. Several                  eastern puma from the List of
                                                  Puma (=Felis) concolor couguar, have                    wild-origin pumas have been confirmed                  Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
                                                  been extirpated, analysis of the five                   in that region and are likely dispersers               due to extinction. The prohibitions and
                                                  factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act,               from western populations that have                     conservation measures provided by the
                                                  which apply to threats facing extant                    reached carrying capacity. Dispersal                   Act would no longer apply to this
                                                  species, is tragically irrelevant. As                   into the Midwest will likely increase in               subspecies. There is no designated
                                                  stated above, given the period of time                  frequency as long as western puma                      critical habitat for the eastern puma.
                                                  that has passed without verification of                 populations continue to grow.
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  even a single eastern puma, the Service                    With regard to puma taxonomy, we                    Post-Delisting Monitoring
                                                  believes that the last remaining                        recognize the ongoing debate among                       Section 4(g)(1) of the Act, added in
                                                  members of this subspecies perished                     scientists about the taxonomic                         the 1988 reauthorization, requires us to
                                                  decades ago. Therefore, the eastern                     assignment of puma subspecies and                      implement a program, in cooperation
                                                  puma is no longer extant and logically                  whether genetics should be the driving                 with the States, to monitor for not less
                                                  can no longer be an endangered species                  factor in puma taxonomy. Although                      than 5 years the status of all species that
                                                  or threatened species because of any of                 Culver et al.’s (2000, entire) genetic                 have recovered and been removed from
                                                  the five factors.                                       analysis injected significant                          the Lists of Endangered and Threatened


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:32 Jun 16, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00065   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM   17JNP1


                                                                        Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 116 / Wednesday, June 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules                                                  34605

                                                  Wildlife and Plants (50 CFR 17.11 and                   connection with regulations adopted                    based is available upon request from the
                                                  17.12). Based upon the results of more                  pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We                Service’s Maine Field Office (see FOR
                                                  than 25 years of investigating sporadic                 published a notice outlining our reasons               FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
                                                  reports of sightings and our conclusion                 for this determination in the Federal                  References are also posted on http://
                                                  that the eastern puma is extinct, post-                 Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR                    www.fws.gov/northeast/ECougar.
                                                  delisting monitoring is not warranted.                  49244).
                                                                                                                                                                 Authors
                                                  Required Determinations                                 Government-to-Government
                                                                                                          Relationship With Tribes                                 The primary authors of this proposed
                                                  Clarity of the Rule                                                                                            rule are the staff members of the Maine
                                                                                                             In accordance with the President’s                  Field Office and the Hadley,
                                                     We are required by Executive Orders
                                                                                                          memorandum of April 29, 1994,                          Massachusetts, Regional Office.
                                                  12866 and 12988 and by the
                                                                                                          Government-to-Government Relations
                                                  Presidential Memorandum of June 1,                                                                             List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
                                                                                                          with Native American Tribal
                                                  1998, to write all rules in plain
                                                                                                          Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175,                   Endangered and threatened species,
                                                  language. This means that each rule we
                                                                                                          and the Department of the Interior’s                   Exports, Imports, Reporting and
                                                  publish must:
                                                     (a) Be logically organized;                          manual at 512 DM 2, we readily                         recordkeeping requirements,
                                                     (b) Use the active voice to address                  acknowledge our responsibility to                      Transportation.
                                                  readers directly;                                       communicate meaningfully with
                                                                                                          recognized Federal Tribes on a                         Proposed Regulation Promulgation
                                                     (c) Use clear language rather than
                                                  jargon;                                                 government-to-government basis. In                       Accordingly, we propose to amend
                                                     (d) Be divided into short sections and               accordance with Secretarial Order 3206                 part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title
                                                  sentences; and                                          of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal                50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
                                                     (e) Use lists and tables wherever                    Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust                           as set forth below:
                                                  possible.                                               Responsibilities, and the Endangered
                                                     If you feel that we have not met these               Species Act), we readily acknowledge                   PART 17—[AMENDED]
                                                  requirements, send us comments by one                   our responsibilities to work directly
                                                  of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To                  with Tribes in developing programs for                 ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17
                                                  better help us revise the rule, your                    healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that                continues to read as follows:
                                                  comments should be as specific as                       tribal lands are not subject to the same                 Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531–
                                                  possible. For example, you should tell                  controls as Federal public lands, to                   1544; 4201–4245, unless otherwise noted.
                                                  us the names of the sections or                         remain sensitive to Indian culture, and
                                                  paragraphs that are unclearly written,                  to make information available to Tribes.               § 17.11   [Amended]
                                                  which sections or sentences are too                     Accordingly, the Service communicated                  ■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by removing the
                                                  long, the sections where you feel lists or              with Tribes during the 5-year review                   entry for ‘‘Puma (=cougar), eastern’’
                                                  tables would be useful, etc.                            process, and we are notifying Tribes of                under ‘‘Mammals’’ in the ‘‘List of
                                                                                                          our activities regarding this proposal to              Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.’’
                                                  National Environmental Policy Act
                                                                                                          delist the eastern puma based on
                                                    We have determined that an                                                                                     Dated: May 22, 2015.
                                                                                                          extinction.
                                                  environmental assessment or an                                                                                 Stephen Guertin,
                                                  environmental impact statement, as                      References Cited                                       Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
                                                  defined under the authority of the                        A complete list of all references cited              Service.
                                                  National Environmental Policy Act of                    in this document and in the 5-year                     [FR Doc. 2015–14931 Filed 6–16–15; 8:45 am]
                                                  1969, need not be prepared in                           review upon which this proposal is                     BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:32 Jun 16, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00066   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 9990   E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM   17JNP1



Document Created: 2015-12-15 14:22:50
Document Modified: 2015-12-15 14:22:50
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionProposed Rules
ActionProposed rule.
DatesWe will accept comments received or postmarked on or before August 17, 2015. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
ContactQuestions and requests for additional information may be directed to Martin Miller, Northeast Regional Office, telephone 413-253-8615, or to Mark McCollough, Maine Field Office, telephone 207-866-3344, extension 115. Individuals who are hearing- or speech-impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 1- 800-877-8337 for TTY assistance. General information regarding the eastern puma and the delisting process may also be accessed at: http:// www.fws.gov/northeast/ECougar.
FR Citation80 FR 34595 
RIN Number1018-AY05
CFR AssociatedEndangered and Threatened Species; Exports; Imports; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements and Transportation

2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR