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

For reasons set forth in the preamble, 

the Legal Services Corporation amends 

45 CFR part 1611 as follows: 

PART 1611—ELIGIBILITY 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1611 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2996g(e). 

■ 2. Revise appendix A to part 1611 to 

read as follows: 

Appendix A to Part 1611— Income 

Level for Individuals Eligible for 

Assistance 

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION 2018 INCOME GUIDELINES *

Size of household 

48 Contiguous 

States and the 

District of 

Columbia 

Alaska Hawaii 

1 ................................................................................................................................................... $15,175 $18,975 $17,450 

2 ................................................................................................................................................... 20,575 25,725 23,663 

3 ................................................................................................................................................... 25,975 32,475 29,875 

4 ................................................................................................................................................... 31,375 39,225 36,088 

5 ................................................................................................................................................... 36,775 45,975 42,300 

6 ................................................................................................................................................... 42,175 52,725 48,513 

7 ................................................................................................................................................... 47,575 59,475 54,725 

8 ................................................................................................................................................... 52,975 66,225 60,938 

For each additional member of the household in excess of 8, add: .......................................... 5,400 6,750 6,213 

*The figures in this table represent 125% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines by household size as determined by HHS. 

REFERENCE CHART—200% OF FEDERAL POVERTY GUIDELINES

Size of household 

48 Contiguous 

States and the 

District of 

Columbia 

Alaska Hawaii 

1 ................................................................................................................................................... $24,280 $30,360 $27,920 

2 ................................................................................................................................................... 32,920 41,160 37,860 

3 ................................................................................................................................................... 41,560 51,960 47,800 

4 ................................................................................................................................................... 50,200 62,760 57,740 

5 ................................................................................................................................................... 58,840 73,560 67,680 

6 ................................................................................................................................................... 67,480 84,360 77,620 

7 ................................................................................................................................................... 76,120 95,160 87,560 

8 ................................................................................................................................................... 84,760 105,960 97,500 

For each additional member of the household in excess of 8, add: .......................................... 8,640 10,800 9,940 

Dated: January 18, 2018. 

Stefanie K. Davis, 

Assistant General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2018–01138 Filed 1–22–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7050–01–P 

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 the Eastern 

Puma (=Cougar) From the Federal List 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), determine 

the eastern puma (=cougar) (Puma 

(=Felis) concolor couguar) to be extinct, 

based on the best available scientific 

and commercial information. This 

information shows no evidence of the 

existence of either an extant 

reproducing population or any 

individuals of the eastern puma 

subspecies; it also is highly unlikely 

that an eastern puma population could 

remain undetected since the last 

confirmed sighting in 1938. Therefore, 

under the authority of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended, 

we remove this subspecies from the 

Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife. 

DATES: This rule is effective February 

22, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available 

on the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R5–ES–2015–0001. Comments 

and materials received, as well as 

supporting documentation used in rule 

preparation, will be available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the Service’s 

Maine Fish and Wildlife Service 

Complex, Ecological Services Maine 

Field Office, 306 Hatchery Road, East 

Orland, Maine 04431, and on the 

Eastern Cougar website at: http://

www.fws.gov/northeast/ecougar. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Martin Miller, Northeast Regional 

Office, telephone 413–253–8615, or 

Mark McCollough, Maine Field Office, 

telephone 207–902–1570. 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: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule— 

Under the Act, a species warrants 

protection through listing if it is 

endangered or threatened. Conversely, a 

species may be removed from the 

Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife (List) if the Act’s 

protections are determined to be no 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 3087 

longer required based on recovery, 

original data error, or extinction. 

Removing a species from the List can be 

completed only by issuing a rule. This 

rule finalizes the removal of the eastern 

puma (=cougar) (Puma (=Felis) concolor 

couguar) from the List due to extinction, 

as proposed on June 17, 2015 (80 FR 

34595). 

The basis for our action—Our 

decision to remove the eastern puma 

from the List due to extinction is based 

on information and analysis showing 

that the eastern puma likely has been 

extinct for many decades, long before its 

listing under the Act. Eastern puma 

sightings have not been confirmed since 

the 1930s, and genetic and forensic 

testing has confirmed that recent 

validated puma sightings in the East, 

outside Florida, were animals released 

or escaped from captivity, or wild 

pumas dispersing eastward from 

western North America. 

Peer review and public comment— 

During two comment periods on the 

proposed rule (June 17 through August 

17, 2015 [80 FR 34595, June 15, 2015]; 

and June 28 through July 28, 2016 [81 

FR 41925, June 28, 2016]), we sought 

review from the public and from 

independent scientific experts to ensure 

that our final determination responds to 

public concerns and is based on 

scientifically sound data, assumptions, 

and analyses. We received comments 

from the public on several substantive 

issues, including the basis for delisting, 

the likelihood that any undetected 

population of eastern puma continues to 

exist, the potential for restoring pumas 

to Eastern North America, and 

protection of nonlisted pumas occurring 

within the eastern puma’s historical 

range. We also received peer review 

comments from scientists with expertise 

in puma population ecology, 

management, demographics, 

conservation, and population genetics. 

Expert comments focused primarily on 

the likelihood of eastern puma 

extinction and on North American 

puma taxonomy. In preparing the final 

rule, we considered all comments and 

information received during both 

comment periods. The proposed rule 

and other materials relating to this final 

rule can be accessed at: http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R5–ES–2015–0001. 

Previous Federal Actions 

The eastern puma (=cougar) was 

originally listed as an endangered 

species on June 4, 1973 (38 FR 14678). 

On June 17, 2015, the Service published 

a proposed rule (80 FR 34595) to remove 

the eastern puma from the List, with a 

comment period extending through 

August 17, 2015. The comment period 

for the proposed rule was subsequently 

reopened on June 28, 2016 (81 FR 

41925). For more information on 

previous Federal actions concerning the 

eastern puma, refer to the proposed rule 

available at: http://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket No. FWS–R5–ES–2015– 

0001. 

Species Information 

Here we summarize the biological and 

legal basis for delisting the eastern 

puma. For more detailed information, 

refer to the proposed rule and 

supplemental documents available at: 

http://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R5–ES–2015–0001. 

The eastern puma (Puma (=Felis) 

concolor couguar) is federally listed as 

a subspecies of puma. The puma is the 

most widely distributed native wild 

land mammal in the New World. At the 

time of European contact, it occurred 

through most of North, Central, and 

South America. In North America, 

breeding populations still occupy 

approximately one-third of their 

historical range but are now absent from 

eastern regions outside of Florida. The 

puma was documented historically in a 

variety of eastern habitats from the 

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 subspecies. 

Taxonomy 

The eastern puma has a long and 

varied taxonomic history, as described 

in the Service’s 5-year status review of 

this subspecies (USFWS 2011, pp. 29– 

35). Until recently, standard practice 

was to refer to the puma species as 

Puma concolor (Linnaeus 1771) and the 

eastern puma subspecies as Puma 

concolor couguar. The taxonomic 

assignment of puma subspecies is now 

under question; at issue is whether 

North American pumas constitute a 

single subspecies or multiple 

subspecies. As discussed in detail in our 

response to comment 4 (see Summary of 

Comments and Responses, below), the 

Service acknowledges the broad 

acceptance within the scientific 

community of a single North American 

subspecies, identified as Puma concolor 

couguar (applying the scientific 

nomenclature that has been used to refer 

to the eastern puma subspecies to all 

North American pumas), based on 

genetic analysis. However, the Service 

has not yet conducted a comprehensive 

assessment of all available scientific 

information pertinent to North 

American puma taxonomy, including 

any potential subspecies. We will 

undertake a comprehensive assessment 

of North American puma taxonomy in 

our status assessment for the Florida 

panther, and will determine whether to 

accept a single North American 

subspecies taxonomy. Since 

determining whether an entity is listable 

is relevant only to extant species, such 

a comprehensive treatment is 

unnecessary for the eastern puma, but 

will be necessary for completing the 

status assessment for the Florida 

panther. In the absence of a 

comprehensive analysis concluding that 

the Young and Goldman (1946) 

taxonomy is no longer the best available 

information on taxonomy, we evaluate 

for purposes of this rule the status of the 

listed entity—the eastern puma 

subspecies—and whether or not it has 

become extinct. 

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. 

Therefore, in lieu of information 

specific to eastern pumas, our biological 

understanding of this subspecies relies 

on puma 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 2011 status review for the eastern 

puma (USFWS 2011, pp. 6–8). 

Historical Range, Abundance, and 

Distribution 

Details regarding historical eastern 

puma abundance and distribution are 

provided in USFWS 2011 (pp. 8–29, 36– 

56). Although records indicate that the 

eastern puma was formerly wideranging and apparently abundant at the 

time of European settlement, only 26 

historical specimens from seven eastern 

States and one Canadian province reside 

in museums or other collections. Based 

on this evidence, Young and Goldman 

(1946) and the 1982 recovery plan for 

the eastern cougar (USFWS 1982, pp. 1– 

2) generally described the eastern 

puma’s historical range 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 most 

recently published assessment of the 

eastern puma in Canada, conducted by 

the Committee on the Status of 

Endangered Wildlife in Canada 

(COSEWIC), described the subspecies’ 

range as Ontario, Quebec, and eastern 

Canada (Scott 1998, pp. v, 10, 29–30). 

Scott (1998, p. v, 29) indicated that 

‘‘Manitoba is the easternmost part of 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
3088 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

Canada for which there is objective 

evidence of the virtually uninterrupted 

survival of a cougar population from 

European settlement to the present. 

Genetically, this population must have 

been closely related to, if not identical 

with, the original eastern cougars in 

western Ontario, and less closely related 

to the original cougars in Quebec and 

the Maritimes.’’ Note, however, our 

response to comment 11 (see Summary 

of Comments and Responses), which 

indicates that despite the persistent 

presence of pumas in Manitoba, we 

cannot infer from the available evidence 

that puma occurrence there represents 

an extant puma population. 

The historical literature indicates that 

puma populations were considered 

largely extirpated in Eastern North 

America (except for Florida and perhaps 

the Smoky Mountains) by the 1870s and 

in the Midwest by 1900. Their 

disappearance was attributed primarily 

to persecution stemming from fear of 

large predators, competition with game 

species, and occasional depredation of 

livestock. Other causes of eastern puma 

losses during the late 1800s included 

declining habitat conditions and the 

near-extirpation of their primary prey 

base, white-tailed deer. By 1929, eastern 

pumas were believed to be ‘‘virtually 

extinct,’’ and Young and Goldman 

(1946) concurred that ‘‘they became 

extinct many years ago.’’ 

Conversely, 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 professed his belief that the large 

number of unverified sightings of pumas 

constituted evidence that some 

populations had either survived or 

become reestablished in the central and 

eastern parts of the continent and may 

have increased in number since the 

1940s. Similarly, R.L. Downing, as 

stated in the Eastern Cougar Recovery 

Plan (USFWS 1982, pp. 4, 7), had 

thought it possible that a small 

population may have persisted in the 

southern Appalachians into the 1920s; 

however, his investigations during 

preparation of 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). 

This analysis and conclusion were 

shared by F. Scott in his COSEWIC 

review (Scott 1998, entire). 

Thus, the most recent confirmed 

eastern puma sightings date from the 

mid-1800s to around 1930. Confirmed 

reports of pumas in Eastern North 

America (outside Florida) since then 

have been shown to be either western 

puma dispersers, as in Missouri, or 

released or escaped animals, as in 

Newfoundland. 

Although habitat conditions now 

appear to be suitable for puma presence 

in various portions of the historical 

range described for the eastern puma, 

the many decades of both habitat and 

prey losses belie the sustained survival 

and reproduction of this subspecies over 

that time. A more detailed discussion of 

the historical status, current confirmed 

and unconfirmed puma sightings, 

potential habitat, and legal protection of 

the eastern puma in the States and 

provinces is provided in the 5-year 

status review (USFWS 2011, pp. 8–26). 

Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Rule 

We have not made substantive 

changes from the proposed rule (80 FR 

34595, June 17, 2015). In this final rule, 

we have added or corrected text to 

clarify information and respond to input 

received during the public and peer 

review comment periods regarding the 

proposal. These changes have been 

incorporated into this final rule as 

presented below. 

Summary of Comments and Responses 

In the proposed rule (80 FR 34595, 

June 15, 2015), we requested that all 

interested parties submit written 

comments on the proposal by August 

17, 2015. We also solicited peer review 

of the scientific basis for the proposal by 

reopening the comment period on June 

28, 2016 (81 FR 41925). As appropriate, 

Federal and State agencies, tribes, 

scientific organizations, and other 

interested parties were contacted 

directly and invited to comment on the 

proposal. Press releases inviting general 

public comment were widely 

distributed, and notices were placed on 

Service websites. 

We did not receive any requests for a 

public hearing. During the two public 

comment periods, a total of 75 letters 

submitted from organizations or 

individuals addressed the proposed 

delisting of the eastern puma. Attached 

to one letter was an appeal containing 

2,730 names and addresses of 

individuals opposed to removing the 

eastern puma from the List. Many letters 

contained applicable information, 

which has been incorporated into this 

final rule as appropriate. Substantive 

public comments and peer review 

comments, with our responses, are 

summarized below. 

Comments From the States 

(1) Comment: The North Carolina 

Wildlife Resources Commission 

(NCWRC) concurred with our finding 

that pumas are extirpated from the State 

of North Carolina. Based on that finding 

and its consideration of the Service’s 

2011 status review, the NCWRC 

indicated there is sufficient evidence to 

remove the eastern puma from the List. 

Our response: We agree with the 

NCWRC. 

(2) Comment: The Commonwealth of 

Virginia Department of Game and 

Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) supports 

delisting of the eastern puma consistent 

with our 2011 finding (USFWS 2011) 

that all known populations have been 

extirpated from their former range. The 

VDGIF believes that any wild pumas 

which may appear in the future will 

prove to be dispersers from western 

populations. 

Our response: We agree with the 

VDGIF. 

Public Comments 

(3) Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concern that delisting would 

prevent the Service from reestablishing 

or reintroducing pumas in Eastern North 

America where suitable habitat and prey 

populations now occur. As a top-level 

carnivore, pumas are needed to restore 

balance to ecosystems in Eastern North 

America, where this role in biotic 

communities has been missing for over 

a century. Some commenters cited 

Cardoza and Langlois (2002) and Maehr 

et al. (2003), who encouraged proactive 

leadership on the part of government 

agencies to assess the possibility of 

reintroducing pumas to Eastern North 

America. 

In commenting on the ecological 

importance of pumas as apex predators, 

several reviewers noted that ungulate 

populations (like white-tailed deer) 

have overpopulated in their absence. 

Ungulate overpopulation may cause 

overbrowsing, ‘‘trophic cascades,’’ and 

reduced biodiversity (Goetch et al. 

2011). It may also lead to declines in 

mast production (McShea et al. 2007), 

understory recruitment of certain tree 

species, and reduced ground-nesting 

bird habitat (Rawinsky 2008) across the 

eastern deciduous forest. In addition to 

maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem 

functioning (Ripple et al. 2014), 

restoring pumas would reduce risk to 

the public from vehicle collisions with 

deer and other large ungulates (Gilbert 

et al. 2016) and would reduce human 

health issues associated with deer ticks 

as a vector for Lyme disease (Kilpatrick 

et al. 2014). Some commenters noted 

that restoring pumas to unoccupied 

portions of their historical range would 

be similar to the Service’s restoration of 

wolves to unoccupied portions of their 

historical range. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 3089 

Finally, some commenters argued that 

the reestablishment or reintroduction of 

other puma subspecies into the 

historical range of the eastern puma 

should not be considered until the 

status of the eastern puma as extinct is 

officially recognized through removal of 

the subspecies from the List. They 

indicated that delisting the eastern 

puma could eliminate complications 

associated with Federal listing and open 

the door for State restoration projects. 

Our response: The Service 

acknowledges the science concerning 

the important ecological role that pumas 

and other large carnivores serve as apex 

predators (e.g., Kunkel et al. 2013, 

Ripple et al. 2014, Wallach et al. 2015) 

as well as the ecological consequences 

of high populations of ungulates (e.g., 

Russell et al. 2001, Ripple and Beschta 

2006, McShea et al. 2007, Rossell et al. 

2007, Baiser et al. 2008, Rawinsky 2008, 

Beschta and Ripple 2009, Goetsch et al. 

2011, Brousseau et al. 2013, Cardinal et 

al. 2012a, Cardinal et al. 2012b). We 

agree that ecological science supports 

the contention that healthy populations 

of large carnivores can maintain balance 

in ecosystems and ameliorate adverse 

effects such as damage to native 

vegetation from grazing ungulates (e.g., 

Ripple et al. 2010) and population 

increases of small carnivores (e.g., 

LaPoint et al. 2015). We also 

acknowledge the potential value of 

puma recolonization associated with 

reducing vehicle-deer collisions (Gilbert 

et al. 2016). 

The Service recognizes that within the 

historical range of the eastern puma 

there are large, intact areas of habitat 

with suitable prey resources and little 

human disturbance that could support 

puma populations (USFWS 2011, pp. 8, 

11–25). Scientific articles published 

before and after our 2011 review 

conclude that potential habitat for 

pumas occurs in the Southeast (Keddy 

2009), Georgia (Anco 2011), the 

Midwest (Smith et al. 2015), the 

Adirondack region of New York 

(Laundre 2013), numerous locations in 

New England (Glick 2014), and the 

Great Lakes region (O’Neil et al. 2014). 

Some authors predict that pumas will 

continue to expand their range eastward 

and naturally recolonize some areas of 

Eastern North America (LaRue and 

Nielsen 2014). 

Despite the apparent opportunities for 

puma recolonizations or 

reintroductions, the Service does not 

have the authority under the Act to 

pursue establishment of other puma 

subspecies within the historical range of 

the eastern puma. Furthermore, while 

the purpose of the Act is to provide a 

means whereby the ecosystems upon 

which endangered and threatened 

species depend may be conserved, the 

Act gives the Service the authority to 

pursue ecosystem conservation only to 

the extent necessary to recover listed 

species. Thus, the Service cannot 

maintain the extinct eastern puma 

subspecies on the List for the purpose 

of facilitating restoration of other, 

nonlisted puma subspecies, whether to 

address overpopulation of deer and 

other ungulates or to achieve any other 

objective. 

Delisting the eastern puma 

subspecies, in and of itself, would not 

foreclose future opportunities to 

reestablish pumas in Eastern North 

America. Although extinction of the 

eastern puma obviously precludes 

reintroduction of this particular 

subspecies, we concur that officially 

recognizing the eastern puma as extinct 

by removing it from the List could 

eliminate any perceived complications 

associated with the establishment of 

other, nonlisted puma populations into 

the historical range of the eastern puma. 

We note that authority over the 

establishment of nonlisted puma 

populations resides with the States. 

(4) Comment: Several commenters 

questioned the conclusions in the 

Service’s 2011 status review (pp. 29–35) 

regarding the taxonomy of the eastern 

puma subspecies. One individual asked 

why the Service concluded that ‘‘Young 

and Goldman’s (1946) taxonomy of 

cougars was inadequate, even by the 

standards of their time . . .’’ yet 

incorporated this flawed taxonomy into 

its delisting recommendation. Several 

reviewers indicated that the published 

range maps of the subspecies were 

vague and poorly defined, and that the 

locations of specimens used to 

determine these ranges were not 

depicted on the maps. In addition, 

several reviewers commented that the 

best available science includes the 

genetic data indicating that all North 

American pumas should be classified as 

a single subspecies (Culver et al. 2000). 

Some commenters suggested that recent 

evidence of pumas dispersing far from 

the Dakotas supports the hypothesis that 

the North American puma functions as 

one extensive population with no 

restrictions to mating. 

A few commenters asserted that, 

based on the widespread acceptance of 

genetic information leading to the 

recommendation to revise the taxonomy 

to recognize all pumas in North America 

as a single subspecies, the Service 

should delist the eastern puma 

subspecies on the basis of original data 

error rather than extinction. They also 

stated that, were the Service to 

determine that delisting is called for due 

to data error, we must withdraw the 

proposed rule and publish a new 

proposal explaining our rationale. 

Finally, some commenters suggested 

that, to resolve these taxonomic 

questions, the Service should conduct a 

complete taxonomic review and 

analysis of the subspecies status of 

North American pumas, including 

genetic, morphological, ecological, and 

behavioral considerations, prior to 

making a listing determination. 

Our response: The 5-year review in 

2011 recommended that the Service 

propose delisting the eastern puma, and 

that recommendation was based on 

extinction (p. 57) and not on taxonomy. 

We note that delisting the eastern puma 

based on either extinction or original 

data error would lead to the same 

outcome, that is, the eastern puma’s 

removal from the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 

The 2011 status review recognized 

that more-recent genetic information 

introduced ‘‘significant ambiguities’’ in 

the species taxonomy that Young and 

Goldman had outlined in 1946. 

However, rather than recommending 

delisting as a result of those ambiguities, 

the status review recommended that a 

full taxonomic analysis be conducted to 

determine whether the taxonomy 

should be revised (p. 35). Since 

completion of our eastern puma status 

review in 2011, there appears to have 

been increasing acceptance of scientific 

nomenclature indicating a single 

subspecies, Puma concolor couguar 

(Kerr 1792), in North America. For 

example: 

• The Smithsonian Institution’s 

Museum of Natural History documents 

current taxonomy (http://

vertebrates.si.edu/msw/mswcfapp/msw/ 

taxon_browser) and recognizes a single 

North American subspecies of puma, 

P.c. couguar, citing W.C. Wozencraft 

(Wilson and Reeder 2005). 

• The Federal government’s 

Interagency Taxonomic Information 

System (ITIS, http://www.itis.gov/), with 

the Department of the Interior and the 

Service as partners, aims to set 

governmental taxonomic standards and 

‘‘to incorporate classifications that have 

gained broad acceptance in the 

taxonomic literature and by 

professionals who work with the taxa 

concerned.’’ It is important to note, 

however, that the Service does not 

consider ITIS to be a legal authority for 

statutory or regulatory purposes. The 

ITIS acknowledges a single North 

American subspecies, P.c. couguar, and 

calls all separate North American 

subspecies (=synonyms) invalid taxa, 

based on expert input from A.L. Gardner 

(Curator of North American Mammals 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
3090 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

and Chief of Mammal Section, National 

Biological Services, Smithsonian 

Institution), W.C. Wozencraft (Wilson 

and Reeder 2005), and prior references 

(Hall 1981, Currier 1983, Wilson and 

Reeder 1993, and Wilson and Ruff 

1999). 

• In 2009, the Convention for the 

International Trade of Endangered 

Species of Wild Flora and Fauna 

(CITES) received a proposal from 

Canada to review the taxonomy and 

classification of the genus Puma 

(https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/ 

com/ac/24/E24-18-02.pdf). CITES 

reviewed the standard nomenclatural 

procedures, and reviewers 

recommended accepting a single North 

American subspecies, P.c. couguar. The 

Convention referred this ‘‘technical 

issue’’ to the Animals Committee for 

review. As of February 5, 2015, the 

CITES Appendices (https://

www.cites.org/eng/app/appendices.php) 

continued to list the subspecies P.c. 

couguar and P.c. coryi as separate 

subspecies. The Animals Committee 

next reviewed the status of North 

American pumas on September 3, 2015 

(https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/ 

com/ac/28/E-AC28-20-03-02.pdf), when 

Canada and the United States proposed 

that the eastern puma (P.c. couguar) and 

the Florida panther (P.c. coryi) 

subspecies be transferred to Appendix 

II, because ‘‘P.c. couguar is considered 

extinct . . .’’ and there is ample 

protection under the Act for the Florida 

panther. Concerning taxonomy, ‘‘There 

is uncertainty regarding the traditional 

subspecies classification of Puma 

concolor. Recent genetic work suggests 

that most traditionally described 

subspecies are poorly differentiated 

(Culver et al. 2000), and the new 

proposed taxonomy has been adopted 

by the most recent version of Wilson 

and Reeder (2005) and by the 

International Union for the 

Conservation of Nature (IUCN, 2008). 

CITES continues to acknowledge the 

subspecies coryi and couguar based on 

Wilson and Reeder (2nd Edition 1993).’’ 

On October 5, 2016, CITES considered 

a formal proposal to move all North 

American pumas to Appendix II 

(https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/ 

cop/17/prop/CA_puma.pdf), which 

concluded that the eastern puma 

subspecies was extinct by 1900. The 

CITES Committee accepted the proposal 

by consensus and also agreed that the 

taxonomic reference for Puma concolor 

would henceforth be Wilson and Reader 

(2005), with all North American cougars 

belonging to a single subspecies, P.c. 

couguar (https://cites.org/sites/default/ 

files/eng/cop/17/CITES_CoP17_

DECISIONS.pdf, last accessed June 5, 

2017). 

• The IUCN now recognizes one 

subspecies of cougar (Puma concolor) in 

North America: P.c. couguar. 

Concerning its most recent taxonomic 

decisions, ‘‘A more recent study of 

mtDNA in pumas throughout their 

range, although with lower sample 

sizes, supports only two main 

geographical groupings of North 

America populations having colonized 

since circa. 8,000 years before present 

(Caragiulo et al. 2013) . . . On this 

basis, we tentatively recognize two 

subspecies within Puma concolor: 

Puma concolor concolor . . . [and] 

Puma concolor couguar (Kerr 1792)’’ 

(Kitchener et al. 2017, p. 33). 

• The Global Biodiversity Information 

Facility (GBIF, http://www.gbif.org/) 

recognizes one subspecies of cougar in 

North America, P.c. couguar. All other 

subspecies are considered synonyms for 

P.c. couguar based on the conclusions of 

ITIS, January 3, 2011. 

• NatureServe currently 

acknowledges several subspecies, 

including P.c. couguar and P.c. coryi, 

but notes, ‘‘. . . mtDNA analysis by 

Culver et al. (2000) indicated that Puma 

concolor was genetically homogeneous 

in overall variation across North 

America, relative to Central and South 

American populations’’ (http://

explorer.natureserve.org/servlet/ 

NatureServe?searchSpeciesUid=

ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.101183, last 

accessed June 5, 2017). 

Although some authorities indicate 

acceptance of a taxonomy identifying a 

single North American puma subspecies 

(USFWS 2011, pp. 29–35), others 

continue to recognize the eastern puma 

as a separate subspecies. This has 

created an ambiguous situation that 

does not clearly replace Young and 

Goldman as the best scientific and 

commercial data available on puma 

taxonomy. We conclude that, despite its 

deficiencies, Young and Goldman 

(1946) remains the best available 

taxonomic information for the puma. 

We anticipate that in our status 

assessment for the Florida panther, now 

underway, we will complete a 

comprehensive taxonomic treatment 

that considers all other available 

scientific information—including 

morphological, ecological, and 

behavioral factors, in addition to 

genetics. 

Notwithstanding the commenters’ 

questions about the taxonomy of the 

species, we continue to base the 

delisting of the eastern puma on 

extinction for several reasons. First, 

although the Act and its implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) allow 

for species to be delisted for reasons of 

recovery, extinction, or error in the 

original data for classification, neither 

the Act nor the implementing 

regulations compel the Service to 

choose one basis for delisting over 

another when more than one basis is 

available. 

Second, the eastern puma’s existence 

has been questioned for decades—long 

before its listing as an endangered 

species under the Act. We therefore 

place importance on officially 

acknowledging our finding, through this 

rulemaking, that the listed entity is 

extinct. Clear recognition of this finding 

should also forestall any speculation 

that we have discovered evidence of the 

existence of eastern pumas, a perception 

that could be triggered by changing the 

basis for delisting from extinction to 

original data error. 

Third, because the eastern puma has 

likely been extinct since the early to 

mid-1900s, and because its existence 

had not been confirmed at the time of 

listing, delisting due to extinction in 

this case could be considered a delisting 

due to original data error that is more 

precisely described as ‘‘prior 

extinction.’’ And because the eastern 

puma’s existence was questioned long 

before listing, while new information 

bringing its taxonomy into doubt did 

not appear until well after listing, 

original data error based on prior 

extinction reasonably has precedence 

over original data error based on a morerecent taxonomic understanding. 

Fourth, although delisting the eastern 

puma due to taxonomic error would 

have no immediate effect on the listed 

status of the Florida panther, it could 

presuppose the taxonomic status of P.c. 

coryi and thus cause confusion 

regarding the current protections 

afforded the Florida panther under the 

Act. 

Finally, accepting that all pumas in 

North America are a single subspecies 

would not fully address the question as 

to whether the eastern puma is a listable 

entity. When a vertebrate animal is 

found not to be a valid species or 

subspecies, a determination that it is not 

a listable entity requires that it further 

be found not to be a ‘‘distinct 

population segment’’ (DPS) of a 

vertebrate species as defined in the Act 

and in the 1996 Interagency Distinct 

Population Segment policy (61 FR 4722, 

February 7, 1996). The eastern puma 

does not qualify as a DPS because it is 

extinct (see also our response to 

comment 5). Extinction, therefore, is the 

most fundamental basis for delisting, 

because it is justified whether or not the 

eastern puma ever constituted a 

taxonomically listable entity. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 3091 

In sum, while the best available 

scientific information provides some 

evidence that North American pumas 

constitute a single subspecies, 

taxonomic revision awaits full 

resolution and does not constitute the 

most fundamental basis for delisting the 

eastern puma. The best available 

information also indicates that the 

entity described as the eastern puma 

was extirpated throughout its historical 

range long before its listing, and that 

this is a primary and sufficiently proven 

basis for delisting. 

We note that the consequences of 

delisting the eastern puma with regard 

to Federal protection of dispersing 

western pumas are the same whether 

delisting were to be based on extinction 

or taxonomic error (see our response to 

comment 3, above). Western pumas 

dispersing into the historical range of 

the eastern puma subspecies currently 

lack protection under the Act and 

would not receive protection under 

either delisting scenario. Dispersing 

western pumas receive, and will 

continue to receive, those protections 

afforded by individual States. 

(5) Comment: We received comments 

that the eastern puma should be relisted as a DPS so that dispersing pumas 

from western populations could be 

protected from take under the Act. One 

person commented that the eastern 

puma should be re-listed under the 

significant portion of the range (SPR) 

provision of the Act. 

Our response: Our DPS policy (61 FR 

4722, February 7, 1996) requires that, 

for a population to be determined to be 

a DPS, it must be discrete, significant, 

and endangered or threatened. Because 

we have determined that the eastern 

puma subspecies no longer exists, it 

cannot be considered to be currently 

discrete, significant, and endangered or 

threatened, and so cannot be a DPS. 

The Service’s 2014 SPR policy (79 FR 

37577, July 1, 2014) states that listing 

considerations are based solely on the 

status of the species in its current range. 

Regardless of the status of our 2014 SPR 

policy, the Service maintains this 

position. Because we have determined 

that the eastern puma subspecies is 

extinct—that is, that it does not exist in 

any part of its range and, therefore, has 

no current range—it cannot be 

considered endangered or threatened 

throughout all of its range or in any 

portion of its range. Therefore, a 

continued listing of the eastern puma 

based on endangered or threatened 

status within a significant portion of its 

range is not possible. 

(6) Comment: Several reviewers 

pointed to scientific evidence that 

populations of eastern pumas still exist, 

primarily in Canada. Some commented 

that pumas are nearly impossible to 

detect and can live in suboptimal 

habitats (citing Stoner et al. 2006, Stoner 

et al. 2013a, and Stoner et al. 2013b), 

and others noted the tens of thousands 

of eyewitness reports (Glick 2014). 

Some commented that it is impossible 

to prove extinction and provided 

examples of species that have gone 

undetected for many decades or were 

thought to be extinct before being 

rediscovered. 

Our response: We addressed many of 

these points in our 2011 status review. 

The Service continues to conclude that 

the best available scientific information, 

including information published since 

2011, supports our finding that breeding 

populations of pumas no longer exist in 

Eastern North America outside of 

Florida. Although there is evidence of 

individual pumas (not breeding 

populations), there is no proof 

whatsoever that any pumas discovered 

since the 1930s within the eastern 

puma’s historical range are members of 

the listed eastern puma subspecies. 

Commenters cited Cumberland and 

Demsey (1994), Cardoza and Langlois 

(2002), Maehr et al. (2003), Bertrand et 

al. (2006), Rosatte (2011), Mallory et al. 

(2012), Lang et al. (2013), and Glick 

(2014) as corroborating documentation 

for the occurrence of extant puma 

populations in eastern Canada. Our 

review of these sources found that 

Cumberland and Demsey (1994) 

documented a single puma (from tracks) 

in New Brunswick in 1992, concluding 

that ‘‘these data lend little support to 

the existence of a remnant Eastern 

Cougar population. It is possible that the 

animal responsible for the tracks could 

have been an escaped or released 

animal.’’ Bertrand et al. (2006) 

documented hair samples from two 

pumas in Fundy National Park in New 

Brunswick in 2003. One of these was 

from South America, indicative of an 

escaped or released pet, and there has 

been no further evidence confirming the 

existence of pumas in New Brunswick 

since 2003. Lang et al. (2013) collected 

19 confirmed puma hair samples in 

eastern Canada from scratching post 

stations from 2001 to 2012. Several of 

these samples likely were from the same 

animal. Two samples were shown to be 

from the same pumas reported by 

Bertrand et al. (2006), while six were 

Central and South American haplotypes 

(assumed to be released pets), and 10 

were of North American origin (whether 

captive or wild was undetermined). 

They also evaluated the origin of three 

known mortalities from 1992 to 2002. 

One was of South American origin, one 

was of North American origin (uncertain 

whether captive origin or wild), and one 

was of unknown origin. From these 

data, Lang et al. (2013) concluded that 

pumas have been present in eastern 

Canada but provide no confirmation of 

the existence of the eastern puma or 

evidence of any breeding population of 

pumas. Rosatte (2011) documented 21 

puma occurrences with a high degree of 

certainty in Ontario from 1998 to 2010, 

including 15 confirmed tracks, 1 hair 

sample consistent with pumas, genetic 

confirmation of 2 scats, and 3 

photographs ‘‘consistent with a cougar.’’ 

Mallory et al. (2012) collected eight 

‘‘potential’’ puma hairs (Sudbury, 

Ontario) identified by hair scale pattern, 

and reanalyzed a scat collected in 2004 

from Wainfleet, Ontario, and reported in 

Rosatte (2011). Mallory et al. (2012) 

reported that trapping records from 

1919 to 1984 contained no information 

on puma pelts sold in Ontario or in 

eastern Canada except for eight animals 

sold in Quebec from 1919 to 1920; the 

origin of these animals (Quebec or 

western Canada) cannot be confirmed. 

Finally, Rosatte et al. (2015) 

documented six additional occurrences 

in Ontario from 2012 to 2014, including 

one scat sample (North or South 

America haplotype not reported), three 

photographs, one set of tracks, one 

pregnant female shot (captive origin), 

and one young male captured (believed 

to be of captive origin). 

Most of these authors (e.g., 

Cumberland and Demsey 1994, Bertrand 

et al. 2006, Rosatte 2011, Lang et al. 

2013) acknowledge that the pumas 

reported recently in eastern Canada 

were most likely escaped or released 

pets or dispersers from areas supporting 

extant populations, as we concluded in 

our 2011 status review. Bertrand et al. 

(2006) reported that the two pumas 

documented in New Brunswick could 

be members of a remnant population, 

although this conclusion is contradicted 

by the fact that they recognized one of 

the two as being of South American 

origin. Rosatte (2011) believed that 

pumas may not have been extirpated in 

Ontario: ‘‘In my opinion, the majority of 

Cougars currently in Ontario are most 

likely a genetic mixture of escaped/ 

released captives (or their offspring), 

immigrants (or their offspring), and/or 

native animals . . . In view of this, at 

least some native Cougars in Ontario 

may have survived the decimation of 

eastern Cougar populations in the 

1800s. This would be feasible, given the 

size of Ontario (area of more than 1 

million km2) and the remoteness of the 

province, especially in the north. 

However, the presence of Cougars in 

Ontario between the 1930s and 1980s 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
3092 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

may also have been the result of 

immigration from the west or escaped/ 

released captive animals (Bolgiano and 

Roberts 2005).’’ Mallory et al. (2012) 

indicated that the origin of the pumas in 

Ontario ‘‘remains unclear,’’ but added, 

‘‘Nevertheless, sightings of Cougars with 

kittens and reports of young animals 

suggest that a breeding population exists 

in Ontario and adjacent provinces 

(Wright 1953, Nero and Wrigley 1977, 

Gerson 1988, Rosatte 2011).’’ We note 

that Bertrand et al. (2006), Rosatte 

(2011), and Mallory et al. (2012) provide 

no confirmed evidence of adult or 

lactating female pumas, kittens, or 

breeding, or of an abundance of 

confirmed occurrences typically 

associated with small puma populations 

such as those occurring in Nebraska, the 

Dakotas, and Florida. Neither do they 

document any evidence of a continuous 

presence of pumas in their study areas 

since the late 1800s. 

Given the absence of trapping records 

and confirmed historical records in 

eastern Canada since the late 1800s, the 

best available information points to the 

extirpation of puma populations in this 

portion of the eastern puma’s historical 

range. Areas of Canada most likely to 

have been historically occupied by 

eastern pumas (southern Ontario and 

Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova 

Scotia) were extensively trapped and 

logged, and evidence of a small breeding 

population would, in all probability, 

have been noted. With no confirmation 

of breeding pumas in eastern Canada for 

many decades, the Service concludes 

that those puma populations were 

extirpated. Further, because there is no 

indication of breeding or the abundant 

evidence of presence typically 

associated with small, reproducing 

populations, the Service concludes that 

the individual pumas occasionally 

found in Eastern Canada and the Eastern 

United States (outside Florida) are 

escaped or released pets or animals that 

have dispersed from western 

populations (or, rarely, Florida); refer to 

Comment 16 below for more detail). 

One commenter mistakenly indicated 

that, among other investigators, Cardoza 

and Langlois (2002) and Maehr et al. 

(2003) provide substantial scientific 

evidence that eastern pumas continue to 

exist. On the contrary, Cardoza and 

Langlois (2002) shared skepticism of the 

plethora of anecdotal reports and 

sightings, concluding that ‘‘the search 

for cougars in the East must be 

conducted as a scientific endeavor.’’ 

They encouraged the Service to delist 

the eastern puma if it is extinct or relist it as a DPS if any populations exist. 

If the subspecies were to remain listed, 

they encouraged the Service to revise 

the recovery plan, because ‘‘agencies 

have failed to meet the objective of . . . 

having found or established . . .’’ at 

least three self-sustaining populations. 

Maehr et al. (2003) called for recovery 

of pumas in Eastern North America but 

provided no documentation of a 

persistent population outside of Florida. 

(7) Comment: We received several 

comments stating that pumas are wary 

and cryptic and could possibly escape 

detection for many years (citing Stoner 

et al. 2006, 2013). 

Our response: Using data on puma 

harvests in Utah, Stoner et al. (2013) 

predicted that remote habitats are more 

likely to harbor relict populations of 

pumas, regardless of habitat quality, 

when range contractions are caused by 

humans. That is, pumas faced with 

human-induced range contraction were 

more likely to recede along a gradient 

determined by human population 

density rather than habitat quality; thus, 

remote, low-quality habitats may have 

greater refugia value to pumas. 

Puma refugia in western North 

America are often characterized by 

remote, steep, mountainous terrain with 

little infrastructure for human access 

and relatively low ungulate populations 

(Stoner et al. 2013). In contrast, 

potential refugia for pumas in Eastern 

North America (e.g., Laundre 2013, 

Glick 2014, O’Neil et al. 2014) are 

neither mountainous nor remote, are 

readily accessible and continue to be 

heavily used by humans, and exist in a 

landscape having much higher human 

density (Glick 2014). Observing that 

small puma populations in refugia in 

Florida, Nebraska, and the Dakotas leave 

ample evidence of their presence 

(USFWS 2011, pp. 42–43), we infer that 

any remnant population of pumas 

persisting in Eastern North America 

outside Florida would have left a more 

or less continuous record of credible 

evidence since the late 1800s (e.g., 

pumas trapped and shot, road 

mortalities, carcasses, tracks, and/or 

photographs). Although one person 

commented that species can go many 

decades without being sighted, or can be 

thought extinct before being 

rediscovered (so-called ‘‘Lazarus 

species’’), we received no comments 

providing scientific data indicating that 

a small, breeding population of pumas 

exists, only conjecture that they may 

exist. We agree that the historical record 

and the best available scientific 

information presented in our 2011 

status review, along with scientific 

articles published since then, provide 

evidence that individual pumas (of 

captive origin or dispersing animals) are 

encountered with increasing frequency 

in Eastern North America. Nonetheless, 

there is no available scientific 

information, nor has any evidence been 

provided in comments on the proposed 

rule, that a breeding population of 

pumas has persisted in Eastern North 

America anywhere other than Florida. 

(8) Comment: Some commenters 

maintained that delisting a species 

based on extinction requires absolute 

certainty that it is gone, while one 

reviewer requested that the Service 

document extinction using valid 

statistical methods with appropriate 

statistical power. The same reviewer 

stated that we must clearly demonstrate 

that the eastern puma subspecies is 

extinct according to government 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d)(3). 

Our response: Proving whether a 

taxon is extant or extinct presents a 

dilemma for conservation biologists 

(Diamond 1987). With regard to 

delisting on the basis of extinction, the 

Act’s implementing regulations at 50 

CFR 424.11(d) describe the burden of 

proof: ‘‘Unless all individuals of the 

listed species had been previously 

identified and located, and were later 

found to be extirpated from their 

previous range, a sufficient period of 

time must be allowed before delisting to 

indicate clearly that the species is 

extinct.’’ 

The IUCN Standards and Petitions 

Subcommittee (IUCN 2014) has 

established criteria to track the 

conservation status of species, and it is 

instructive to consider those criteria 

here. The ‘‘extinct’’ category is used by 

the IUCN when there is evidence 

beyond a reasonable doubt that the last 

individual of a taxon has died, 

recognizing that this is extremely 

difficult to detect. The IUCN designates 

a taxon as extinct only after adequate 

surveys have failed to record the species 

and local or unconfirmed reports have 

been investigated and discounted. 

Relevant types of evidence supporting 

an IUCN designation of extinct include 

the following (Butchart et al. 2006): 

• For species with recent last records, 

the decline has been well documented; 

• Severe threatening processes are 

known to have occurred (e.g., extensive 

habitat loss, the spread of alien invasive 

predators, intensive hunting); and 

• The species possesses attributes 

known to predispose taxa to extinction 

(e.g., flightlessness for birds). 

Such evidence should be balanced 

against the following opposing 

considerations (Butchart et al. 2006): 

• Recent field work has been 

inadequate (surveys have been 

insufficiently intensive/extensive or 

inappropriately timed, or the species’ 

range is inaccessible, remote, unsafe, or 

inadequately known); 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 3093 

• The species is difficult to detect (it 

is cryptic, inconspicuous, nocturnal, 

nomadic, or silent, or its vocalizations 

are unknown, identification is difficult, 

or the species occurs at low densities); 

• There have been reasonably 

convincing recent local reports or 

unconfirmed sightings; and 

• Suitable habitat (free of introduced 

predators and pathogens, if relevant) 

remains within the species’ known 

range, and/or allospecies or congeners 

may survive despite similar threatening 

processes. 

The IUCN has not issued a 

determination that the eastern puma 

subspecies, P.c. couguar, is extinct, 

because they have accepted that all 

pumas in North America constitute one 

subspecies that is extant in Florida and 

western North America. However, the 

IUCN standards for extinction have been 

met for the eastern puma. 

Many decades have passed since 

documentation of the last credible 

eastern puma records, which are 

contained in the scientific literature and 

are documented for each State and 

province within the eastern puma’s 

historical range in our 2011 status 

review. In addition, severe threats 

(indiscriminate shooting, trapping, 

poisoning, deforestation, and 

extirpation of ungulate prey in much of 

the range) were evident at the time 

eastern puma populations were 

extirpated. Further, pumas are prone to 

extirpation because of their relatively 

small population sizes and low 

population densities, large habitat area 

requirements, and relatively slow 

population growth traits (Purvis et al. 

2000). 

Service-sponsored surveys in the 

early 1980s in the southern (Downing 

1994a, 1994b) and northern (Brocke and 

VanDyke 1985) parts of the eastern 

puma’s historical range failed to detect 

any pumas, noting that while difficulty 

of detection may be expected in the 

South, it should not be particularly 

difficult to detect pumas in the North, 

where there is snow. Our 2011 review 

also describes numerous other wildlife 

surveys that did not detect a breeding 

population of pumas in Eastern North 

America outside of Florida, and 

negative survey data are available for 

many portions of the historical range 

that still have intact habitat. Despite 

suggestions that we conduct further 

surveys, we are not aware of areas 

within the historical range of the eastern 

puma with enough evidence of a 

breeding population to merit the 

additional effort. 

In our 2011 status review, we 

acknowledged the thousands of reported 

puma sightings while noting that 90 to 

95 percent of these sightings have been 

shown to be invalid (Brocke 1981, 

Downing 1984, Hamilton 2006); these 

invalid reports have generally involved 

instances of misidentification and, at 

times, deliberate hoaxes. With respect to 

increasing frequency of confirmed puma 

sightings in recent years, we recognize 

that suitable habitat is available within 

the historical range of the eastern puma 

(see our response to comment 3, above), 

that past threats have been largely 

eliminated (with some level of 

protection for dispersing pumas), and 

that, according to some biologists, 

western pumas will continue to expand 

their range eastward (e.g., LaRue and 

Nielsen 2015). 

There is no regulatory requirement for 

the Service to conduct statistical 

analyses in order to draw conclusions 

about extinction. Both our 2011 status 

review and our review of scientific 

information that has become available 

since then point to overwhelming 

evidence that the eastern puma 

subspecies is extinct (see also our earlier 

responses to comments 2, 7, and 10). 

Given that the last eastern pumas that 

were assumed to have existed were 

killed in Maine (1938) and New 

Brunswick (1932), the preponderance of 

scientific evidence fully supports our 

conclusion that breeding populations of 

pumas in Eastern North America 

outside of Florida and, until recent 

decades, Manitoba have been absent for 

at least the past 80 years, and that 

pumas recently sighted within the 

historical range of the eastern puma are 

escaped or released pets and western 

(and, rarely, Florida) dispersers. This 

conclusion and our use of the best 

available scientific information were 

sustained by peer reviewers (see 

comment 20, below). 

(9) Comment: One commenter stated 

that puma populations in South Dakota, 

North Dakota, and Nebraska may be at 

the western edge of the eastern puma’s 

historical range and may still retain 

genetic structure similar to the eastern 

puma subspecies. Thus, eastern pumas 

exist and should remain listed. 

Our response: Pumas were extirpated 

from most of the Dakotas and Nebraska 

by the early 1900s (Thompson 2009, 

Wilson et al. 2010). Since 1970, 

breeding populations of pumas farther 

west—within the mapped range of the 

subspecies P.c. hippolestes—have 

expanded their ranges into eastern 

Montana (Desimone et al. 2005), eastern 

Wyoming (Moody et al. 2005), eastern 

Colorado, eastern New Mexico, eastern 

Texas, western North and South Dakota, 

and Nebraska (Wilson et al. 2010, LaRue 

et al. 2012). Molecular genetic data 

show that pumas in the Black Hills of 

South Dakota are most closely related to 

pumas in Wyoming (Thomson 2009, 

Jaurez et al. 2015), and that pumas 

breeding in Nebraska are likely from 

Wyoming and South Dakota (Wilson et 

al. 2010). The Service has found no 

evidence that pumas in the Dakotas and 

Nebraska are descended from the 

eastern puma subspecies. 

(10) Comment: We received one 

comment about high hunting mortality 

in the easternmost puma populations in 

the Dakotas and Nebraska, raising a 

concern about fewer eastwarddispersing pumas to potentially 

recolonize former habitat. This 

commenter questioned the accuracy of 

the Service’s statements that ‘‘cougar 

populations are growing in the West’’ 

and ‘‘pumas may continue to disperse 

into midwestern states.’’ 

Our response: This comment is 

outside the scope of this rule, which 

concerns only the delisting of the 

eastern cougar due to extinction. 

(11) Comment: We received one 

comment that cited Morrison (2015) to 

dispute information in our 2011 status 

review indicating that the easternmost 

extant breeding population of pumas in 

Canada occurs in Manitoba. 

Our response: Morrison (2015) stated 

that a newly colonized area in 

southwest Saskatchewan and southeast 

Alberta ‘‘now supports the easternmost 

confirmed breeding population of 

cougars in Canada.’’ However, the 

scientific information available at the 

time of our 2011 review, including the 

1998 COSEWIC review of pumas in 

Canada (Scott 1998), indicated that the 

easternmost breeding population of 

pumas occurred in Manitoba (USFWS 

2011, pp. 11–12; Hutlet 2005). In 

addition, Watkins (2006) documented 

multiple confirmed puma reports in 

Manitoba, including two pumas killed 

in 2004. Another puma, radio tagged in 

South Dakota, was killed in Manitoba in 

2008. Most recently, individual pumas 

in Manitoba have been trapped in 2011 

and killed in 2015 and 2016 (http://

www.naturenorth.com/winter/Cougar/ 

Cougar_1.html). 

Manitoba biologists have documented 

20 occurrences of pumas since 2002 

(carcasses, tracks, photos), including 6 

puma carcasses (3 male and 3 female) 

since 2004. However, there has been no 

conclusive evidence of kittens or 

lactating females, and thus breeding 

status is uncertain. Biologists are unsure 

whether an increased number of 

dispersing pumas in Manitoba is on the 

cusp of developing a breeding 

population or whether a small breeding 

population currently exists (W. Watkins, 

Manitoba Conservation and Water 

Stewardship, email dated February 1, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
3094 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

2016). In either event, there is no 

evidence showing that any of these 

pumas is the eastern puma subspecies. 

(12) Comment: We received numerous 

comments from people who believed 

they had seen a puma or evidence of a 

puma (deer kills, vocalizations, missing 

pets, dead livestock, tracks, game 

camera photos, collections of alleged 

sightings on maps, YouTube videos). 

Some reviewers expressed concern that 

pumas are dangerous and bound to 

attack humans, and others asserted that 

the sheer number of sighting reports 

proves the existence of eastern pumas. 

Our response: As discussed in our 

response to comment 8, above, we 

acknowledge the thousands of reports of 

pumas in Eastern North America, but 

most of these are unverified and, in the 

majority of cases, represent 

misidentifications (Downing 1984, 

Brocke and VanDyke 1985, Hamilton 

2006, South Dakota Fish, Wildlife and 

Parks 2005). Still, confirmed 

occurrences of pumas within the 

historical range of the eastern puma are 

increasing, particularly in the Midwest 

(LaRue et al. 2012, LaRue and Nielsen 

2015). The best available scientific 

information supports the conclusion 

that confirmed occurrences of pumas in 

Eastern North America are released or 

escaped pets or dispersers from western 

populations. In recent decades, pumas 

have incrementally expanded their 

breeding population eastward in both 

Canada and the United States, and 

LaRue and Nielsen (2014) provide a 

scientific rationale for why range 

expansion will likely continue. 

(13) Comment: One commenter stated 

that Michigan has a resident population 

of pumas (citing a 1994 book by D. 

Evers, Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife of Michigan, and Swanson and 

Rusz 2006), asserting that these are 

neither escaped or released pets nor 

transients moving east from South 

Dakota. The commenter contends that 

Michigan has a long, uninterrupted 

history (80 years) of puma presence, 

including puma reports from 1966 and 

1984 (i.e., before the Black Hills 

population in South Dakota was large 

enough to have dispersing animals) and 

further notes that the Michigan 

Department of Natural Resources 

(MDNR) verified puma evidence in 2008 

and 2009. The commenter suggested 

that the Service ought to collect puma 

samples, conduct a full genetic analysis 

of samples collected in each State/ 

region, and review related information 

about pumas in eastern Canada. 

Our response: We have reviewed all 

information provided by the public with 

respect to pumas in Michigan along 

with data obtained for the 2011 status 

review and information obtained since 

then. Regarding a resident Michigan 

puma population, the MDNR stated (in 

a letter dated March 30, 2007) that ‘‘all 

available information suggests the 

eastern puma subspecies was extirpated 

after the turn of the century [1900].’’ 

The MDNR also expressed concerns 

about the scientific validity of 

information presented in Swanson and 

Rusz (2006), except for one confirmed 

occurrence in Delta County (2004). 

Kurta and Schwartz (2007) further 

refuted Swanson and Rusz’s (2006) 

conclusion that a population of eight 

pumas existed in Michigan. 

Nonetheless, as in most eastern States 

and provinces, there continue to be 

numerous reports of pumas in 

Michigan, the most credible of which 

are investigated by the MDNR following 

its response protocol. At the time of the 

2011 review, the MDNR had confirmed 

one puma report from Alcona County 

(1998) and one ‘‘likely’’ occurrence in 

Menominee County (2004). Since then, 

additional confirmed occurrences have 

been documented in the Upper 

Peninsula of Michigan in Ontonagon 

County (two in 2011), Houghton County 

(one in 2011), Keweenaw County (three 

in 2011), Baraga County (one in 2011, 

two in 2012), Marquette County (four in 

2012, two in 2013), Delta County (one 

in 2015), Menominee County (one in 

2010, two in 2012, one in 2015), 

Schoolcraft County (one carcass in 

2015), Luce County (one in 2013, one in 

2014), Mackinac County (two in 2014), 

and Chippewa County (one in 2014). 

Noting that many of these records 

could represent multiple confirmations 

of the same animal, the number of 

confirmed puma occurrences in the 

Upper of Peninsula of Michigan has 

totaled 27 since 2010. This is in marked 

contrast to the number of confirmed 

puma records in Nebraska (255 since 

2010), with its small breeding 

population of about 25 pumas. 

The overall record of pumas 

dispersing eastward has grown 

substantially since the 2011 status 

review, with 271 confirmed puma 

occurrences east of documented 

breeding areas in the Dakotas, Nebraska, 

Colorado, and Texas 

(www.cougarnet.org/confirmations). The 

majority of these animals are dispersing 

juvenile males (although see our 

response to comment 11 concerning 

Manitoba). Many scientists, including 

MDNR biologists, think it possible that 

a breeding population of pumas could 

become reestablished in Michigan and 

other midwestern States and Canadian 

provinces; however, at this time, the 

MDNR has concluded that pumas in 

Michigan, documented exclusively in 

the Upper Peninsula, are all dispersing 

animals from western populations (R. 

Mason, MDNR Wildlife Division, emails 

dated 2 February 2016). All four puma 

carcasses examined by MDNR to date 

(mortalities from various causes), as 

well as trail camera photos where sex 

can be determined, have been males. 

The MDNR has no current evidence of 

any females and no evidence of puma 

reproduction in Michigan (R. Mason, 

MDNR Wildlife Division, emails dated 2 

February 2016). Similarly, the Service 

has not found evidence that breeding 

occurs east of Saskatchewan, North 

Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska. 

(14) Comment: One commenter 

contested the genetic basis for the South 

Dakota origin of the puma killed in 

Connecticut in 2014. 

Our response: The Service recently 

reviewed Hawley et al. (2016) regarding 

the puma killed in Connecticut in 2014. 

DNA samples from this puma had 

mitochondrial DNA consistent with 

haplotype ‘‘M,’’ which is widespread in 

North American pumas (Culver et al. 

2000, Culver and Schwartz 2011). 

Structure analysis indicated that, 

genetically, this animal was most 

closely related to the subpopulation of 

pumas found in the Black Hills of South 

Dakota. Assignment tests showed that 

this animal had a 99.9-percent chance of 

originating from the South Dakota puma 

population compared to other 

populations in the database (U.S. Forest 

Service Rocky Mountain Research Lab, 

Missoula, Montana). 

(15) Comment: Several reviewers 

expressed concern that, after delisting of 

the eastern puma, pumas occurring or 

dispersing into the former range of the 

eastern puma would be left unprotected. 

Some commenters observed that State 

laws would not adequately protect 

pumas in the absence of its Federal 

listing, noting that only 7 of 19 States 

in the historical range protect the 

subspecies under a State endangered 

species law or its equivalent. Thus, the 

Act’s protections against take are 

needed to promote natural 

recolonization of animals with genetics 

identical to pumas originally occurring 

in Eastern North America. Others 

commented that pumas need to be 

managed at a metapopulation level to 

ensure access to refugia and safe passage 

between populations. 

Our response: Advances in molecular 

biology in the last 10 to 15 years have 

enabled scientists to document the 

origin of many of the pumas reported in 

Eastern North America. Further, within 

the last 5 years, advances in isotope 

analysis allow determinations of 

whether an animal has had a history of 

being in captivity. Analyses have 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 3095 

revealed that some of the pumas found 

in Eastern North America are of South 

American origin or show evidence of 

having been in captivity. Outside 

Florida (with the exception of the 

panther killed in Georgia in 2008; see 

comment 16, below), pumas of North 

American origin have been found to be 

either wild western pumas or to have 

been captive animals. 

The take protections of the Act do not 

extend to nonlisted pumas, irrespective 

of their origin or the fact that they have 

been found within the eastern puma’s 

historical range. However, despite the 

Act’s inapplicability to these pumas, 

some States have enforced their 

respective wildlife laws to protect all 

pumas within their jurisdictions. In 

addition to the take prohibitions 

associated with some State endangered 

species laws, many States within the 

historical range have closed seasons on 

pumas, affording some level of 

protection, and similar provincial 

protections are provided to pumas that 

may disperse into eastern Canada. 

Florida panthers, wherever they occur, 

continue to be protected from take 

under the Act, and all other pumas 

occurring in Florida continue to be 

protected under a similarity of 

appearance designation (32 FR 4001, 

March 11, 1967). 

We emphasize that the authority and 

responsibility for protection and 

management of pumas not listed under 

the Act resides with the States, and 

balancing a public interest in natural 

recolonization with the concern for 

public, pet, and livestock safety will be 

a challenging endeavor. Recent studies 

of public attitudes toward pumas 

recolonizing or being reintroduced in 

Eastern North America provide a good 

foundation for management plans, 

policy decisions, and educational 

initiatives (Davenport et al. 2010, 

Thornton and Quinn 2010, Jacobsen et 

al. 2012, Bruskotter and Wilson 2014, 

McGovern and Kretser 2014, Smith et al. 

2015, McGovern and Kretzer 2015). 

These human dimension studies also 

identify the many social and political 

challenges associated with such 

initiatives. 

(16) Comment: Some commenters 

expressed a concern that if the eastern 

puma is delisted, there will be no 

protection under the Act for Florida 

panthers that disperse beyond Florida. 

Pumas can travel long distances (over 

1,000 miles); thus, dispersing Florida 

panthers could potentially occur 

through much of the historical range of 

the eastern puma subspecies. Protection 

from take is important for the natural 

range expansion of the Florida panther. 

Some commenters suggested that the 

Florida panther be reclassified as a DPS 

to ensure continued Federal protection 

from take. Commenters also stated that 

Florida panthers are a source population 

that could, potentially, naturally 

recolonize other parts of Eastern North 

America. 

Our response: As a listed subspecies, 

Florida panthers are protected under the 

Act from take wherever they occur— 

both in and outside of Florida. For 

instance, a dispersing Florida panther 

killed in Georgia in 2008 was protected 

under the Act and became a subject of 

Federal investigation. These protections 

against take of Florida panthers will 

continue in the event of delisting the 

eastern puma on the basis of extinction. 

(17) Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that the Service update its 

analysis to consider new information 

regarding confirmed puma sightings in 

the historical range of the eastern puma. 

The Service should actively search for 

new reports of pumas within their 

Eastern North America historical range. 

Our response: Since completing our 

2011 status review, we have continued 

to monitor confirmed records of pumas 

in Eastern North America (e.g., through 

cougarnet.org; see earlier comments 2, 

7, and 10). We also refer reports and 

sightings of pumas we receive to the 

respective State wildlife agencies. 

Although pumas continue to be 

confirmed in Eastern North America, 

the available scientific information fully 

supports our conclusion that these 

animals are released or escaped pets or 

dispersers from western populations or, 

rarely, Florida. To date, there remains a 

complete lack of evidence of breeding 

eastern pumas in locations not already 

documented in the 2011 review, and 

despite many additional puma reports 

in Eastern North America, the best 

available information indicates that the 

eastern puma subspecies is extinct. For 

these reasons, it is not necessary or 

advisable to conduct surveys or actively 

solicit additional reports of pumas in 

Eastern North America to determine 

eastern puma status. 

(18) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that the current listing requires 

insignificant funding and staff 

resources, and that therefore it does no 

harm to keep eastern pumas on the List. 

The Service should thus heed the 

precautionary principle (Simson 2015) 

and give listed pumas the benefit of the 

doubt. Furthermore, the Service has 

already set a precedent for listing 

species in unoccupied portions of their 

historical range (e.g., wolves). 

Our response: Section 4(b)(1)(A) of 

the Act requires that listing decisions 

under section 4(a)(1) be made solely on 

the basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available. Therefore, in 

making the determination whether to 

delist the eastern puma, we did not 

consider the funding and staffing 

consequences of keeping it on the List 

or removing it from the List. 

Nonetheless, the Service disagrees that 

retaining the extinct eastern puma on 

the List has no repercussions. Keeping 

an extinct entity on the List can cause 

confusion—in this case, confusion over 

whether escaped or released captive 

pumas and dispersing animals from non 

ESA-listed western puma populations 

are protected when found in the 

historical range of the eastern puma. 

Confusion surrounding the Service’s 

responsibilities relating to pumas also 

unnecessarily complicates the States’ 

management of puma issues. 

Additionally, this final rule will not 

change the Act’s protections for the 

Florida panther (P.c. coryi). Florida 

panthers, wherever they occur, continue 

to be protected from take under the Act, 

and all other pumas occurring in Florida 

continue to be protected under a 

similarity of appearance designation (32 

FR 4001, March 11, 1967). Pumas 

occurring elsewhere in the U.S. do not 

receive the protections of the Act. 

There also continue to be costs 

associated with retaining the eastern 

puma on the List. Maintaining the 

eastern puma on the List obligates the 

Service to continue to compile 

information relating to puma science 

and reported sightings and to respond to 

reported sightings. The Service therefore 

expends considerable staff time 

addressing puma reports and questions, 

diverting limited resources from 

conservation efforts for listed species 

that still exist. 

While many listed species have areas 

of unoccupied range, there is no 

precedent for listing a species when its 

entire range is unoccupied because the 

entity is extinct. It is important to 

recognize that under the Act the Service 

cannot list a ‘‘vacant’’ range—we can 

list only species, subspecies, and DPSs. 

Thus, if a species as defined by the Act 

is determined to be extinct, we can 

neither list it nor keep it listed. We 

acknowledge that this commenter could 

be implying that the eastern puma 

should remain listed because its entire 

unoccupied historical range represents a 

portion of the historical range of a 

higher-level taxon to which it belongs 

(e.g., a North American subspecies). 

However, for any higher-level taxon of 

puma to be listed, the Service would 

need to determine that it meets the 

definition of an endangered species or a 

threatened species, and this 

determination must be based on its 

status where it currently occurs, not on 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
3096 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

its status as absent in a portion of its 

historical range. 

Almost 80 years have passed 

(including more than 40 years while 

listed under the Act) with no 

confirmation of the existence of the 

eastern puma. In addition to the effort 

and resources put into evaluating all 

available scientific evidence, this 

amount of time is sufficient to 

determine the extinction of an animal 

that is not difficult to detect wherever 

it exists as a breeding population—this 

reasoning satisfies the precautionary 

principle. See also our response to 

comment 8. 

(19) Comment: Some commenters 

suggested that the Service develop a 

recovery plan to address puma 

recolonization and habitat protection 

across the North American continent. 

One commenter was impressed by the 

California Department of Fish and 

Wildlife’s draft wolf plan, (https://

www.ca.gov/conservation.mammals/ 

gray-wolf), developed before wolves 

began to breed in that State, and would 

like to see a study of the issues State 

wildlife agencies anticipate if pumas 

should naturally recolonize the East and 

Midwest. 

Our response: Because the eastern 

puma listing imparts no protection 

either directly or indirectly to other 

pumas, there would be no benefit to 

retaining the listed status of the extinct 

subspecies for the purpose of allowing 

State wildlife agencies to prepare for 

recolonization of pumas from western 

populations to Eastern North America. 

For a species that has recovered, 

delisting may require States to 

demonstrate that the species will be 

managed to maintain its recovered 

status, and States often develop 

management plans to show that their 

oversight will be adequate to address 

any emerging or reemerging threats. 

Because we are delisting due to 

extinction rather than recovery, there is 

no need for States to foresee problems 

and demonstrate adequate management 

solutions for the eastern puma. 

Section 4 of the Act authorizes the 

Service to develop recovery plans for 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened. With regard to listed pumas, 

recovery plans were developed for the 

eastern puma (http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/ 

recovery_plan/820802.pdf) and Florida 

panther (http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/ 

recovery_plan/081218.pdf). The eastern 

puma recovery plan called for the 

discovery or establishment of at least 

three self-sustaining populations. This 

goal has proven to be unachievable 

given the absence of any source 

individuals, making the plan moot. 

Finalization of this rule will not affect 

the Florida panther recovery plan, 

which will continue to be implemented. 

In some instances, the Service has 

promoted the development of multiState conservation plans for species that 

are petitioned or are candidates for 

Federal listing (e.g., sage grouse, New 

England cottontail); however, we do not 

have the authority to develop recovery 

plans for nonlisted species (i.e., for 

pumas dispersing from western 

populations). The Federal government 

does share authority for managing and 

conserving fish and wildlife with the 

States, but our limited fiscal resources 

are focused on Federal trust resources, 

including threatened and endangered 

species, migratory birds, and migratory 

fish. Thus, it would be inappropriate for 

the Service to oblige States to develop 

a plan for recolonizing or reintroducing 

nonlisted pumas, nor would we have 

any authority to require that Canadian 

provinces participate in such an effort. 

Peer Review Comments 

In accordance with our 1994 peer 

review policy (59 FR 34270, July 1, 

1994), we invited six independent 

scientists to comment on our proposed 

delisting proposal (81 FR 41925, June 

28, 2016). These individuals are 

recognized for their expertise in large 

carnivore ecology and management, 

with particular knowledge in one or 

more of the following areas: puma 

population ecology, management, 

demographics, conservation, and 

population genetics. In response to our 

request, we received comments from 

five experts. 

We reviewed all peer review 

comments for substantive issues and 

new information regarding the status of 

the eastern puma. With the exception of 

our position in the proposed rule on 

current North American puma 

taxonomy, the peer reviewers largely 

endorsed our methods and overall 

conclusions, and provided new 

information and suggestions to improve 

the final rule. Specific peer review 

comments are addressed below and 

incorporated as appropriate into this 

rule or into supplemental documents 

(such as references cited), available at: 

http://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R5–ES–2015–0001. 

(20) Peer review comment: With 

regard to the current status of the 

eastern puma, three reviewers 

concurred with the Service’s conclusion 

that there are no breeding populations 

of pumas in the historical range of the 

eastern puma and that the eastern puma 

subspecies is extinct, and agreed that 

the Service adequately documented this 

conclusion with the best available 

scientific information. One reviewer 

cited unpublished genetic data showing 

that all puma samples from Eastern 

North America evaluated in her 

laboratory were of South American 

origin, consistent with animals 

originating from captive sources, while 

another reviewer concluded that pumas 

in Eastern North America are not extinct 

but live in a highly discrete, endangered 

population segment in southern Florida. 

Two reviewers concurred that the vast 

majority of recently documented 

sightings represent either 

misidentifications or 

misrepresentations, and that the rare 

confirmed reports are likely dispersers 

from western puma populations or 

pumas that have been released or 

escaped from captivity. 

One reviewer provided extensive 

comments and data concerning 

confirmed puma reports in Eastern 

North America. Based on this 

information, the reviewer surmised that 

there is not a breeding population of 

pumas within the historical range of the 

eastern puma. This reviewer also 

discussed published studies that suggest 

evidence of resident puma populations 

in Eastern North America (e.g., Johnston 

2002, Bertrand et al. 2006, Swanson and 

Rusz 2006, Rosatte 2011, Mallory 2012), 

concluding that most of these claims 

were based on unreliable eyewitness 

accounts and noting the lack of 

evidence of kittens. The reviewer 

disagreed with the reasoning presented 

in some of these papers that a breeding 

population of pumas could exist within 

the historical range of the eastern puma 

without being detected. This reviewer 

also reviewed genetic evidence from 

Bertrand et al. 2006, Swanson and Rusz 

2006, Kurta et al. 2007, Mallory et al. 

2012, Lang et al. 2013, and Rosatte 2013, 

and, based on these collective sources, 

concluded that recent confirmed reports 

do not constitute compelling evidence 

of a breeding population, and that the 

confirmed individuals within the 

historical range represent animals that 

have dispersed from western 

populations. 

Our response: We concur with these 

comments, which validate or further 

corroborate the best available scientific 

information and conclusions in our 

2011 status review (USFWS 2011). 

(21) Peer review comment: Four of the 

five peer reviewers stated that the best 

available scientific information (Culver 

et al. 2000, Culver 2010) supports the 

conclusion that there is a single 

subspecies of puma, Puma concolor 

couguar, in North America. A fifth peer 

reviewer did not comment on this issue. 

Two peer reviewers noted that the 

revised taxonomy, P.c. couguar, is 

identical to the nomenclature used for 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 3097 

the listed eastern puma subspecies, 

which could create confusion with a 

determination that the listed eastern 

puma subspecies, P.c. couguar, is 

extinct. These peer reviewers 

recommended that the Service accept 

the revised taxonomy and consider the 

single North American subspecies 

extant but extirpated within the 

historical range previously delineated 

for the eastern puma. Another peer 

reviewer further suggested that genetic 

evidence, documentation of longdistance dispersal of pumas, and lack of 

geographic barriers support a single 

North American subspecies. Two peer 

reviewers pointed out that species-wide 

morphological studies based on more 

than 1,000 puma skulls (Gay 1994, Gay 

and Best 1996, Wilkens et al. 1997) did 

not support separation of populations 

into the 32 previously described 

subspecies, with one reviewer 

discussing Wilkens et al.’s (1997) 

findings of the skull measurements, 

pelage color, mid-dorsal whorl, kinked 

tail, and deformed sperm thought to be 

unique to the Florida panther. Based on 

morphological and genetic studies, 

these two peer reviewers concluded 

there was no evidence that the eastern 

puma was ever a valid subspecies and 

suggested that the Service should delist 

based on taxonomic error. One reviewer 

suggested that the incorrect original 

classification of the eastern puma 

subspecies may warrant a reassessment 

of taxonomy. Another peer reviewer 

indicated that the original subspecies 

designation was arbitrary and the 

eastern puma still persists as the Florida 

panther. 

Our response: These peer review 

comments reflect those expressed by 

many public reviewers, to which we 

provide a detailed response under 

comment 4, above. Although mounting 

evidence appears to support a single 

North American puma subspecies, 

resolution of any remaining uncertainty 

would constitute an additional, rather 

than a preemptive, line of reasoning for 

delisting the eastern puma. Because we 

have determined that drawing a 

conclusion regarding a revision of North 

American subspecies taxonomy is not 

necessary to delist the eastern puma 

based on extinction, we have no 

compelling basis for withdrawing our 

proposal to delist due to extinction in 

order to consider delisting due to 

original data error. Therefore, for the 

purposes of this regulatory action, we 

continue to treat the eastern puma as a 

subspecies as originally listed under the 

Act. 

(22) Peer review comment: Two peer 

reviewers commented that the only 

remnant population of pumas in Eastern 

North America persists in Florida, and 

that it should be designated as a DPS. 

Going further, one of these reviewers 

suggested that an endangered DPS 

designation should encompass the 

entire historical range of the Florida 

panther and the eastern puma 

subspecies. 

Our response: These peer review 

comments are similar to several 

comments from the public, and our 

response is discussed in detail under 

comments 4 and 5. 

(23) Peer review comment: One 

reviewer suggested that a recovery plan 

should be developed for pumas in 

Eastern North America including, 

specifically, pumas from Florida. This 

recovery plan should also include 

translocating animals from western 

puma populations and protecting 

dispersing individuals from western 

populations. 

Our response: We address this issue 

in our response to public comments 

concerning a recovery plan for pumas in 

Eastern North America (see our 

response to comment 19). 

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. 

‘‘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 using the five 

factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act (see Consideration of Factors 

Affecting the Species, below). 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 

dual standards, we must determine 

whether the eastern puma subspecies is 

a valid listed entity that remains extant 

in order to determine its appropriate 

listing status. 

With regard to the validity of the 

eastern puma as a subspecies and, 

therefore, as a listable entity, we 

recognize that support for a single North 

American subspecies has gained wide 

acceptance in the scientific community. 

However, the Service has not yet 

conducted a comprehensive assessment 

of all available scientific information 

pertinent to North American puma 

taxonomy and therefore has not yet 

drawn a conclusion whether to accept 

the single North American subspecies 

taxonomy. Furthermore, the Service has 

determined that, because drawing a 

conclusion on the single North 

American subspecies taxonomy is not 

needed to delist the eastern puma based 

on extinction, we have no essential 

basis for withdrawing our proposal to 

delist due to extinction in order to 

consider delisting due to original data 

error. Therefore, for the purposes of this 

regulatory action, we continue to treat 

the eastern puma as a subspecies as 

originally listed under the Act. 

With regard to a determination that 

the eastern puma subspecies is extinct, 

it is important to note that the 

continuing presence of pumas in 

Eastern North America is not debated. 

However, physical and genetic evidence 

indicates that pumas recently observed 

in Eastern North America are released or 

escaped captive animals, with the 

exception of some wild pumas that have 

dispersed from western populations or, 

rarely, Florida. 

Most significantly, no evidence 

whatsoever has been found to show that 

either individuals or relict populations 

of the eastern puma subspecies remain 

extant. The most recent 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 the eastern puma’s range in 

the 1800s, with the exception of a few 

remaining large forest tracts, and a shift 

of eastern pumas toward the northern 

periphery of their historical range 

during that time. In contrast, areas 

throughout North America that still 

support extant populations of native 

pumas have had a long and continuous 

record of confirmed occurrences. 

Given the puma’s life span, generally 

thought to be 10 to 11 years, it is 

implausible that nonbreeding eastern 

pumas could have persisted in the wild 

without being detected for more than 

seven decades and under conditions of 

habitat loss and lack of their primary 

prey base. By the same token, it is 

highly improbable that a breeding 

population of the subspecies could have 

gone undetected for that long. Together 

with the complete lack of either a recent 

report or a long-term record of eastern 

puma presence, these factors are 

indicative of the long-term absence of 

this subspecies. 

In summary, we find that pumas 

(except for single transients) are 

reasonably detectable, that no 

contemporary puma sightings in Eastern 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
3098 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

North America have been verified as the 

eastern puma subspecies since 1938, 

and that it is extremely unlikely that 

undetected individuals or eastern puma 

populations could have survived the 

long period during which most of their 

habitat was lost and their primary prey 

was nearly extirpated. We therefore 

conclude that the eastern puma 

subspecies, Puma (=Felis) concolor 

couguar, is extinct. 

Consideration of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

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. Discussion of 

these factors and their application to the 

eastern puma follows. The principal 

factors leading to the listing of the 

eastern puma were widespread 

persecution (via poisoning, trapping, 

hunting, and bounties) (factors B and D), 

decline of forested habitat (factor A), 

and near-extirpation of white-tailed deer 

populations during the 1800s (factor A). 

Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting the species’ continued 

existence (factor E) and disease or 

predation (factor C) were not identified 

as threats. 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 

have been extirpated and no longer 

exist, analysis of the five factors under 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act, which apply 

to threats facing extant populations, is 

immaterial. 

As stated above, given the period of 

time that has passed without 

verification of even a single eastern 

puma, the Service concludes that the 

last remaining members of this 

subspecies perished decades ago. 

Therefore, the eastern puma is no longer 

extant and cannot be evaluated as an 

endangered species or threatened 

species. 

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), upon its 

effective date this rule removes 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 as 

threatened under the Act include 

recognition, recovery actions, 

requirements for Federal protection, and 

prohibitions against certain practices. 

However, because the Service has 

determined the eastern puma to be 

extinct, this final rule removes any 

Federal conservation measures for any 

individual eastern pumas as originally 

listed on June 4, 1973 (38 FR 14678) 

(Puma (=Felis) concolor couguar). This 

final rule will not change the Act’s 

protections for the Florida panther (P.c. 

coryi). 

Effects of the Rule 

This final rule revises 50 CFR 17.11 

by removing the eastern puma from the 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife due to extinction. Upon the 

effective date of this rule, the 

prohibitions and conservation measures 

provided by the Act will 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 the 

Service 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 Wildlife and Plants (50 

CFR 17.11 and 17.12). Because we have 

determined that the eastern puma is 

extinct, post-delisting monitoring is not 

warranted. 

Required Determinations 

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 public comment 

period on the proposed rule and 

received no comments expressing 

concern about our conclusion that the 

eastern puma is extinct. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references is 

available as a supplemental document at 

http://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R5–ES–2015–0001. 

References are also posted on http://

www.fws.gov/northeast/ecougar. 

Authors 

The primary authors of this rule are 

the staff members of the Service’s Maine 

Fish and Wildlife Service Complex, 

Ecological Services Maine Field Office, 

and the Hadley, Massachusetts, 

Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 3099 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

§ 17.11 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by removing the 

entry for ‘‘Puma (=cougar), eastern’’ 

under ‘‘Mammals’’ in the ‘‘List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.’’ 

Dated: December 1, 2017. 

James W. Kurth, 

Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Exercising the Authority of the 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–01127 Filed 1–22–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 665 

RIN 0648–XF881 

Pacific Island Fisheries; 2018 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands 

Lobster Harvest Guideline 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notification of lobster harvest 

guideline. 

SUMMARY: NMFS establishes the annual 

harvest guideline for the commercial 

lobster fishery in the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands for calendar year 2018 

at zero lobsters. 

DATES: January 23, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob 

Harman, NMFS PIR Sustainable 

Fisheries, tel. 808–725–5170. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

manages the Northwestern Hawaiian 

Islands (NWHI) commercial lobster 

fishery under the Fishery Ecosystem 

Plan for the Hawaiian Archipelago. The 

regulations at 50 CFR 665.252(b) require 

NMFS to publish an annual harvest 

guideline for lobster Permit Area 1, 

comprised of Federal waters around the 

NWHI. 

Regulations governing the 

Papahanaumokuakea Marine National 

Monument in the NWHI prohibit the 

unpermitted removal of monument 

resources (50 CFR 404.7), and establish 

a zero annual harvest guideline for 

lobsters (50 CFR 404.10(a)). 

Accordingly, NMFS establishes the 

harvest guideline for the NWHI 

commercial lobster fishery for calendar 

year 2018 at zero lobsters. Harvest of 

NWHI lobster resources is not allowed. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: January 17, 2018. 

Alan D. Risenhoover, 

Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–01064 Filed 1–22–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES