Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Eastern Puma (=Cougar) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 3086-3099 [2018-01127]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 23, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3086-3099]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01127]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 https://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: 
https://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: https://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

[[Page 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: https://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: https://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: https://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 wide-ranging 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

[[Page 3088]]

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.

[[Page 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 (https://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, https://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

[[Page 3090]]

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, https://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'' (https://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 more-recent 
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.

[[Page 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 
re-listed 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 km\2\) and the remoteness of 
the province, especially in the north. However, the presence of Cougars 
in Ontario between the 1930s and 1980s

[[Page 3092]]

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 
re-list 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);

[[Page 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 eastward-dispersing 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 
(https://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,

[[Page 3094]]

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 3096]]

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 
(https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/820802.pdf) and Florida panther 
(https://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 
multi-State 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: https://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

[[Page 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 long-distance 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

[[Page 3098]]

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 https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2015-
0001. References are also posted on https://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:

[[Page 3099]]

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0
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.


Sec.  17.11  [Amended]

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

    Dated: 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