Federal Register: February 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 36)
DOCID: fr25fe09-6 FR Doc E9-3512
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
United States Mint
CFR Citation: 50 CFR Part 17
RIN ID: RIN 1018-AV78
FWS ID: [FWS-R6-ES-2008-0026; 92210-1117-0000-B4]
NOTICE: Part II
DOCID: fr25fe09-6
DOCUMENT ACTION: Final rule.
SUBJECT CATEGORY:
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx
DATES: This rule becomes effective on March 27, 2009.
DOCUMENT SUMMARY:
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate revised critical habitat for the contiguous United States distinct population segment of the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) (lynx) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total, approximately 39,000 square miles (mi2) (101,010 square kilometers (km2)) fall within the boundaries of the revised critical habitat designation, in five units in the States of Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and Washington.
SUMMARY:
Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Background
It is our intent to discuss only topics relevant to the revised designation of critical habitat in this rule. For more information about the listing of the Canada lynx, refer to the final listing rule published in the Federal Register on March 24, 2000 (65 FR 16052), the clarification of findings published in the Federal Register on July 3, 2003 (68 FR 40076), the proposed rule to designate revised critical habitat rule published in the Federal Register on February 28, 2008 (73 FR 10860), and the notice announcing the availability of the draft economic analysis (DEA), draft environmental assessment, and reopening the comment period that published on October 21, 2008 (73 FR 62450). Species Information
Canada lynx are mediumsized cats, generally measuring 30 to 35 inches (in) (75 to 90 centimeters (cm)) long and weighing 18 to 23 pounds (8 to 10.5 kilograms) (Quinn and Parker 1987, Table 1). They have large, wellfurred feet and long legs for traversing snow; tufts on the ears; and short, blacktipped tails.
Lynx are highly specialized predators of snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) (McCord and Cardoza 1982, p. 744; Quinn and Parker 1987, pp. 684685; Aubry et al. 2000, pp. 375378). Lynx and snowshoe hares are strongly associated with what is broadly described as boreal forest (Bittner and Rongstad 1982, p. 154; McCord and Cardoza 1982, p. 743; Quinn and Parker 1987, p. 684; Agee 2000, p. 39; Aubry et al. 2000, pp. 378382; Hodges 2000a, pp. 136140 and 2000b, pp. 183191; McKelvey et al. 2000b, pp. 211232). The predominant vegetation of boreal forest is conifer trees, primarily species of spruce (Picea spp.) and fir (Abies spp.) (ElliotFisk 1988, pp. 3435, 3742). In the contiguous United States, the boreal forest types transition to deciduous temperate forest in the Northeast and Great Lakes and to subalpine forest in the west (Agee 2000, pp. 4041). Lynx habitat can generally be described as moist boreal forests that have cold, snowy winters and a snowshoe hare prey base (Quinn and Parker 1987, p. 684685; Agee 2000, pp. 3947; Aubry et al. 2000, pp. 373375; Buskirk et al. 2000b, pp. 397405; Ruggiero et al. 2000, pp. 445447). In mountainous areas, the boreal forests that lynx use are characterized by scattered moist forest types with high hare densities in a matrix of other habitats (e.g., hardwoods, dry forest, nonforest) with low hare densities. In these areas, lynx incorporate the matrix habitat (nonboreal forest habitat elements) into their home ranges and use it for traveling between patches of boreal forest that support high hare densities where most foraging occurs.
Snow conditions also determine the distribution of lynx (Ruggiero et al. 2000, pp. 445449). Lynx are morphologically and physiologically adapted for hunting snowshoe hares and surviving in areas that have cold winters with deep, fluffy snow for extended periods. These adaptations provide lynx a competitive advantage over potential competitors, such as bobcats (Lynx rufus) or coyotes (Canis latrans) (McCord and Cardoza 1982, p. 748; Buskirk et al. 2000a, pp. 8695; Ruediger et al. 2000, p. 111; Ruggiero et al. 2000, pp. 445, 450). Bobcats and coyotes have a higher foot load (more weight per surface area of foot), which causes them to sink into the snow more than lynx. Therefore, bobcats and coyotes cannot efficiently hunt in fluffy or deep snow and are at a competitive disadvantage to lynx. Longterm snow conditions presumably limit the winter distribution of potential lynx competitors such as bobcats (McCord and Cardoza 1982, p. 748) or coyotes.
Lynx Habitat Requirements
Because of the patchiness and temporal nature of highquality snowshoe hare habitat, lynx populations require large boreal forest landscapes to ensure that sufficient high quality snowshoe hare habitat is available and to ensure that lynx may move freely among patches of suitable habitat and among subpopulations of lynx. Populations that are composed of a number of discrete subpopulations, connected by dispersal, are called metapopulations (McKelvey et al. 2000c, p. 25). Individual lynx maintain large home ranges (reported as generally ranging between 12 to 83 mi2 (31 to 216 km2)) (Koehler 1990, p. 847; Aubry et al. 2000, pp. 382386; Squires and Laurion 2000, pp. 342347; Squires et al. 2004b, pp. 1316, Table 6; Vashon et al. 2005a, pp. 711). The size of lynx home ranges varies depending on abundance of prey, the animal's gender and age, the season, and the density of lynx populations (Koehler 1990, p. 849; Poole 1994, pp. 612616; Slough and Mowat 1996, pp. 951, 956; Aubry et al. 2000, pp. 382386; Mowat et al. 2000, pp. 276280; Vashon et al. 2005a, pp. 910). When densities of snowshoe hares decline, for example, lynx enlarge their home ranges to obtain sufficient amounts of food to survive and reproduce.
In the contiguous United States, the boreal forest landscape is
naturally patchy and transitional because it is the southern edge of
the boreal forest range. This generally limits snowshoe hare
populations in the contiguous United States from achieving densities similar to those of the expansive northern
[[Page 8617]]
boreal forest in Canada (Wolff 1980, pp. 123128; Buehler and Keith
1982, pp. 24, 28; Koehler 1990, p. 849; Koehler and Aubry 1994, p. 84).
Additionally, the presence of more snowshoe hare predators and
competitors at southern latitudes may inhibit the potential for high
density hare populations (Wolff 1980, p. 128). As a result, lynx
generally occur at relatively low densities in the contiguous United
States compared to the high lynx densities that occur in the northern
boreal forest of Canada (Aubry et al. 2000, pp. 375, 393394) or the
densities of species such as the bobcat, which is a habitat and prey generalist.
Lynx are highly mobile and generally move long distances (greater than 60 mi (100 km)) (Aubry et al. 2000, pp. 386387; Mowat et al. 2000, pp. 290294). Lynx disperse primarily when snowshoe hare populations decline (Ward and Krebs 1985, pp. 28212823; O'Donoghue et al. 1997, pp. 156, 159; Poole 1997, pp. 499503). Subadult lynx disperse even when prey is abundant (Poole 1997, pp. 502503), presumably to establish new home ranges. Lynx also make exploratory movements outside their home ranges (Aubry et al. 2000, p. 386; Squires et al. 2001, pp. 1826).
The boreal forest landscape is naturally dynamic. Forest stands within the landscape change as they undergo succession after natural or humancaused disturbances such as fire, insect epidemics, wind, ice, disease, and forest management (ElliotFisk 1988, pp. 4748; Agee 2000, pp. 4769). As a result, lynx habitat within the boreal forest landscape is typically patchy because the boreal forest contains stands of differing ages and conditions, some of which are suitable as lynx foraging or denning habitat (or will become suitable in the future due to forest succession) and some of which serve as travel routes for lynx moving between foraging and denning habitat (McKelvey et al. 2000a, pp. 427434; Hoving et al. 2004, pp. 290292).
Snowshoe hares comprise a majority of the lynx diet (Nellis et al.
1972, pp. 323325; Brand et al. 1976, pp. 422425; Koehler 1990, p.
848; Apps 2000, pp. 358359, 363; Aubry et al. 2000, pp. 375378; Mowat
et al. 2000, pp. 267268; von Kienast 2003, pp. 3738; Squires et al.
2004b, p. 15, Table 8). When snowshoe hare populations are low, female
lynx produce few or no kittens that survive to independence (Nellis et
al. 1972, pp. 326328; Brand et al. 1976, pp. 420, 427; Brand and Keith
1979, pp. 837838, 847; Poole 1994, pp. 612616; Slough and Mowat 1996,
pp. 953958; O'Donoghue et al. 1997, pp. 158159; Aubry et al. 2000, pp. 388389; Mowat et al. 2000, pp. 285287). Lynx prey
opportunistically on other small mammals and birds, particularly during
lows in snowshoe hare populations, but alternate prey species may not
sufficiently compensate for low availability of snowshoe hares,
resulting in reduced lynx populations (Brand et al. 1976, pp. 422425;
Brand and Keith 1979, pp. 833834; Koehler 1990, pp. 848849; Mowat et al. 2000, pp. 267268).
In northern Canada, lynx populations fluctuate in response to the cycling of snowshoe hare populations (Hodges 2000a, pp. 118123; Mowat et al. 2000, pp. 270272). Although snowshoe hare populations in the northern portion of their range show strong, regular population cycles, these fluctuations are generally much less pronounced in the southern portion of their range in the contiguous United States (Hodges 2000b, pp. 165173). In the contiguous United States, the degree to which regional lynx population fluctuations are influenced by local snowshoe hare population dynamics is unclear. However, it is anticipated that because of natural fluctuations in snowshoe hare populations, there will be periods when lynx densities are extremely low.
Because lynx population dynamics, survival, and reproduction are closely tied to snowshoe hare availability, snowshoe hare habitat is a component of lynx habitat. Lynx generally concentrate their foraging and hunting activities in areas where snowshoe hare populations are high (Koehler et al. 1979, p. 442; Ward and Krebs 1985, pp. 28212823; Murray et al. 1994, p. 1450; O'Donoghue et al. 1997, pp. 155, 159160 and 1998, pp. 178181). Snowshoe hares are most abundant in forests with dense understories that provide forage, cover to escape from predators, and protection during extreme weather (Wolfe et al. 1982, pp. 665669; Litvaitis et al. 1985, pp. 869872; Hodges 2000a, pp. 136 140 and 2000b, pp. 183195). Generally, hare densities are higher in regenerating, earlier successional forest stages because they have greater understory structure than mature forests (Buehler and Keith 1982, p. 24; Wolfe et al. 1982, pp. 665669; Koehler 1990, pp. 847848; Hodges 2000b, pp. 183195; Homyack 2003, pp. 63, 141; Griffin 2004, pp. 8488). However, snowshoe hares can be abundant in mature forests with dense understories (Griffin 2004, pp. 5354).
Within the boreal forest, lynx den sites are located where coarse woody debris, such as downed logs and windfalls, provides security and thermal cover for lynx kittens (McCord and Cardoza 1982, pp. 743744; Koehler 1990, pp. 847849; Slough 1999, p. 607; Squires and Laurion 2000, pp. 346347; Organ 2001). The amount of structure (e.g., downed, large, woody debris) appears to be more important than the age of the forest stand for lynx denning habitat (Mowat et al. 2000, pp. 1011). Future of Lynx Habitat
In 2003, we determined that climate change was not a threat to lynx within the contiguous U.S. DPS because the best available science we had at that time (Hoving 2001) was too uncertain in nature (68 FR 40083). Since that time, new information on regional climate changes and potential effects to lynx habitat has been developed (e.g., Gonzalez et al. 2007, entire; Knowles et al. 2006, pp. 45454559; Danby and Hick 2007, pp. 358359), and this new information suggests that climate change may be an issue of concern for the future conservation of lynx because lynx distribution and habitat is likely to shift upward in elevation within its currently occupied range as temperatures increase (Gonzalez et al. 2007, pp. 7, 1314, 19). This information, combined with the information in Hoving 2001, still needs to be evaluated further to determine how climate change might affect lynx and lynx habitat. We are evaluating this information in the 5year review we are conducting for lynx.
At this time, we find it appropriate to designate critical habitat for the lynx in areas occupied by the species that currently contain the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the lynx. Revisions to the critical habitat designation may be necessary in the future to accommodate shifts in the occupied range of the lynx. The revised critical habitat units in this rule include higherelevation habitats that lynx would be able to continue to use if lynx distribution or habitat shifted upward in elevation.
Previous Federal Actions
For more information on previous Federal actions concerning the
lynx, refer to the final listing rule published in the Federal Register
on March 24, 2000 (65 FR 16052), the clarification of findings
published in the Federal Register on July 3, 2003 (68 FR 40076), and
the final rule designating critical habitat for lynx published in the
Federal Register on November 9, 2006 (71 FR 66007). On July 20, 2007,
we announced that we would review the November 9, 2006, final critical
habitat rule after questions were raised about the integrity of
scientific information used and whether the decision made was
consistent with the appropriate legal standards. Based on our review of [[Page 8618]]
the previous final critical habitat designation, we determined that the
critical habitat designation was improperly influenced by then deputy
assistant secretary of the Interior Julie MacDonald and, as a result,
may not be supported by the record, may not be adequately explained, or
may not comport with the best available scientific and commercial
information. On January 15, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia issued an order stating the Service's deadlines
for a proposed rule for revised critical habitat by February 15, 2008,
and a final rule for revised critical habitat by February 15, 2009.
Consequently, our proposed rule was signed on February 13, 2008, and
submitted to the Federal Register. The proposed rule was subsequently
published in the Federal Register on February 28, 2008 (73 FR 10860).
We initiated a 5year review of the status of lynx on April 18, 2007 (72 FR 19549).
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
We requested written comments from the public on the proposed revised designation of critical habitat for the lynx during two comment periods. The first comment period, associated with the publication of the proposed revised rule (73 FR 10860), opened on February 28, 2008, and closed on April 28, 2008. Five informal public meetings were held during this comment period in Washington (2), Minnesota (2), and Maine (1). We also requested comments on the proposed revised critical habitat designation, associated DEA, and draft environmental assessment during a second comment period which opened October 21, 2008, and closed on November 20, 2008 (73 FR 62450). During this comment period, we held a public hearing on November 7, 2008, in Kalispell, Montana, and one on November 13, 2008, in Cody, Wyoming. We contacted appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; Tribes; scientific organizations; and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposed rule, DEA, and draft environmental assessment.
During the comment period for the proposed rule that was open between February 28, 2008, and April 28, 2008, we received a total of 338 comment letters. For the comment period open from October 21, 2008, to November 20, 2008, we received 184 comment letters and 17 comments at the two public hearings. Comments were received from Federal, State, Tribal and local governments, nongovernment organizations, private businesses, and individuals.
In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions from 17 knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with the species, the geographic region in which the species occurs, and conservation biology principles. We received responses from three of the peer reviewers. The peer reviewers had differing assessments of our methods and conclusions and provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final critical habitat rule. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers and the
public for substantive issues and new information regarding critical
habitat for the lynx, and we addressed them in the following summary. Peer Review Comments
(1) Comment: Some peer reviewers commented that Federal lands
should be included in the final rule due to their importance for lynx
in the Distinct Population Segment area and because designation would
provide clarification to land managers as to the importance of
conserving those lands. The general public also submitted comments noting this issue.
Our response: We agree that that in all units except Unit 1 (where
Federal lands make up a very small portion of the designation), Federal
lands are an essential component of the revised critical habitat
designation. We have designated critical habitat on Federal lands, as described in this final rule.
(2) Comment: Some peer reviewers and other commenters stated that
our criteria (especially regarding evidence of occupancy and
reproduction) for defining lynx critical habitat were too narrow or
arbitrary, and resulted in omission of areas they consider important to
lynx conservation, particularly the Selkirk and Kettle Mountains, the
Southern Rockies/Colorado, and a slightly more extensive area in
Minnesota. Other general comments addressed expanding the Greater
Yellowstone Area (GYA) to include Grand Teton National Park and
southwest Wyoming to protect a corridor for dispersal. Other comments
noted the GYA should not be included in critical habitat because it is
isolated from populations in Canada. Several peer reviewers noted that
it has not been established that the Southern Rockies population is
isolated, and therefore this area should be considered critical
habitat. Additionally, we received comments recommending we designate
critical habitat according to the lynx recovery outline, which included
the areas of concern noted above by peer reviewers in addition to areas considered secondary or peripheral to recovery.
General comments also were concerned with our criteria, asserting we should not restrict our designation solely to areas with confirmed evidence of the presence of reproducing lynx populations because lynx surveys have not been adequate to detect all reproducing lynx populations. General comments also questioned why critical habitat designation was restricted to areas of confirmed evidence of reproducing lynx populations and that our revised critical habitat designation should be extended to all occupied areas, areas currently managed for lynx, all habitats supporting snowshoe hares, and unoccupied areas in the historic range of the lynx.
Our response: Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as: (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (a) essential to the conservation of the species and (b) which may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. Not all locations with records of lynx presence are essential for the conservation of the species; lynx are a wideranging species, and areas containing periodic records that lack evidence of reproducing populations are not considered essential to the species (see Criteria Uses to Identify Critical Habitat section below). In that section of the proposed and final revised critical habitat rules, we describe in detail the parameters used for delineating areas that contain the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of lynx, as required by the definition of critical habitat when considering occupied areas. We also determined that occupied areas containing the features essential to the conservation of lynx support the majority of recent lynx records and evidence of breeding lynx populations since 1995.
We relied on records since 1995 to ensure that the revised critical
habitat designation is based on the best available data that most
closely represents the current status of lynx in the contiguous United States and the
[[Page 8619]]
geographic area occupied by the species. We recognize that adequate
surveys to confirm the presence of lynx populations have not occurred
everywhere throughout the species' range; however, no information was
provided to us during the public comment periods to suggest where there
might be locations with undetected breeding populations that we should
more closely evaluate for designation as critical habitat other than
the areas we already considered. We determined that the additional
areas suggested by commenters are secondary or peripheral areas not essential to the conservation of the lynx.
While reviewing our original critical habitat proposal published on November 9, 2005 (70 FR 68294), we determined that habitat in the GYA contained the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of lynx; in addition, the GYA has a long history of lynx presence and reproduction, and its geographic location connects lynx populations in Canada to lynx habitat in Colorado and Utah. However, we designated areas within the GYA that contain the physical and biological features essential to lynx in sufficient quantity and spatial arrangement as demonstrated by their consistent use by lynx. The entire GYA may be permanently or intermittently occupied by lynx. Lynx may expand into Grand Teton National Park and additional areas in southwestern Wyoming not in the current critical habitat designation, but we have no indication that the habitat contains the physical and biological features essential to the species in necessary quantities to support populations of lynx.
The methodology we used in defining areas for lynx critical habitat did not mirror that used for the lynx recovery outline, but did reflect the biological concepts considered in the recovery outline. We used the best scientific information available in determining which areas contained the features essential for the conservation of lynx. As explained on pages 10869 to 10871 of the proposal to revise critical habitat (February 28, 2008; 73 FR 10860), the areas we determined to be essential for the conservation of lynx do not include all the areas identified in the recovery outline. The criteria we used for determining areas essential to the conservation of lynx for the revised critical habitat designation are based on the critical habitat requirements of the Act, which are more selective than those used for delineating the recovery areas in the lynx recovery outline. The recovery outline more broadly encompasses older records of lynx and gave less weight to direct connectivity with Canada, although in the recovery outline it was recognized that maintaining connectivity with Canadian lynx populations was important. Furthermore, the areas in the recovery outline were mapped conceptually, include substantial areas that do not contain the physical and biological features essential for lynx or are both unoccupied and not essential for lynx conservation, and therefore do not meet the definition of critical habitat. We refined our mapping for the purposes of designating critical habitat in order to meet the statutory requirements associated with critical habitat. As a result, areas determined to be essential to the conservation of lynx for the purposes of critical habitat did not include all the areas delineated in the recovery outline.
The Kettle Range in northcentral Washington historically supported lynx populations (Stinson 2001, pp. 1314), and boreal forest habitat within the Kettle Range appears to contain habitat for lynx; however, there is no evidence that the Kettle Range is currently occupied by a reproducing lynx population (Koehler 2005 entire); therefore, it did not meet the methodology we used for determining occupancy (see Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat in the proposed rule, February 28, 2008; 73 FR 10860). In addition, while the Kettle Range contains physical and biological features important to lynx, its spatial configuration and quantity of habitat do not appear to be sufficient to support a breeding population of lynx.
In the Southern Rockies, it is still uncertain whether a self sustaining lynx population will become established as a result of Colorado's reintroduction effort (Shenk 2007, p. 18). We recognize that this reintroduction has been an effort to recover the lynx in Colorado; however, the Southern Rockies contain marginal habitat, are on the southern limit of the species' range, and have not been shown to support a breeding population of lynx. Therefore, we find that habitat in Colorado is not essential to the conservation of species. (3) Comment: Some peer reviewers commented that wildfire prevention and suppression activities would not be precluded by critical habitat designation and that areas occurring within the wildlandurban interface (WUI) should not be excluded or exclusions should be limited to narrowly defined areas in the immediate vicinity of structures. Some general comments stated that WUI areas should be included in critical habitat because urban interface concerns could be used as an excuse to allow developmental sprawl and meet timber harvest quotas. Commenters raised concerns that lynx habitat management would increase wildfire risk to forests and communities and requested that WUI areas be excluded from critical habitat designation. Other commenters noted that recent forest fires eliminated PCEs in some areas, so removal of those lands from critical habitat designation is justified. Other commenters requested that additional critical habitat be designated as buffers against fireproduced habitat loss.
Our response: Areas within the WUI are designated as lynx critical habitat as described in this rule. Wildfire is not thought to be a threat to lynx, and often results in beneficial effects when burned areas regenerate into lynx foraging habitat. As described in the final rule listing the lynx (March 24, 2000, 65 FR 16052), natural fire plays an important role in creating the mosaic of vegetation patterns, forest stand ages, and structure that provide good lynx and snowshoe hare habitat, particularly in the western Great Lakes region and in the western mountain ranges of the United States (Agee 2000, pp. 4756).
Currently, WUI areas are defined by a variety of methods varying from the defensible space immediately surrounding structures out into forest areas within several miles of communities. The designation of critical habitat will not prohibit protection of defensible space around homes or the WUI. The regulatory provisions of critical habitat affect actions on Federal lands or with a Federal nexus. We expect that a majority of urban interface fuels projects would occur under the authority of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). The Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD) amending the National Forest's management plans to protect lynx addresses additional fuels reduction projects in areas within the WUI. In our analysis of the NRLMD (USFWS 2007, pp. 67 68) during section 7 consultation with the USFS, we determined that even with additional fuels reduction, the management in the NRLMD would provide for the recovery of lynx in these areas. Areas burned may still contain the physical and biological features essential to lynx; those areas still represent boreal landscapes supporting a mosaic of differing successional forest stages.
We are designating all habitat that meets the criteria for critical
habitat, i.e., known to be occupied at the time of listing and
containing the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species. Neither the
[[Page 8620]]
Act nor the implementing regulations provide for designating additional areas as buffers.
(4) Comment: Some peer reviewers suggested that the proposed
revised rule incorrectly characterized lynx foraging habitat,
particularly in the western critical habitat units, by failing to
highlight the importance of mature, multistoried forest stands for lynx in this area.
Our response: Recent studies have shown that mature, multistoried
stands are important foraging habitat for lynx in Unit 3, and they are
likely important in Units 4 and 5 as well. We have added language to clarify this in the final rule.
(5) Comment: Some peer reviewers felt that statements in the
proposed revised rule concerning the low sensitivity of lynx to forest management practices were misleading.
Our response: The statement in the proposed revised rule raised by commenters relates to ``matrix habitat,'' which is habitat that surrounds patches of foraging and denning habitat. Matrix habitat, by definition, is habitat that is crucial for preserving the ability of lynx to move between foraging and denning areas. However, the vegetative condition and structure of matrix habitat is not relevant to its value. For this reason, we do not foresee the need for prescriptive management for lynx in matrix habitat beyond maintaining the ability for lynx to move through this habitat to access other habitat types within a home range. We do recognize that lynx are sensitive to forest management practices in foraging and denning habitat and that forest management activities can have significant positive and negative impacts on lynx depending on the nature and timing and activities. (6) Comment: Some commenters expressed that seasonal differences in lynx habitat preference is poorly articulated in the proposed revised rule. One commenter pointed out that lynx starvation in northwestern Montana during late winterearly spring is tied to the abundance and quality of winter habitat (mature, multistoried forest) and is the primary issue for lynx conservation in this area.
Our response: Lynx use a variety of habitat types and conditions
during the year, which is why we drew the boundaries of the critical
habitat units to include entire landscapes of boreal forest in a
variety of successional stages that account for yearround habitat needs.
(7) Comment: Several peer reviewers and other commenters noted the
important role that private lands play in lynx conservation and stated
that the final rule should better define the degree to which private lands contribute to lynx persistence.
Our response: Through the process of developing our proposed
revised rule and subsequent modifications, we determined which lands
contain features essential to the conservation of lynx. Private lands
were included because of their value for lynx conservation. The
relative contribution of private lands to lynx conservation varies
between the five revised critical habitat units. Unit 1 is almost
entirely comprised of private land, and therefore private lands provide
almost the entire lynx habitat in this area. Conversely, Units 4 and 5
have relatively little private land, with Federal lands providing the
bulk of lynx habitat. Units 2 and 3 have a mix of private, Federal, and
State lands. We recognize the essential nature of private lands for
lynx conservation where we are designating those lands as critical
habitat. We have retained private lands in this final designation in
all cases except where we determined, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
that the benefits of excluding specific areas were greater than the
benefits of including those areas in the designation (see Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act for more information).
(8) Comment: Some peer reviewers indicated that the statement in
the proposed revised rule that snowshoe hares must be present over a
large proportion of the landscape in order for that landscape to
support lynx is incorrect. Reviewers cited the presence of lynx in the
GYA and Northern Rockies as examples of lynx populations that exist
despite the landscape not being dominated by forest types supporting snowshoe hares.
Our response: While we still highlight that the proportion of the
landscape that supports snowshoe hares is important, we acknowledge
that the proportion of the landscape that must support snowshoe hares
in order to support lynx is not known with certainty. Lynx populations
may persist in some mountainous areas despite snowshoe hares occurring
in relatively small and isolated patches. We have clarified this point in this final rule.
(9) Comment: One peer reviewer recommended that the primary
constituent element (PCE) identified for lynx be broadened to include
multistoried stands of mature conifers with boughs that touch the snow
surface, as these are important foraging habitats in Montana and elsewhere in the West.
Our response: We agree, and we have provided clarification to that portion of the PCE in this final designation.
(10) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that the definition of
denning habitat in the proposed revised rule was not broad enough to capture all of the den sites used by lynx in Montana.
Our response: The description of denning habitat in the proposed
revised rule captures the type of habitat most used by lynx for denning
in the contiguous United States. We believe that our description
adequately captures lynx denning habitat for the purposes of
delineating critical habitat in Montana and in other critical habitat units.
(11) Comment: Several peer reviewers and one commenter provided
views on the relative importance of Tribal lands for lynx conservation.
Some thought we should have included some Tribal lands in the proposed
revised rule. We received several comments, primarily from Tribes, recommending that all Tribal lands be excluded.
Our response: In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206, ``American Indian Tribal Rights, FederalTribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act'' (June 5, 1997); the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, ``GovernmenttoGovernment Relations with Native American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951); Executive Order 13175 ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments;'' and the relevant provision of the Departmental Manual of the Department of the Interior (512 DM 2), we believe that fish, wildlife, and other natural resources on Tribal lands are better managed under Tribal authorities, policies, and programs than through Federal regulation wherever possible and practicable. Such designation is often viewed by Tribes as an unwanted intrusion into Tribal self governance, thus compromising the governmenttogovernment relationship essential to achieving our mutual goals of managing for healthy ecosystems upon which the viability of threatened and endangered species populations depend.
We contacted all Tribes potentially affected by the proposed
revised designation and met with some of them to discuss their ongoing
or future management strategies for lynx. Several Tribes subsequently
submitted letters requesting exclusion based on their sovereign rights
and concerns about the economic impact and effects on their ability to
manage natural resources. As described in our proposed revised rule, we
believe that conservation of lynx can be achieved without including
Tribal lands within the revised critical habitat units. We determined
that these lands are not essential to the conservation of lynx, but also, many of the Tribes have
[[Page 8621]]
management plans that provide for lynx habitat needs. The Tribal lands
included in the proposed revised designation are found only in the
Maine, Minnesota, and Montana units and the size of the areas are
relatively small (approximately 223, 187, and 898 km2,
respectively [86, 72, and 347 mi2]). We are excluding these
Tribal lands from this final designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act. See Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act for a discussion of why these lands have been excluded.
(12) Comment: Some peer reviewers and commenters recommended we use
lynx analysis unit (LAU) boundaries as defined by some agencies to
define the critical habitat boundaries, because they used habitatbased processes to identify the best lynx habitat.
Our response: We agree. After receiving numerous comments to this
effect, we solicited lynx habitat data and LAU boundary data from
Federal and State agencies, as well as private companies in and around
the proposed revised critical habitat in Units 2, 3, 4, and 5. We then
revised the critical habitat boundary to more closely reflect where
lynx habitat occurs and followed LAU boundaries to the extent
practicable (e.g., where doing so would not leave out significant lynx
habitat or include significant areas of nonlynx habitat). These
potential modifications were announced to the public when we announced
the availability of the DEA and the draft environmental assessment (73 FR 62450) on October 21, 2008.
(13) Comment: Some peer reviewers questioned the need to consider
climate change in a critical habitat designation. Other peer reviewers
and commenters stated the need to designate critical habitat in high
elevation habitats that are currently unsuitable for lynx occupancy but
may become suitable with climate changes. Other commenters stated that
climate change will render some proposed areas unsuitable; therefore,
these areas should not be included in the designation. One commenter
requested an analysis of climate change effects on each of the
microclimes included in the Minnesota proposed critical habitat.
Our response: We acknowledge that climate change could change the
suitability of lynx habitat in the future. However, we are required to
designate critical habitat based upon the best available scientific and
commercial data at the time that we finalize the designation. At this
point in time, reliable projections of future climate in lynx habitat
in the contiguous United States are not available. However, for
mountaindwelling species like lynx, we conclude that higher elevation
habitat is likely to become increasingly important in the face of
climate changes. Designated critical habitat units include the highest
elevation habitat in the areas, and these areas would likely become
more important to the extent lynx distribution and habitat shift upward
in elevation as temperatures increase. High elevation habitat was
included in the proposed designation, and we have determined it is
appropriate to include these areas in the final designation. General Issues and Responses
(1) Comment: We received numerous comments concerning possible
restrictions imposed by critical habitat designation on economic,
recreation, forest management, predator control, infrastructure, and
energy transmission activities on private and public lands. Some
commenters are concerned the designation provides a mechanism for
increased third party litigation, and some asserted the designation of
critical habitat constitutes an uncompensated taking of private property and is therefore illegal.
Our response: Critical habitat has a direct regulatory impact on the actions of Federal agencies only. Therefore, a critical habitat designation on private land has no regulatory impact on actions carried out by landowners unless they seek Federal funding or a Federal permit to carry out those actions. For example, if landowners must obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. ) to carry out an action on their land, the Corps must consult under section 7 to evaluate the effects that the permitted activity may have on critical habitat. Even then, the designation may only have a substantial impact on the activity if it is likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat. It is the responsibility of the Federal agency, not the private landowner, to initiate the consultation with the Service.
The Act prohibits Federal agencies from carrying out actions that would destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. A Federal action (e.g., winter recreation, energy transmission, mining, or road construction) that is not likely to cause destruction or adverse modification of lynx habitat may not be materially affected by a critical habitat designation. Federal action agencies must evaluate the potential effects of each action on its own merits. If a Federal action would result in destruction or adverse modification of lynx habitat, the Service would suggest reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that critical habitat be designated for listed species. The designation of critical habitat for lynx may increase the number of lawsuits brought forward by citizens opposed to certain actions. Although this is possible, these lawsuits may only have merit if the Federal agency that is funding, authorizing, or carrying out the action does not adequately consider its potential effects to critical habitat, or consult, as appropriate, with the Service in making its final decision.
The promulgation of a regulation does not take private property
unless the regulation denies the property owners all economically
beneficial or productive use of their land. Further, in accordance with
Executive Order 12630 (Government Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we analyzed the
potential takings implications of designating critical habitat for the
lynx in a takings implications assessment (TIA), which is available on
request. The conclusion in the TIA was that the possibility for take of
private property due to designation of critical habitat for lynx is remote.
(2) Comment: We received several comments stating that the proposed
critical habitat designation area should be smaller, or that no
critical habitat should be designated. These comments contained little
explanation to support the recommendations. Other comments indicated
that the area designated for critical habitat in Minnesota was too small to be significant to lynx survival.
Our response: Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that critical
habitat be designated for listed species. The lynx was listed as a
threatened species under the Act on March 24, 2000 (65 FR 16052). Under
section 4(b)(2), the Act requires that a critical habitat designation
be made on the basis of the best scientific data available and after
taking into consideration the economic impact and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order
for us to consider excluding a particular area from a critical habitat
designation based on economic or other relevant impacts, we need
geographic specificity and supporting documentation that can be
analyzed. The comments did not provide this information, making
analysis for exclusion or explanation of inclusion impossible. In
general, after considering the data available, we proposed areas for
critical habitat that represented the breadth of ecological settings and sufficient number of
[[Page 8622]]
populations to satisfy the biological requirements of the lynx and the statutory requirements of the Act.
We believe that the 8,200 mi2 (21,238 km2) of
land in Minnesota proposed for critical habitat is a significant part
of the designation. The highquality lynx habitat proposed in the
Minnesota unit comprises 20 percent of the total area proposed for
critical habitat in the contiguous United States. In addition, the
Minnesota unit is the only area in the Great Lakes region with strong,
longterm evidence of the persistence of lynx populations. As we
explained in detail in the Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
section in the proposed rule, the inclusion of the Minnesota unit is
important in applying the conservation principles of representation,
resiliency, and redundancy to the critical habitat designation for
lynx. Focusing lynx conservation efforts, including critical habitat
designation, on areas with a longterm presence of reproducing lynx and
connectivity to populations in Canada has the greatest chance of
ensuring the continued persistence of lynx in the contiguous United States.
(3) Comment: One commenter indicated that indirect effects of State
and local regulations may follow critical habitat designation.
Our response: We recognize that State and local governments have
the authority to promulgate regulations or local rules related to a
critical habitat designation. However, listed species and their
habitats are protected by the Act regardless of whether they are in
areas designated as critical habitat. The draft economic analysis (DEA)
addressed the potential for newly promulgated regulations or rules
resulting from our critical habitat designation; none were anticipated.
Therefore, we do not anticipate additional regulatory restrictions as a result of State or local regulations.
(4) Comment: Comments included concerns about increased threats to
lynx and lynx habitat due to development, vegetation management by
Federal agencies that destroys snowshoe hare habitat, and the introduction and proliferation of wolves.
Our response: Critical habitat designation identifies the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species that contain the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species, and which may require special management considerations or protection. Designation of critical habitat helps focus conservation and recovery activities. The designation of critical habitat by itself does not achieve conservation or recovery of a species, nor does it prohibit development or forest management activities that alter snowshoe hare habitat. The Act does not automatically restrict all uses of critical habitat, but only imposes restrictions under section 7(a)(2) on Federal agency actions that may result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Each Federal action, including development, permitting, funding, and forest management, would be evaluated by the involved Federal agency, in consultation with the Service, in relation to its impact on the critical habitat. If, after evaluation and consultation, it is concluded that a proposed action is likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, the Service is required to suggest reasonable and prudent alternatives to the action that would avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
To a private property owner, the designation of critical habitat becomes important only when undertaking an activity that is authorized, funded, or completed by a Federal agency. Conservation actions, however, are not limited to Federal agencies. Lynx are protected on Federal and nonFederal lands through prohibitions and constraints of section 9 of the Act, regardless of critical habitat designation. Although consultation with the Service is not specifically stated in the Act, nonFederal activities, including development and forest management, may require permitting by the Service if an action would result in a taking of the species as described under section 9 of the Act.
Other predator species could affect lynx negatively by competing
for resources, direct predation of lynx, or both. Lynx are vulnerable
to competition for prey because of a selective diet that relies heavily
on snowshoe hare. Wolf prey competition is unlikely based on the minor
inclusion of small mammals in their diet. Wolves could have a positive
influence on lynx by killing coyotes that compete with lynx for rabbits
and hares. Predation of lynx by wolves has not been identified as a threat to the species.
(5) Comment: We received several comments requesting additional
hearings, public meetings, or an extension of the public comment
period. Some commenters stated that public participation was precluded
by not adequately notifying landowners about the proposal and not
having a completed economic analysis at the time the proposed rule was
published. Some commenters felt that access to listing documents,
including maps, was not convenient and that the Federal Register was an
inadequate mechanism for notifying the public of the proposal.
Our response: We made a concerted effort to provide public notice of this rulemaking. Because of the large scope of the proposed designation it was not possible to contact each landowner. However, we issued a widelydisseminated news release regarding our proposal, and published legal notices in major newspapers in areas involved in the proposal. We published Federal Register notices, including the critical habitat proposal, reopening of the comment period, and notice of availability of draft documents. We sent hundreds of letters, cards, and emails to State and Federal agencies, Tribal governments, local governments, private individuals, private companies, nongovernment organizations, and elected officials announcing the proposal, document availability, and public meetings and hearings. We also issued press releases concurrent with Federal Register notice announcements. A web page of lynx critical habitat materials and information has been maintained at http://mountainprairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/lynx/ criticalhabitat.htm.
We received several requests for public hearings during the initial comment period for the proposed rule. Hearings were conducted as required under section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act. Public hearings on the published proposal were held on November 7, 2008, in Kalispell, Montana, and November 13, 2008, in Cody, Wyoming. Open houses and meetings on the published proposal were held on March 25, 2008, Duluth, Minnesota; April 23, 2008, Bloomington, Minnesota; May 20, 2008, Grand Marais, Minnesota; March 25, 2008, Twisp, Washington; and April 2, 2008 and November 10, 2008, Old Town, Maine. In the proposed rule we provided contact information for four Service Field Offices for anyone seeking further information on the proposed revised critical habitat designation. Therefore, we believe that we made a conscientious effort to reach all interested parties and provide avenues for them to obtain information concerning our proposal and supporting documents.
We recognize the scale of the maps published in the Federal Register made it difficult to accurately identify whether particular parcels of land were included within the proposed designation. However, the descriptions that began on page 10881 of the proposed rule (73 FR 10860; February 28, 2008) were provided to assist the public in understanding exactly which lands were proposed as critical habitat. [[Page 8623]]
We acknowledge that a draft economic analysis (DEA) was not
available to the public at the time of publishing the proposed rule in
the Federal Register. We considered it important to release the
proposed rule to the public for review and comment as soon as possible.
The DEA was released for public review as soon as it was completed. The
comment period was then reopened for 30 days, and the public had an
opportunity to submit comments on both the proposed rule and the accompanying DEA.
(6) Comment: A commenter stated that the proposed critical habitat
rule misrepresented the legal boundaries of Cook County townships in
Minnesota leading to a lack of citizen participation. A commenter
stated that we misrepresented critical habitat effects on private
property, specifically that designation imposes a take permit system
for nonFederal activities on private land, thereby limiting public
participation and violating the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
Our response: We disagree on both issues. We believe that detailed and sufficient information was provided to the public that clearly delineated boundaries for critical habitat. The proposal included a statement on page 10882 that critical habitat does not include towns or populated areas as they now exist. The term ``now exist,'' is a function of the municipal boundaries that are not delineated by the Service but established, in most cases, by nonFederal, local entities. Numerous areas in Minnesota, including in Cook County, are not included in the critical habitat area. More detailed information on the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat was included on pages 10881 through 10895, with specific delineations for Minnesota on pages 10886 and 10887.
Regulatory implications for private lands were clearly stated in the proposed rule. The designation of critical habitat for the lynx does not affect land ownership or establish a conservation area, does not allow the government or public to access private lands, and does not require (although it encourages) implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by a landowner for the lynx. In situations where a landowner seeks Federal agency funding or authorization of an activity that may affect the lynx or its critical habitat, the Federal agency is responsible for complying with section 7 of the Act to determine the impacts of its action on the lynx and its critical habitat. If Federal authorization or funding of the proposed private action is likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of lynx critical habitat, the Service and the Federal action agency, in coordination with the landowner as an applicant, would cooperate in the development of a reasonable and prudent alternative that avoids that outcome and meets other specific criteria set forth in the regulations. The designation of critical habitat does not institute a permit requirement for the private landowner whose activity results in the take of a listed animal species. Any appropriate permitting became necessary at the time the lynx was listed in 2000.
As stated in the response to Comment 5, we made a conscientious
effort to reach all interested parties and provide avenues for them to
obtain information, including an environmental assessment for NEPA compliance, and submit comments concerning our proposal.
(7) Comment: Many commenters did not believe that the lynx
qualified as a threatened species. Some commenters thought the species
should be delisted, and others thought it should be listed as
endangered. Some commenters believe that designation of critical
habitat is necessary to recover lynx, but that designation of critical
habitat prior to completion of a lynx recovery plan or other lynx
conservation guidance is premature. Other commenters were concerned
about the effectiveness of critical habitat designation and the
ineffectiveness of single species management. Commenters stated that
critical habitat designation was in conflict with Federal mining laws,
and that other Federal agencies were not complying with the Endangered
Species Act, Multipleuse Sustainedyield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et
seq.), and others. Some commenters stated that the 2005 critical
habitat rule was supported by the record and should not be changed.
Our response: The lynx was listed as a threatened species under the Act on March 24, 2000 (65 FR 16052). Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that critical habitat be designated for listed species. This rule addresses the required critical habitat designation; listing actions are not part of the critical habitat rule.
On January 15, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the Service to complete a final rule for revised critical habitat by February 15, 2009. A recovery plan need not be completed before critical habitat is designated, but is useful in guiding the designation if one exists. The drafting and finalization of a recovery plan for lynx has not been feasible due to work load and economic constraints. However, the lynx recovery outline was used to guide the proposed revised lynx critical habitat designation. The areas we considered in our methodology for defining critical habitat for the lynx did not mirror the exact areas identified in the recovery outline, but did reflect the biological concepts considered important in the recovery outline. We used the best science available in determining areas that contained the features essential for the conservation of lynx. Designation of critical habitat does not in itself bring about recovery, but designation of critical habitat can help focus conservation and recovery activities for listed species by identifying areas essential to conserve the species. Specific management recommendations for areas designated as critical habitat are most appropriately addressed in subsequent recovery and management plans.
We agree that research is important, and that managing for a single species may not provide the maximum benefit for a biological community or an ecosystem as a whole. The purpose, however, of the this rulemaking is to comply with a directive of the Act to designate areas with the biological and physical features necessary for the conservation of the lynx.
An analysis of the possible contradictions of statutes or the compliance of Federal agencies with relevant or unrelated laws is not within the purview of this critical habitat rule.
While some believe that our previous designation was satisfactory,
we reviewed the previous critical habitat rule for the lynx (71 FR
66007; November 9, 2006) after questions were raised about the
integrity of the scientific information used and whether the decision
made was consistent with the appropriate legal standards. We determined
that it was necessary to revise the critical habitat designation based on that review.
(8) Comment: Some commenters questioned the presence of primary
constituent elements (PCEs) for lynx in specific areas proposed as
critical habitat, and recommended that the proposal be refined.
Specific areas cited included the shore of Lake Superior, State of
Wyoming, existing and proposed mining areas, and matrix habitat. Other
commenters asserted that the boundaries we used (such as the 4,000foot
(ft), 1,219meter (m)) elevation contour or highways were arbitrary and overly broad.
Our response: We reviewed available maps, peer and public comments,
and biological information received during the public comment period.
Subsequently, portions of units that did not contain the PCE or where [[Page 8624]]
development was concentrated were removed from the final designation.
Any developed areas and the land on which structures are located inside
critical habitat boundaries are excluded from critical habitat
designation as is described in this final rule. In some areas, unit
boundaries were expanded to incorporate adjacent lynx habitat that had
been inadvertently left out of the proposed critical habitat.
Designated critical habitat areas in Wyoming (Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA)Unit 5) have confirmed records of reproducing lynx and contain lynx habitat similar to the Northern Rockies. Lynx are generally associated with the Rocky Mountain Conifer Forest vegetation class in Wyoming, which is dominated by subalpine fir, Engelman spruce, and lodgepole pine. As described in detail in the proposed rule on page 10866, lynx habitat in the GYA is typically found in a widely scattered mosaic of matrix habitat. Individual lynx adjust their home range to incorporate land that is not typical lynx foraging habitat, but is used primarily for travel. The need for matrix habitat designated as critical habitat is most pronounced in the GYA, but matrix habitat is important in all designated areas to retain unimpeded movement of lynx between patches of suitable foraging and denning habitats.
Roads and other humanmade structures were used as boundaries for
critical habitat where they clearly delineated areas with confirmed
records of lynx reproduction and the presence of PCEs. In the
Washington State Unit, the 4,000ft (1,219m) elevation contour is used
to delineate the critical habitat boundary because the features
essential to the conservation of lynx, the majority of lynx records,
the evidence of reproduction, and the boreal forest types are found above 4,000 ft in Washington State.
(9) Comment: Comments were received questioning why changes were
made from the previous (2005) rule. Specific changes noted were the
identification of lands requiring special management; inclusion in the
current proposed rule of lands previously exempted under sections
4(b)(2) and 3(5)(a) of the Act; and the expansion of critical habitat
beyond the boundaries of Voyageurs National Park and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area in Minnesota.
Our response: As explained in the ``Previous Federal Actions''
section on page 10863 of the February 28, 2008 proposed rule, we
determined that it is necessary to revise the November 9, 2006, final
critical habitat rule as a result of questions that were raised about
the integrity of scientific information used in the 2006 designation
and whether the decision made was consistent with the appropriate legal
standard. As a result, we reconsidered all the lands that were
designated, lands that were not designated under section 3(5)(a) of the
Act, and lands excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act in the 2006 designation.
(10) Comment: Some commenters indicated that designation provides
little or no additional benefit beyond the listing itself, and that
critical habitat is not necessary because conservation occurs through
other existing means such as the Lynx Conservation Assessment and
Strategy (LCAS), National and State Forest Plans, and other actions.
Other commenters expressed their support for critical habitat because
the designation provides for educational and research opportunities, recreation, and economic and forest management benefits.
Our response: Compliance with section 4(a)(3) of the Act necessitates that critical habitat be designated for listed species. It is true that a species and habitat upon which it depends are protected under provisions of the Act whether critical habitat is designated or not. However, a critical habitat designation identifies lands on which are found the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species that may require special management considerations, and areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing that are essential to the conservation of the species. The identification of these essential areas is important to guide management and provide for the recovery of the species.
As explained in detail in the Benefits of Designating Critical Habitat section of this final rule, the consultation provisions under section 7(a) of the Act constitute the regulatory benefits of critical habitat. Federal agencies must consult with the Service on discretionary actions that may affect a listed species, and in addition, analyze the effects of an action to critical habitat. The analysis of the effects to critical habitat is a separate and different analysis from that of the effects to the species, and may provide greater regulatory benefits to the recovery of a species than listing alone.
Since the lynx was proposed for listing in 1999, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and National Park Service (NPS) have been instrumental partners with the Service in conservation and recovery of the lynx, and in the development of the Lynx Conservation and Assessment Strategy (LCAS) (Reudiger et al. 2000). The LCAS constitutes the best available information on conserving lynx, and identifies potential risk factors to lynx and lynx habitat and management guidance to reduce these risks. The Service and USFS are signatories to an agreement protecting lynx on national forest lands until all Land Resource Management Plans (LRMPs) for the relevant forests are amended to include the direction consistent with the LCAS. The National Forests in Units 2, 3, and 5 have all amended their forest plans, and the OkanoganWenatchee National Forest in Unit 4 is in the process of amending its LRMP. No Federal lands are included in the critical habitat designation in Unit 1.
During the critical habitat designation process, we evaluated national forest areas to determine if they meet the definition of critical habitat (i.e., if they contain physical or biological features essential to conser
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Mark Wilson, Field Supervisor, Montana Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES section) (4064495225); Lori Nordstrom, Field Supervisor, Maine Field Office (2078275938); Tony Sullins, Field Supervisor, Twin Cities Ecological Services Office (Minnesota) (6127253548); or Mark Miller, Field Supervisor, Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office (Washington) (5098916839).