94656 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

The revision reads as follows: 

52.209–12 Certification Regarding Tax 

Matters. 

* * * * * 

Certification Regarding Tax Matters 

(DATE) 

* * * * * 

■ 88. Amend section 52.212–3 by 

revising the date of the provision, and 

removing from paragraph (e) ‘‘$150,000’’ 

and adding ‘‘$200,000’’ in its place. 

The revision reads as follows: 

52.212–3 Offeror Representations and 

Certifications—Commercial Products and 

Commercial Services. 

* * * * * 

Offeror Representations and 

Certifications—Commercial Products 

and Commercial Services (DATE) 

* * * * * 

■ 89. Amend section 52.212–5 by— 

■ a. Revising the date of the clause; 

■ b. Removing from paragraphs 

(b)(39)(i) and (e)(1)(xvi)(A) ‘‘NOV 2021’’ 

and adding ‘‘DATE’’ in their places, 

respectively; 

■ c. In Alternate II: 

■ i. Revising the date of the alternate; 

and 

■ ii. Removing from paragraph 

(e)(1)(ii)(O)(1) ‘‘NOV 2021’’ and adding 

‘‘DATE’’ in its place. 

The revision reads as follows: 

52.212–5 Contract Terms and Conditions 

Required To Implement Statutes or 

Executive Orders—Commercial Products 

and Commercial Services. 

* * * * * 

Contract Terms and Conditions 

Required To Implement Statutes or 

Executive Orders—Commercial 

Products and Commercial Services 

(DATE) 

* * * * * 

Alternate II (DATE). * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 90. Amend section 52.213–4 by— 

■ a. Revising the date of the clause; 

■ b. Removing from paragraph (a)(2)(vii) 

‘‘NOV 2024’’ and adding ‘‘DATE’’ in its 

place; and 

■ c. Removing from paragraph 

(b)(1)(ix)(A) ‘‘NOV 2021’’ and adding 

‘‘DATE’’ in its place. 

The revision reads as follows: 

52.213–4 Terms and Conditions— 

Simplified Acquisitions (Other Than 

Commercial Products and Commercial 

Services). 

* * * * * 

Terms and Conditions—Simplified 

Acquisitions (Other Than Commercial 

Products and Commercial Services) 

(DATE) 

* * * * * 

■ 91. In section 52.214–28, amend 

Alternate I by: 

■ a. Revising the date of the alternate; 

and 

■ b. Removing from paragraph (b)(2) ‘‘$2 

million’’ wherever it appears and 

adding ‘‘$2.5 million’’ in their places, 

respectively. 

The revision reads as follows: 

52.214–28 Subcontractor Certified Cost or 

Pricing Data—Modifications—Sealed 

Bidding. 

* * * * * 

Alternate I (DATE) * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 92. In section 52.215–12, amend 

Alternate I by: 

■ a. Revising the date of the alternate; 

and 

■ b. Removing from paragraph (a)(2) ‘‘$2 

million’’ wherever it appears and 

adding ‘‘$2.5 million’’ in their places, 

respectively. 

The revision reads as follows: 

52.215–12 Subcontractor Certified Cost or 

Pricing Data. 

* * * * * 

Alternate I (DATE) * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 93. In section 52.215–13, amend 

Alternate I by: 

■ a. Revising the date of the alternate; 

and 

■ b. Removing from paragraphs (b)(2) 

and (d) ‘‘$2 million’’ and adding ‘‘$2.5 

million’’ in their places, respectively. 

The revision reads as follows: 

52. 215–13 Subcontractor Certified Cost or 

Pricing Data—Modifications. 

* * * * * 

Alternate I (DATE) * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 94. Amend section 52.222–50 by 

revising the date of the clause, and 

removing from paragraphs (h)(1)(ii) and 

(i)(1)(ii) ‘‘$550,000’’ and adding 

‘‘$700,000’’ in their places, respectively. 

The revision reads as follows: 

52.222–50 Combating Trafficking in 

Persons. 

* * * * * 

Combating Trafficking in Persons 

(DATE) 

* * * * * 

■ 95. Amend section 52.222–56 by 

revising the date of the provision, and 

removing from paragraph (b)(2) 

‘‘$550,000’’ and adding ‘‘$700,000’’ in 

its place. 

The revision reads as follows: 

52.222–56 Certification Regarding 

Trafficking in Persons Compliance Plan. 

* * * * * 

Certification Regarding Trafficking in 

Persons Compliance Plan (DATE) 

* * * * * 

■ 96. Amend section 52.225–8 by 

revising the date of the clause, and 

removing from paragraphs (c)(1) 

introductory text and (j)(2) ‘‘$15,000’’ 

and adding ‘‘$20,000’’ in its place. 

The revision reads as follows: 

52.225–8 Duty-Free Entry. 

* * * * * 

Duty-Free Entry (DATE) 

* * * * * 

■ 97. Amend section 52.244–6 by— 

■ a. Revising the date of the clause; and 

■ b. Removing from paragraph 

(c)(1)(xvii)(A) ‘‘NOV 2021’’ and adding 

‘‘DATE’’ in its place. 

The revision reads as follows: 

52.244–6 Subcontracts for Commercial 

Products and Commercial Services. 

* * * * * 

Subcontracts for Commercial Products 

and Commercial Services (DATE) 

* * * * * 

■ 98. Amend section 52.248–3 by 

revising the date of the clause, and 

removing from paragraph (h) ‘‘$75,000’’ 

and adding ‘‘$95,000’’ in its place. 

The revision reads as follows: 

52.248–3 Value Engineering— 

Construction. 

* * * * * 

Value Engineering—Construction 

(DATE) 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2024–27851 Filed 11–27–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2024–0142; 

FXES1111090FEDR–256–FF09E21000] 

RIN 1018–BH59 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Revised Designation of 

Critical Habitat for the Contiguous U.S. 

Distinct Population Segment of the 

Canada Lynx 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules 94657 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

revise the critical habitat designation for 

the contiguous U.S. distinct population 

segment (DPS) of the Canada lynx (Lynx 

canadensis) under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

In total, approximately 19,112 square 

miles (49,500 square kilometers) in 

Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, 

Washington, and Wyoming fall within 

the boundaries of the proposed 

revisions to the critical habitat 

designation. We also announce the 

availability of an economic analysis of 

the proposed revised designation of 

critical habitat for the Canada lynx DPS. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

January 28, 2025. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, 

below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. 

eastern time on the closing date. We 

must receive requests for a public 

hearing, in writing, at the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by January 28, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: https://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–R6–ES–2024–0142, which is 

the docket number for this rulemaking. 

Then, click on the Search button. On the 

resulting page, in the panel on the left 

side of the screen, under the Document 

Type heading, check the Proposed Rule 

box to locate this document. You may 

submit a comment by clicking on 

‘‘Comment.’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 

FWS–R6–ES–2024–0142, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on https:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see 

Information Requested, below, for more 

information). 

Availability of supporting materials: 

Supporting materials, such as the 

species status assessment report 

addendum, are available on the 

Service’s website at https://

ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/A073?, at 

https://www.regulations.gov at Docket 

No. FWS–R6–ES–2024–0142, or both. If 

we finalize the critical habitat 

designation, we will make the 

coordinates or plot points or both from 

which the maps are generated available 

at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket 

No. FWS–R6–ES–2024–0142 and on the 

Service’s website at https://

www.fws.gov/species/canada-lynx-lynxcanadensis. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amity Bass, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Montana 

Ecological Services Field Office, 585 

Shepard Way, Suite 1, Helena, MT 

59601; telephone 406–449–5225. 

Individuals in the United States who are 

deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have 

a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. Please see 

Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2024–0142 on 

https://www.regulations.gov for a 

document that summarizes this 

proposed rule. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Endangered Species Act (Act), any 

species that is determined to be 

threatened or endangered requires 

critical habitat to be designated to the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable. Designations and 

revisions of critical habitat can be 

completed only by issuing a rule 

through the Administrative Procedure 

Act rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et 

seq.). 

The contiguous U.S. distinct 

population segment (DPS) of the Canada 

lynx DPS was listed as a threatened 

species in 2000. We designated critical 

habitat for the Canada lynx DPS in 2006 

and revised the designation in 2009 and 

2014. In 2022, the Service committed in 

a settlement agreement to submit to the 

Federal Register a proposed rule on the 

revised designation of critical habitat for 

the Canada lynx DPS by November 21, 

2024. 

What this document does. This 

document proposes to revise the 

existing designation of critical habitat 

for the threatened contiguous U.S. DPS 

of the Canada lynx. Because the Western 

United States was the subject of a 2016 

court order that found fault with our 

2014 final critical habitat rule for not 

designating critical habitat in Colorado 

and in five National Forests in Idaho 

and Montana, and because we have new 

scientific information on lynx habitat in 

the Western United States, we are 

proposing to revise Canada lynx critical 

habitat in the Western United States 

only. We are not proposing any 

revisions to critical habitat in Maine and 

Minnesota. 

The basis for our action. Section 

3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat 

as (i) the specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed, on which 

are found those physical or biological 

features (I) essential to the conservation 

of the species and (II) which may 

require special management 

considerations or protections; and (ii) 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

it is listed, upon a determination by the 

Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) that 

such areas are essential for the 

conservation of the species. Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act states that the 

Secretary must make the designation on 

the basis of the best scientific data 

available and after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, the 

impact on national security, and any 

other relevant impacts of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. 

Information Requested 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule will be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

information from other governmental 

agencies, Native American Tribes, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested parties concerning this 

proposed rule. We particularly seek 

comments concerning: 

(1) Specific information on: 

(a) The amount and distribution of 

Canada lynx habitat in the Western 

United States; 

(b) Any additional areas occurring 

within the range of the species in the 

Western United States that should be 

included in the designation because 

they (i) were occupied at the time of 

listing and contain the physical or 

biological features that are essential to 

the conservation of the species and that 

may require special management 

considerations or protection, or (ii) were 

unoccupied at the time of listing and are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species; and 

(c) Special management 

considerations or protection that may be 

needed in critical habitat areas we are 

proposing, including managing for the 

potential effects of climate change. 

(2) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject areas 

and their possible impacts on proposed 

critical habitat. 

(3) Any probable economic, national 

security, or other relevant impacts of 

designating any area that may be 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
94658 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

included in the final designation, and 

the related benefits of including or 

excluding specific areas. 

(4) Information on the extent to which 

the description of probable economic 

impacts in the draft economic analysis 

is a reasonable estimate of the likely 

economic impacts and any additional 

information regarding probable 

economic impacts that we should 

consider. 

(5) Whether any specific areas we are 

proposing for critical habitat 

designation should be considered for 

exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, and whether the benefits of 

potentially excluding any specific area 

outweigh the benefits of including that 

area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. In 

particular, we are considering excluding 

all Tribal lands (in Montana and New 

Mexico) as well as lands in (a) Montana, 

managed in accordance with the 

Montana Department of Natural 

Resources and Conservation (DNRC) 

Forested State Trust Lands Habitat 

Conservation Plan (Montana DNRC and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010, 

entire), and (b) Washington, managed in 

accordance with the Washington 

Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 

Lynx Habitat Management Plan for 

DNR-managed Lands (Washington DNR 

2006, entire). If you think we should 

exclude any additional areas, please 

provide information supporting a 

benefit of exclusion. 

(6) Whether we could improve or 

modify our approach to designating 

critical habitat in any way to provide for 

greater public participation and 

understanding, or to better 

accommodate public concerns and 

comments. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support for, or opposition to, the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, do not provide 

substantial information necessary to 

support a determination. Section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 

determinations as to whether any 

species is an endangered or a threatened 

species must be made solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available, and section 

4(b)(2) of the Act directs that the 

Secretary shall designate critical habitat 

on the basis of the best scientific data 

available. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. We request that you send 

comments only by the methods 

described in ADDRESSES. 

If you submit information via https:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy submissions 

on https://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on https://www.regulations.gov. 

Our final determination may differ 

from this proposal because we will 

consider all comments we receive 

during the comment period as well as 

any information that may become 

available after this proposal. Based on 

the new information we receive (and, if 

relevant, any comments on that new 

information), our final designation may 

not include all areas proposed, may 

include some additional areas that meet 

the definition of critical habitat, or may 

exclude some areas if we find the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion and exclusion will 

not result in the extinction of the 

species. In our final rule, we will clearly 

explain our rationale and the basis for 

our final decision, including why we 

made changes, if any, that differ from 

this proposal. 

Public Hearing 

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for 

a public hearing on this proposal, if 

requested. Requests must be received by 

the date specified in DATES. Such 

requests must be sent to the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. We will schedule a public 

hearing on this proposal, if requested, 

and announce the date, time, and place 

of the hearing, as well as how to obtain 

reasonable accommodations, in the 

Federal Register and local newspapers 

at least 15 days before the hearing. We 

may hold the public hearing in person 

or virtually via webinar. We will 

announce any public hearing on our 

website, in addition to the Federal 

Register. The use of virtual public 

hearings is consistent with our 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3). 

Previous Federal Actions 

The Service listed the Canada lynx 

DPS as a threatened species under the 

Act in 2000 (65 FR 16052, March 24, 

2000). The Service first designated 

Canada lynx critical habitat in 2006 (71 

FR 66008, November 9, 2006), revised 

the designation in 2009 (74 FR 8616, 

February 25, 2009), and revised critical 

habitat again in 2014 (79 FR 54782, 

September 12, 2014). The 2014 

designation was challenged and in 2016 

the District Court for the District of 

Montana held that the Service erred by 

excluding Colorado and five National 

Forests in Montana and Idaho from the 

critical habitat designation, WildEarth 

Guardians v. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, 205 F. Supp.3d 1176 (D. Mont. 

2016). The court remanded the critical 

habitat designation to the Service to 

reconsider. In 2017, we completed the 

species status assessment (SSA) report 

to summarize the best available 

scientific information on the status and 

likely future viability of the Canada lynx 

DPS (Service 2017a, entire). The SSA 

provided the scientific basis for a 5-year 

review completed on November 13, 

2017, in which we recommended 

removing the Canada lynx DPS from the 

Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife (Service 2017b, 

entire). Given this recommendation, on 

December 20, 2017, we issued a 

memorandum on our section 4(f)(1) 

determination regarding recovery 

planning for the Canada lynx that found 

a recovery plan will not promote the 

conservation of the species (Service 

2017c, entire). 

In 2020, the Service was challenged 

for its failure to revise Canada lynx 

critical habitat in accordance with the 

2016 court order. The Service reached a 

settlement agreement for the date it 

would comply with the 2016 court 

order. On April 25, 2022, the court 

ordered the Service to submit a 

proposed revised critical habitat rule for 

the Canada lynx DPS to the Federal 

Register by November 21, 2024, and a 

final critical habitat rule within the 

statutory timeframe in accordance with 

the settlement agreement. 

On December 1, 2023, the Service 

completed and released an addendum to 

the SSA report (Service 2023a, entire), 

to inform recovery planning and critical 

habitat revision. We published a notice 

of availability of the draft recovery plan 

and made it available for public 

comment on December 1, 2023. 

For more information on previous 

Federal actions concerning the Canada 

lynx DPS, 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 Recovery Outline for the 

Contiguous United States DPS of 

Canada Lynx (recovery outline; Service 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules 94659 

2005, entire); the final rule designating 

critical habitat for Canada lynx 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 9, 2006 (71 FR 66008); the 

final rule designating revised critical 

habitat published in the Federal 

Register on February 25, 2009 (74 FR 

8616); the 12-month finding on a 

petition to change the final listing of the 

DPS of the Canada lynx to include New 

Mexico published in the Federal 

Register on December 17, 2009 (74 FR 

66937); the proposed rule to revise the 

designation of critical habitat and the 

boundary for the Canada lynx DPS 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 26, 2013 (78 FR 59430); and 

the final rule designating revised critical 

habitat for Canada lynx published in the 

Federal Register on September 12, 2014 

(79 FR 54782). These documents and 

others addressing the status and 

conservation of the Canada lynx in the 

contiguous United States may be viewed 

and downloaded from the Service’s 

website: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/ 

species/A073?. 

Peer Review 

On December 1, 2023, a team of 

Service biologists, in consultation with 

recognized lynx and climate experts, 

completed an addendum to the 2017 

SSA for the Canada lynx DPS. The SSA 

report and addendum represent a 

compilation of the best scientific and 

commercial data available concerning 

the status of the species, including the 

impacts of past, present, and future 

factors (both negative and beneficial) 

affecting the species. 

In accordance with our joint policy on 

peer review published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), 

and our August 22, 2016, memorandum 

updating and clarifying the role of peer 

review in listing and recovery actions 

under the Act, we solicited independent 

scientific review of the information 

contained in the Canada lynx SSA 

report addendum. We sent the SSA 

report addendum to five independent 

peer reviewers and received five 

responses. Results of this structured 

peer review process can be found at 

https://www.regulations.gov. In 

preparing this proposed rule, we 

incorporated the results of these 

reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA 

report addendum, which is the 

foundation for this proposed rule. 

Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments 

As discussed in Peer Review above, 

we received comments from five peer 

reviewers on the draft SSA report 

addendum. We reviewed all comments 

we received from the peer reviewers for 

substantive issues and new information 

regarding the contents of the SSA report 

addendum. The peer reviewers 

generally concurred with our methods 

and conclusions. The peer reviewers 

provided additional information, 

terminology clarifications, suggestions 

to explain uncertainties, clarifications to 

the explanation of our resiliency model, 

and other editorial suggestions. Peer 

reviewer comments and suggestions 

were incorporated as appropriate in the 

final version of the SSA report 

addendum (Service 2023a, entire). 

Critical Habitat 

Background 

Critical habitat is defined in section 

3(5)(A) of the Act as: 

(1) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

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 the 

species at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 

define the geographical area occupied 

by the species as an area that may 

generally be delineated around species’ 

occurrences, as determined by the 

Secretary (i.e., range). Such areas may 

include those areas used throughout all 

or part of the species’ life cycle, even if 

not used on a regular basis (e.g., 

migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, 

and habitats used periodically, but not 

solely by vagrant individuals). 

Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means to use and 

the use of all methods and procedures 

that are necessary to bring an 

endangered or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

pursuant to the Act are no longer 

necessary. Such methods and 

procedures include, but are not limited 

to, all activities associated with 

scientific resources management such as 

research, census, law enforcement, 

habitat acquisition and maintenance, 

propagation, live trapping, and 

transplantation, and, in the 

extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot be otherwise relieved, may 

include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

requirement that each Federal action 

agency ensure, in consultation with the 

Service, that any action they authorize, 

fund, or carry out is not likely to result 

in the destruction or adverse 

modification of designated critical 

habitat. The designation of critical 

habitat does not affect land ownership 

or establish a refuge, wilderness, 

reserve, preserve, or other conservation 

area. Such designation also does not 

allow the government or public to 

access private lands. Such designation 

does not require implementation of 

restoration, recovery, or enhancement 

measures by non-Federal landowners. 

Rather, designation requires that, where 

a landowner requests Federal agency 

funding or authorization for an action 

that may affect an area designated as 

critical habitat, the Federal agency 

consult with the Service under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act. If the action may 

affect the listed species itself (such as 

for occupied critical habitat), the 

Federal agency would have already been 

required to consult with the Service 

even absent the designation because of 

the requirement to ensure that the 

action is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the species. Even 

if the Service were to conclude after 

consultation that the proposed activity 

is likely to result in destruction or 

adverse modification of the critical 

habitat, the Federal action agency and 

the landowner are not required to 

abandon the proposed activity, or to 

restore or recover the species; instead, 

they must implement ‘‘reasonable and 

prudent alternatives’’ to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. 

Under the first prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it was listed 

are included in a critical habitat 

designation if they contain physical or 

biological features (1) which are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and (2) which may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. For these areas, critical 

habitat designations identify, to the 

extent known using the best scientific 

data available, those physical or 

biological features that are essential to 

the conservation of the species (such as 

space, food, cover, and protected 

habitat). 

Under the second prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, we can 

designate critical habitat in areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it is listed, 

upon a determination that such areas 

are essential for the conservation of the 

species. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
94660 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that 

we designate critical habitat on the basis 

of the best scientific data available. 

Further, our Policy on Information 

Standards Under the Endangered 

Species Act (published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), 

the Information Quality Act (section 515 

of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 

5658)), and our associated Information 

Quality Guidelines provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that our decisions 

are based on the best scientific data 

available. They require our biologists, to 

the extent consistent with the Act and 

with the use of the best scientific data 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. 

When we are determining which areas 

should be designated as critical habitat, 

our primary source of information is 

generally the information compiled in 

the SSA report and information 

developed during the listing process for 

the species. Additional information 

sources may include any generalized 

conservation strategy, criteria, or outline 

that may have been developed for the 

species; the recovery plan for the 

species; articles in peer-reviewed 

journals; conservation plans developed 

by States and counties; scientific status 

surveys and studies; biological 

assessments; other unpublished 

materials; or experts’ opinions or 

personal knowledge. 

Habitat is dynamic, and species may 

move from one area to another over 

time. We recognize that critical habitat 

designated at a particular point in time 

may not include all of the habitat areas 

that we may later determine are 

necessary for the recovery of the 

species. For these reasons, a critical 

habitat designation does not signal that 

habitat outside the designated area is 

unimportant or may not be needed for 

recovery of the species. Areas that are 

important to the conservation of the 

species, both inside and outside the 

critical habitat designation, will 

continue to be subject to: (1) 

Conservation actions implemented 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) 

regulatory protections afforded by the 

requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

for Federal agencies to ensure their 

actions are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any endangered 

or threatened species; and (3) the 

prohibitions found in the 4(d) rule. 

Federally funded or permitted projects 

affecting listed species outside their 

designated critical habitat areas may 

still result in jeopardy findings in some 

cases. These protections and 

conservation tools will continue to 

contribute to recovery of the species. 

Similarly, critical habitat designations 

made on the basis of the best scientific 

data available at the time of designation 

will not control the direction and 

substance of future recovery plans, 

habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or 

other species conservation planning 

efforts if new information available at 

the time of those planning efforts calls 

for a different outcome. 

Physical or Biological Features 

Essential to the Conservation of the 

Species 

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) 

of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(b), in determining which areas 

we will designate as critical habitat from 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time of listing, we 

consider the physical or biological 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species and which 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. The 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define 

‘‘physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species’’ as 

the features that occur in specific areas 

and that are essential to support the lifehistory needs of the species, including, 

but not limited to, water characteristics, 

soil type, geological features, sites, prey, 

vegetation, symbiotic species, or other 

features. A feature may be a single 

habitat characteristic or a more complex 

combination of habitat characteristics. 

Features may include habitat 

characteristics that support ephemeral 

or dynamic habitat conditions. Features 

may also be expressed in terms relating 

to principles of conservation biology, 

such as patch size, distribution 

distances, and connectivity. For 

example, physical features essential to 

the conservation of the species might 

include gravel of a particular size 

required for spawning, alkaline soil for 

seed germination, protective cover for 

migration, or susceptibility to flooding 

or fire that maintains necessary earlysuccessional habitat characteristics. 

Biological features might include prey 

species, forage grasses, specific kinds or 

ages of trees for roosting or nesting, 

symbiotic fungi, or absence of a 

particular level of nonnative species 

consistent with conservation needs of 

the listed species. The features may also 

be combinations of habitat 

characteristics and may encompass the 

relationship between characteristics or 

the necessary amount of a characteristic 

essential to support the life history of 

the species. 

In considering whether features are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, we may consider an appropriate 

quality, quantity, and spatial and 

temporal arrangement of habitat 

characteristics in the context of the lifehistory needs, condition, and status of 

the species. These characteristics 

include, but are not limited to, space for 

individual and population growth and 

for normal behavior; food, water, air, 

light, minerals, or other nutritional or 

physiological requirements; cover or 

shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, 

or rearing (or development) of offspring; 

and habitats that are protected from 

disturbance. 

Species Needs, Habitat, Ecological 

Requirements 

A comprehensive review of the 

species description, biology, taxonomy, 

genetics, life history, ecology, 

distribution, species needs, habitat, and 

ecological requirements of the Canada 

lynx DPS is presented in the SSA report 

(Service 2017a, entire) and SSA report 

addendum (Service 2023a, entire). Here 

we present a summary of information 

relevant to the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species. 

The Canada lynx (hereafter referred to 

as lynx) is a North American wild cat 

that is most strongly associated with 

northern-latitude boreal forests (taiga) of 

Canada and Alaska (McCord and 

Cardoza 1982, p. 729; Agee 2000, pp. 

39–41; Aubry et al. 2000, pp. 373–374; 

Mowat et al. 2000, p. 272). The southern 

peripheries of the boreal forest and lynx 

range extend into the northern 

contiguous United States (Service 

2017a, pp. 11–12). The Canada lynx is 

a medium-sized cat with long legs and 

large, well-furred paws, which make it 

well-adapted for traversing and hunting 

in deep, powdery snow. Its low footloading (weight per surface area of foot) 

is thought to provide a competitive 

advantage (Buskirk et al. 2000a, p. 90; 

Buskirk et al. 2000b, p. 400; Interagency 

Lynx Biology Team (ILBT) 2013, pp. 26, 

36, 81) over other terrestrial predators of 

snowshoe hares, the lynx’s primary 

prey. 

Lynx rely heavily on snowshoe hare 

to support survival, reproduction, 

recruitment, and, therefore, population 

persistence (Ruggiero et al. 2000a, p. 

110; Mowat et al. 2000, p. 270; Steury 

and Murray 2004, pp. 128, 136–138; 

Service 2005, p. 2; ILBT 2013, p. 30–34; 

79 FR 54782, September 12, 2014). All 

aspects of lynx life history are 

inextricably tied to the snowshoe hare, 

which comprises most of the lynx diet 

throughout its range (Nellis et al. 1972, 

pp. 323–325; Brand et al. 1976, pp. 422– 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules 94661 

425; Koehler and Aubry 1994, pp. 75, 

85; Apps 2000, pp. 358–359, 363; Aubry 

et al. 2000, pp. 375–378; Mowat et al. 

2000, pp. 267–268), including the DPS 

(Koehler 1990, p. 848; von Kienast 2003, 

pp. 37–38; Squires et al. 2004, p. 15, 

table 8; Moen 2009, p. 7; Vashon et al. 

2012, p. 11; Olson 2015, pp. 60–69; Ivan 

and Shenk 2016, p. 1053). Being highly 

specialized hare predators, lynx require 

landscapes that consistently support 

relatively high hare densities (McCord 

and Cardoza 1982, p. 744; Quinn and 

Parker 1987, pp. 684–685; Aubry et al. 

2000, pp. 375–378). 

The best available science, including 

recent research in the DPS’ range, 

suggests that landscape-level hare 

densities consistently ≥ 0.5 hares/ 

hectare (ha) (0.2 hares/acre (ac)) and 

favorable snow conditions (deep and 

persistent unconsolidated (‘‘fluffy’’) 

snow) for about 4 months per year are 

needed to support lynx occupancy, 

reproduction, and recruitment (Hoving 

et al. 2005, p. 749; Gonzalez et al. 2007, 

p. 7; Squires and Ruggiero 2007, pp. 

313–314; Moen et al. 2012, pp. 352–354; 

Simons-Legaard et al. 2013, pp. 567, 

574–575). At the southern periphery of 

lynx distribution, some places, 

including within the range of the DPS, 

seem to be at minimum thresholds to 

meet these requirements or do so 

inconsistently. 

Lynx and snowshoe hares are strongly 

associated with moist boreal forests, 

where winters are long, cold, and snowy 

(Bittner and Rongstad 1982, p. 154; 

McCord and Cardoza 1982, p. 743; 

Quinn and Parker 1987, pp. 684–685; 

Agee 2000, pp. 39–47; Aubry et al. 2000, 

pp. 373–382; Hodges 2000a, pp. 183– 

191; Hodges 2000b, pp. 136–140; 

McKelvey et al. 2000a, pp. 211–232). 

The predominant vegetation of boreal 

forest is conifer trees, primarily species 

of spruce (Picea spp.) and fir (Abies spp; 

Elliot-Fisk 1988, pp. 34–35, 37–42). 

Snowshoe hares feed on conifers, 

deciduous trees, and shrubs (Hodges 

2000a, pp. 181–183) and 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. 665–669; Litvaitis et al. 1985, 

pp. 869–872; Hodges 2000a, pp. 183– 

195; Hodges 2000b, pp. 136–140). Lynx 

population dynamics, survival, and 

reproduction are closely tied to 

snowshoe hare availability, making 

snowshoe hare habitat the primary 

component of lynx habitat. 

Lynx distribution and population 

persistence are also influenced by snow 

conditions (Peers et al. 2012, pp. 4–9). 

The species is generally restricted to 

areas that receive deep and persistent 

unconsolidated (‘‘fluffy’’) snow, which 

is thought to allow lynx, with their 

proportionately longer limbs and very 

large feet, to outcompete other terrestrial 

hare predators that are less efficient in 

such conditions (McCord and Cardoza 

1982, pp. 748–749; Quinn and Parker 

1987, p. 684; Buskirk et al. 2000a, pp. 

89–94; Buskirk et al. 2000b, pp. 400– 

401; Ruggiero et al. 2000b, pp. 445–449; 

Hoving 2001, p. 75; Hoving et al. 2005, 

pp. 744–749; Carroll 2007, entire; 

Gonzalez et al. 2007, entire; ILBT 2013, 

pp. 25–26; 79 FR 54782, September 12, 

2014). The lynx’s physical adaptations 

are thought to provide the lynx a 

seasonal advantage over potential 

terrestrial competitors and predators, 

which generally have higher footloading, causing them to sink into the 

snow more than the lynx (McCord and 

Cardoza 1982, p. 748; Murray and 

Boutin 1991, entire; Buskirk et al. 

2000a, pp. 86–95; Ruediger et al. 2000, 

pp. 1–11; Ruggiero et al. 2000b, pp. 445, 

450). 

Buskirk et al. (2000a, entire) described 

potential exploitation (for food) and 

interference (avoidance) competition 

between lynx and other terrestrial and 

avian predators of hares, several of 

which have also been documented to 

prey on lynx. Coyotes (Canis latrans) 

were thought most likely to exert local 

or regionally important exploitation 

competition impacts to lynx (Buskirk et 

al. 2000a, p. 89). However, subsequent 

research showed little evidence of 

meaningful competition for hares 

between lynx and coyotes in winter 

(Kolbe et al. 2007, p. 1416; Dowd and 

Gese 2012, entire; Guillaumet et al. 

2015, pp. 141–144), and evidence of 

competition with, and displacement of 

lynx by, bobcats (Lynx rufus) (Robinson 

2006, pp. 120–129; Peers et al. 2012, pp. 

4–9; Peers et al. 2013, entire; Sire ́n et al. 

2021, p. 1768; Sire ́n et al. 2022, pp. 

761–762). Coyotes, bobcats, and cougars 

(Puma concolor; also mountain lion) are 

capable of imparting interference 

competition (i.e., aggressive encounters) 

effects on lynx (Buskirk et al. 2000a, p. 

89; Scully et al. 2018, pp. 765–766; King 

et al. 2020, p. 338). Interference would 

most likely be during summer but could 

also occur during winter in areas 

lacking deep, unconsolidated snow 

(ILBT 2013, p. 36). 

Individual lynx require large 

landscapes with hare densities that 

maximize their chances of (1) surviving 

from birth to independence, (2) 

establishing and maintaining a home 

range, (3) breeding successfully, and (4) 

contributing genes to future generations 

(Breitenmoser et al. 1993, p. 552). These 

landscapes also must provide 

conditions that allow lynx to compete 

sufficiently for hares and minimize the 

likelihood of predation and other 

sources of lynx mortality. 

Lynx populations need large 

(thousands of square kilometers) boreal 

forest landscapes with hare densities 

capable of supporting (1) multiple lynx 

home ranges, (2) reproduction and 

recruitment most years, and (3) at least 

some survival even during years when 

hare numbers are low. Lynx populations 

estimated at fewer than 25 individuals 

or occupying habitat areas too small 

(<483 mi2 (1,250 km2)) to support at 

least 25 individual lynx are considered 

‘‘not resilient/functionally extirpated’’ 

because populations that small are 

unlikely to persist over time (Service 

2023a, p. 50–51). Large boreal forest 

landscapes also must have snow 

conditions (consistency, depth, and 

duration) that allow lynx to outcompete 

other terrestrial hare predators. To 

persist, lynx populations must exhibit 

recruitment and immigration rates that 

equal or exceed mortality and 

emigration rates on average over the 

long term. Immigration may be 

particularly important to the persistence 

and stability of lynx populations at the 

southern periphery of the range, 

including those within the DPS, where 

hare densities are generally low and 

hare populations are either non-cyclic 

or weakly-cyclic compared to northern 

populations. Low hare densities reduce 

the likelihood that lynx recruitment will 

consistently equal or exceed mortality. 

Non-cyclic or weakly-cyclic hare 

populations are unlikely to allow the 

rapid lynx population recovery 

observed in northern lynx populations 

outside of the DPS when hare numbers 

increase dramatically after cyclic 

population crashes. Conversely, more 

stable hare populations, even at lower 

landscape-level densities, likely provide 

stability (i.e., prevent periodic steep 

declines) among lynx populations on 

the periphery of the range in the DPS 

and in southern Canada. Although 

immigration rates for DPS populations 

are unknown, as is the rate and 

periodicity of immigration needed to 

provide demographic stability among 

them, connectivity with and 

immigration from lynx populations in 

Canada are believed to be important to 

the persistence of lynx populations in 

the DPS (McKelvey et al. 2000a, pp. 

232–242; McKelvey et al. 2000b, pp. 32– 

34; Schwartz et al. 2002, entire; Service 

2005, p. 2; ILBT 2013, pp. 34, 42, 47, 54, 

60, 65; Squires et al. 2013, p. 187; 79 FR 

54782, September 12, 2014). 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
94662 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Summary of Essential Physical or 

Biological Features 

We derive the specific physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of Canada lynx from 

studies of the species’ habitat, ecology, 

and life history as described below. 

Additional information can be found in 

the 2014 final critical habitat rule (79 FR 

54782, September 12, 2014), the 2017 

SSA report (Service 2017a, entire), and 

the SSA report addendum (Service 

2023a, entire); available on https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R6–ES–2024–0142. 

We have determined that the 

following physical or biological features 

are essential to the conservation of the 

Canada lynx DPS: 

(1) Snowshoe hare densities adequate 

to support lynx residency and 

reproduction over time, distributed 

across large landscapes. 

(2) A mosaic of boreal/subalpine 

forest at variable forest structural stages, 

the majority of which provide yearround dense horizontal cover at ground 

or snow level. 

(3) Winter conditions that provide 

and maintain deep fluffy snow for 

extended periods of time. 

(4) Suitable habitat large enough (483 

mi2 (≥1,250 km2)) to support breeding 

populations. 

(5) Permeable landscapes conducive 

to within-unit lynx daily movements 

and dispersal. 

We note here that the 2014 critical 

habitat rule included a discussion of 

primary constituent elements (PCEs) 

essential to the conservation of the 

species (79 FR 54782 at 54811, 

September 12, 2014). The Service no 

longer uses PCEs to define critical 

habitat; rather, we now evaluate and 

describe the physical or biological 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species in 

accordance with the definitions in the 

Act and our implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 424.12(b). We have identified 

the physical or biological features in 

this revised proposed critical habitat 

rule for the Canada lynx DPS in the 

Western United States. The analysis 

provided in the 2014 critical habitat rule 

in support of critical habitat Units 1 

(Maine) and 2 (Minnesota), including 

the description of PCEs, still applies to 

those units that are not subject to this 

revision. Even though the eastern 

critical habitat units are based on PCEs, 

those PCEs are biologically very similar 

to the physical and biological features 

used in this proposed rule. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the specific areas within 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing contain 

features which are essential to the 

conservation of the species and which 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. The 

features essential to the conservation of 

this species may require special 

management considerations or 

protection to reduce the following 

threats: climate change; vegetation 

management; wildland fire 

management; and habitat loss/ 

fragmentation through development, 

roads, and mining (ILBT 2013, pp. 68– 

78; Service 2017a, pp. 51–105). A 

detailed discussion of activities 

influencing the Canada lynx DPS and its 

habitat can be found in the SSA report 

(Service 2017a, pp. 51–105) and SSA 

report addendum (Service 2023a, pp. 

31–46). 

Since the DPS was listed in 2000, 

nearly all Federal forest plans and 

resource management plans throughout 

the DPS range have been revised in 

coordination with the Service and the 

lynx research community to include 

science-based measures and 

management practices consistent with 

lynx conservation, thereby greatly 

reducing the potential for populationscale habitat deterioration on Federal 

lands. These efforts have contributed 

significantly to addressing the threat for 

which the DPS was listed—the 

inadequacy, at that time, of regulatory 

mechanisms in U.S. Forest Service 

(USFS) and Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) land and resource 

management plans. Additionally, 

Federal partners continue to incorporate 

the best available science into lynx 

habitat management practices on 

Federal lands. However, in the future, 

climate change-related impacts have the 

potential to reduce lynx and snowshoe 

hare habitat within the DPS. Special 

management considerations or 

protection that may be required within 

critical habitat areas to address these 

threats include (but are not limited to) 

the following: maintaining high-quality 

lynx habitat and potential climate 

refugia; maintaining boreal forest 

vegetation communities that support 

high densities of snowshoe hares and 

resident lynx breeding populations; 

supporting connectivity between DPS 

populations; implementation of forest 

management practices that prevent or 

reduce risk of catastrophic wildfire; 

reducing indirect impacts to habitat 

from activities adjacent to critical 

habitat units; and minimizing habitat 

disturbance, fragmentation, and 

destruction through use of best 

management practices for vegetation 

management activities. 

Conservation Strategy and Selection 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat 

Conservation Strategy 

As required by section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, we use the best scientific data 

available to designate critical habitat. In 

accordance with the Act and our 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(b), we review available 

information pertaining to the habitat 

requirements of the species and identify 

specific areas within the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

of listing and any specific areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species to be considered for designation 

as critical habitat. The occupied areas 

identified encompass the varying 

habitat types and distribution of the 

species and provide sufficient habitat to 

allow for maintaining the populations. 

We are not currently proposing to 

designate any areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing because we 

have not identified any unoccupied 

areas that meet the definition of critical 

habitat. Designating areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing would not 

improve the likelihood of recovery (the 

point at which the protections of the Act 

are no longer necessary and delisting 

the DPS would be appropriate). We do 

not find that the DPS can only be 

conserved and recovered if we were to 

designate areas not occupied at the time 

of listing. Because these areas are not 

essential for the conservation and 

recovery of the DPS, designating them 

would not comply with the Act. 

We developed a conservation strategy 

for the Canada lynx DPS to determine 

and select appropriate areas occupied at 

the time of listing that contain the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. The 

goal of our conservation strategy for 

lynx is to recover the DPS to the point 

where the protections of the Act are no 

longer necessary. The role of critical 

habitat in achieving this conservation 

goal is to identify the specific areas 

within the range of the Canada lynx DPS 

that provide the essential physical and 

biological features without which the 

species’ range-wide resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation would 

be insufficient to achieve recovery. This, 

in turn, requires an understanding of the 

fundamental parameters of Canada lynx 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules 94663 

biology and ecology based on wellaccepted conservation-biology and 

ecological principles for conserving 

species and their habitats, such as those 

described in the 2017 SSA report 

(Service 2017a, entire), the 2023 SSA 

report addendum (Service 2023a, 

entire), and the 2023 draft recovery plan 

for the Canada lynx (Service 2023b, 

entire). 

The conservation strategy is the 

outline for the long-term viability of the 

Canada lynx DPS. In developing our 

conservation strategy, we focused on 

maintaining sufficient representation 

and redundancy within the DPS by 

maintaining or improving the resiliency 

of lynx populations and conserving 

their habitats. The conservation strategy 

includes the following: 

(1) Maintenance or improvement of 

the current resiliency of the five 

breeding lynx populations (Maine, 

Minnesota, North Cascades, Northern 

Rocky Mountains, Southern Rocky 

Mountains) to preserve the redundancy 

and representation of the DPS. 

(2) Identification and conservation of 

high-quality lynx habitat and potential 

climate refugia within the previously 

mentioned five areas and the Greater 

Yellowstone Area (GYA). 

(3) Continued implementation and 

refinement of regulatory mechanisms 

and other conservation measures that 

incorporate the best available science to 

ensure the conservation of lynx habitats 

and populations. 

(4) Populations distributed across the 

three large representative units in the 

DPS range (Northeast, Midwest, and 

West), and habitat that: 

(a) Supports high or moderateresiliency, resident lynx breeding 

populations. 

(b) Supports connectivity between 

DPS populations and the core of the 

species’ range in Canada. 

(c) Provides the climatic conditions 

that support resident populations. 

(d) Provides the boreal forest 

vegetation communities that support 

high densities of snowshoe hares and 

resident lynx breeding populations. 

(e) Is potentially capable of providing 

climate refugia. 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat 

In previous critical habitat 

designations, we identified lynx habitat 

using expert judgement of vegetation 

and habitat types and elevation 

thresholds. For the Western United 

States, we now have new, state-of-theart models of lynx habitat (Olson et al. 

2021, entire; Squires et al., in review) 

based on the best empirical data of lynx 

locations across the Western United 

States. The models accurately map 

environmental covariates (abiotic and 

biotic features) found at lynx locations, 

as compared to a random sample of 

background locations, within and 

outside of known home ranges. These 

models were built using data from 

thousands of verified fine-scale global 

positioning system (GPS) locations of 

radio-marked resident lynx in Montana, 

Washington, Wyoming, and Colorado. 

Additionally the models were tested 

and verified using location data 

withheld from building the models and 

incidental lynx occurrence data that 

included locations within home ranges 

and locations outside of home ranges. 

The models cover the western extent of 

the Canada lynx DPS range and indicate 

the relative likelihood of lynx presence 

in Washington, Idaho, western Montana, 

northwestern and south-central 

Wyoming, northeastern Utah, western 

Colorado, and northern New Mexico. 

These models and the use of them to 

identify high-quality lynx habitat were 

documented in the 2022 interagency 

Western Lynx Biology Team (WLBT) 

report (WLBT 2022, entire). The WLBT 

included species experts from the 

Service, USFS, and BLM, as well as 

scientists from the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Rocky Mountain Research 

Station who led the development of the 

new habitat models. The WLBT 

framework also underwent formal peer 

review. The interagency team used a 

science-based approach to identify key 

habitat areas from the models and 

developed a tiered approach to model 

outputs by evaluating the extent and 

proportion of modeled high-quality 

habitat. 

The WLBT used the models to 

identify areas of high conservation value 

for lynx where high-quality habitat is 

abundant, and further assigned those 

areas into three tiers. Tier 1 polygons 

provide large and well-connected areas 

with high proportions of high-quality 

habitat, and support long-term lynx 

occupancy and reproduction. Tier 2 

polygons contain lower proportions of 

high-quality habitat, and they provide 

habitat for expansion or redundant 

habitat areas. In tier 2, the objective is 

to provide habitat to support periodic to 

regular occupancy, which may include 

reproductively successful individuals at 

times. Tier 3 areas are generally smaller 

islands of habitat that may function as 

‘‘stepping stones’’ for dispersing lynx; 

these areas may be important to 

maintain connectivity and facilitate 

dispersal across the landscape and 

among tiers. 

The WLBT mapping effort and 

underlying species distribution models 

identify habitat with the climatic and 

vegetation characteristics necessary to 

support lynx residency and 

reproduction. This includes boreal and 

subalpine forested habitats with a 

mosaic of variable forest successional 

and structural stages, dense horizontal 

cover, persistent snow, and moderate to 

high snowshoe hare densities. To 

inform our delineation of revised 

critical habitat in the Western United 

States, the Service used the tier 1 habitat 

described by the WLBT. When 

designating critical habitat, we are not 

required to designate all areas where a 

species occurs. We chose to focus on 

tier 1 polygons because these are the 

areas that have at least 50 percent of the 

polygon in the highest quality habitat. 

Tier 1 habitat is the most valuable to 

long-term lynx occupancy and 

reproduction and sufficient to provide 

for the conservation of the Canada lynx 

DPS. We did not use tier 2 or 3 

polygons, as those areas have lower 

proportions of high-quality lynx habitat, 

such that they are not likely to support 

long-term occupancy and reproduction. 

We identified tier 1 polygons that 

exceeded or were in close proximity to 

other polygons that exceeded 1,250 

contiguous km2 (483 mi2) of highquality habitat as the areas on the 

landscape that contain the physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the Canada lynx DPS. 

In summary, for areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing, we 

delineated critical habitat unit 

boundaries using the following criteria 

and methodology. We mapped all 

WLBT tier 1 polygons in the Cascades, 

Northern Rocky Mountains, and 

Southern Rocky Mountains. These 

polygons were then reviewed by Service 

biologists, using the best available 

information, to ensure that all polygons 

have the physical and biological 

features essential to Canada lynx. These 

features include (1) snowshoe hare 

densities adequate to support lynx 

residency and reproduction over time, 

distributed across large landscapes; (2) a 

mosaic of boreal/subalpine forest at 

variable forest structural stages, the 

majority of which provide year-round 

dense horizontal cover at ground or 

snow level; (3) winter conditions that 

provide and maintain deep fluffy snow 

for extended periods of time; (4) suitable 

habitat large enough (483 mi2 (≥1,250 

km2)) to support breeding populations; 

(5) permeable landscapes conducive to 

within-unit lynx daily movements and 

dispersal. 

We then removed any isolated 

polygons not occupied at the time of 

listing and smaller than 483 mi2 (≥1,250 

km2), which is the minimum area 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
94664 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

thought necessary to support a resilient 

lynx population as identified in the SSA 

report addendum (Service 2023a, pp. 

50–51). 

When determining proposed critical 

habitat boundaries, we made every 

effort to avoid including developed 

areas such as lands covered by 

buildings, pavement, and other 

structures because such lands lack 

physical or biological features necessary 

for lynx. The scale of the maps we 

prepared under the parameters for 

publication within the Code of Federal 

Regulations may not reflect the 

exclusion of such developed lands. Any 

such lands inadvertently left inside 

critical habitat boundaries shown on the 

maps of this proposed rule have been 

excluded by text in the proposed rule 

and are not proposed for designation as 

critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical 

habitat is finalized as proposed, a 

Federal action involving these lands 

would not trigger section 7 consultation 

with respect to critical habitat and the 

requirement of no adverse modification 

unless the specific action would affect 

the physical or biological features in the 

adjacent critical habitat. 

The proposed critical habitat 

designation is defined by the map or 

maps, as modified by any accompanying 

regulatory text, presented at the end of 

this document under Proposed 

Regulation Promulgation. We include 

more detailed information on the 

boundaries of the critical habitat 

designation in the preamble of this 

document. 

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation 

Critical habitat was last designated for 

the Canada lynx DPS in 2014 and 

included five units in the contiguous 

United States (79 FR 54782, September 

12, 2014). We are proposing to revise 

critical habitat for the Canada lynx in 

the Western United States. Existing 

critical habitat units 1 (Maine) and 2 

(Minnesota) are not included in this 

proposed revision to lynx critical 

habitat and remain in place as described 

in the 2014 critical habitat final rule. 

The critical habitat areas we describe 

below constitute our current best 

assessment of areas that meet the 

definition of critical habitat for lynx in 

the Western United States. The four 

areas we propose as critical habitat are: 

(1) Unit 3: Northern Rockies; (2) Unit 4: 

North Cascades; (3) Unit 5: Greater 

Yellowstone Area (GYA); and (4) Unit 6: 

Southern Rockies. Table 1, below, 

shows the proposed critical habitat 

units and the approximate area of each 

unit. All units were occupied at the time 

of listing in 2000. Table 1 lists the 

proposed critical habitat units and their 

approximate sizes broken down by 

major land ownership. 

TABLE 1—PROPOSED WESTERN CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR CANADA LYNX (MI2 (KM2)) 

[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries] 

Critical habitat unit Federal State Private Tribal Other Total 

3. Northern Rockies ..................................... 7,193 (18,630) 310 (803) 214 (554) 230 (596) 12 (30) 7,959 (20,613) 

4. North Cascades ....................................... 2,178 (5,641) 170 (441) 6 (15) NA NA 2,354 (6,097) 

5. Greater Yellowstone Area ....................... 1,117 (2,892) 1 (3) 3 (7) NA NA 1,121 (2,902) 

6. Southern Rockies .................................... 6,854 (17,752) 50 (129) 684 (1,771) 37 (97) 54 (140) 7,679 (19,889) 

Total ...................................................... 17,342 (44,915) 531 (1,376) 906 (2,346) 267 (692) 66 (170) 19,112 (49,500) 

Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding. Numbers are calculated using the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Protected Areas Database for the United States 3.0 dataset supplemented with the BLM 2023 Surface Management Agency dataset. 

We present brief descriptions of all 

units, and reasons why they meet the 

definition of critical habitat for the 

Canada lynx DPS below. 

Unit 3: Northern Rockies 

Unit 3 consists of 7,959 mi2 (20,613 

km2) located in northwestern Montana 

in portions of Flathead, Glacier, Granite, 

Lake, Lewis and Clark, Lincoln, 

Mineral, Missoula, Pondera, Powell, 

Ravalli, and Teton Counties and 

northern and east-central Idaho in 

portions of Bonner, Boundary, 

Clearwater, and Idaho Counties. The 

current proposal represents a 1,808-mi2

(4,683-km2) reduction in the 2014 

designation for this unit, although it 

includes new areas of proposed critical 

habitat in northern Idaho and along the 

central Idaho-Montana border. This unit 

was occupied by lynx at the time of 

listing and is currently occupied by the 

species. Lynx are known to be widely 

distributed throughout this unit and 

breeding has been documented in 

multiple locations. This unit supports a 

resident population thought by lynx 

researchers to number between 200 and 

300 lynx (Lynx SSA Team 2016, p. 41). 

This unit is directly connected to lynx 

habitats and populations in 

southwestern Alberta and southeastern 

British Columbia, Canada. Lynx in this 

unit represent the southern extent of a 

larger cross-border population, most of 

which occurs in Western Canada. 

Land ownership within the unit is 90 

percent Federal, 4 percent State, 3 

percent Tribal, and 3 percent private. 

Federal lands in this unit include 

National Forest System lands within the 

Kootenai, Flathead, Lolo, and HelenaLewis and Clark National Forests in 

Montana and the Idaho Panhandle 

National Forest and the Clearwater 

portion of the Nez Perce-Clearwater 

National Forest in Idaho; National Park 

Service lands in Glacier National Park; 

and BLM lands in the Garnet Resource 

Area. State lands in this unit include 

areas managed by the Montana 

Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation; Montana Fish, Wildlife, 

and Parks; and the Idaho Department of 

Lands. Tribal lands within this unit 

include parts of the Confederated Salish 

and Kootenai Tribes Flathead 

Reservation and the Blackfeet 

Reservation, both in Montana. State and 

Tribal lands in this unit are included in 

the proposed critical habitat designation 

but will be considered for exclusion in 

accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act and some or all may be excluded 

from the final designation. 

The physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

Canada lynx in this unit may require 

special management considerations or 

protection to address activities that may 

result in removal or reduction of boreal/ 

subalpine forest conditions that support 

Canada lynx and snowshoe hares. Such 

activities may include, but are not 

limited to road construction and 

maintenance, and commercial, 

recreational, and energy/mineral 

development, when they remove or 

reduce boreal forest in a manner that 

impacts snowshoe hare densities, the 

size of suitable habitat patches to 

support breeding lynx populations, and 

permeability of landscapes for lynx 

daily movements and dispersal in this 

unit. Climate change is expected to 

negatively impact the duration of deep 

fluffy snow conditions favorable to lynx 

in this unit over time. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules 94665 

Unit 4: North Cascades 

Unit 4 consists of 2,354 mi2 (6,097 

km2) located in north-central 

Washington in portions of northern 

Chelan, Okanogan, and eastern Skagit 

and Whatcom Counties. The current 

proposal represents a 520-mi2 (1,346- 

km2) increase from the 2014 designation 

for this unit. This unit was occupied by 

lynx at the time of listing and is 

currently occupied by the species. Lynx 

are known to be distributed throughout 

much of this unit and breeding has been 

documented. The Service estimates that 

this unit is potentially capable of 

supporting a resident population of 90– 

120 lynx, but extensive large wildfires 

in roughly half of lynx habitat over the 

past 15–20 years are thought to have 

reduced its carrying capacity 

commensurately (but perhaps 

temporarily). Nonetheless, a systematic 

lynx DNA collection effort between 

2018 to 2023 documented 73 individual 

lynx in north central Washington (Akins 

and Ransom 2024, pers. comm.). This 

unit is directly connected to lynx 

habitats and populations in southern 

British Columbia, Canada, and lynx in 

this unit represent the southern extent 

of a larger cross-border population, most 

of which occurs in Western Canada. 

Land ownership within the unit is 93 

percent Federal and 7 percent State, 

with small parcels of private lands that 

represent less than one-half of 1 percent 

of the unit. Federal lands include 1,732 

mi2 (4,485 km2) within the OkanoganWenatchee National Forest and 117 mi2

(303 km2) of North Cascades National 

Park. It also includes 39 mi2 (100 km2) 

of State Forest lands within the Loomis 

Natural Resources Conservation Area, 

which is managed by the Washington 

Department of Natural Resources. We 

excluded these State Forest lands from 

previous critical habitat designations 

and will again consider them for 

exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act. 

The physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

Canada lynx in this unit may require 

special management considerations or 

protection to address activities that may 

result in removal or reduction of boreal/ 

subalpine forest conditions that support 

Canada lynx and snowshoe hares. Such 

activities may include, but are not 

limited to extensive, high-intensity 

wildfires, road construction and 

maintenance, and commercial, 

recreational, and energy/mineral 

development, when they remove or 

reduce boreal forest in a manner that 

impacts snowshoe hare densities, the 

size of suitable habitat patches to 

support breeding lynx populations, and 

permeability of landscapes for lynx 

daily movements and dispersal in this 

unit. Climate change is expected to 

negatively impact the duration of deep 

fluffy snow conditions favorable to lynx 

in this unit over time. 

Unit 5: Greater Yellowstone Area 

Unit 5 consists of 1,121 mi2 (2,902 

km2) located in west-central and 

northwestern Wyoming in portions of 

Fremont, Lincoln, Sublette, and Teton 

Counties. The current proposal 

represents an 8,025-mi2 (20,785-km2) 

reduction from the 2014 designation for 

this unit. Previous research documented 

very low snowshoe hare densities 

throughout much of the Greater 

Yellowstone Area (GYA) (Hodges et al. 

2009, entire), but with small pockets of 

habitat on the Bridger-Teton National 

Forest in the southern part of the GYA 

supporting high hare densities (Berg et 

al. 2012, p. 1483). Recent habitat 

modeling that is foundational to this 

critical habitat revision (Olson et al. 

2021, entire) demonstrated that most of 

the GYA, including areas previously 

designated as lynx critical habitat, does 

not contain the physical and biological 

features necessary to support persistent 

lynx residency. This unit was occupied 

at the time of listing and occasional lynx 

occurrence has been documented since 

then. It is uncertain whether this unit 

historically supported a small resident 

population or if lynx presence and 

reproduction were and are naturally 

ephemeral and intermittent. The area 

currently does not appear to support a 

resident breeding population. 

Based on home range sizes and lynx 

densities estimated elsewhere in the 

western part of the DPS range (Montana, 

Washington, Colorado), the Service 

estimates that this unit could potentially 

support a population of 25–50 lynx if 

sufficient habitat conditions and hare 

densities could be achieved and 

maintained, and a resident lynx 

population is established via 

translocation. This unit is not directly 

connected to lynx habitats and 

populations elsewhere in the DPS range 

or in the core of the species’ range in 

Western Canada. However, historical 

records suggest that dispersing lynx 

associated with cyclic irruptions of lynx 

from Canada into the northern 

contiguous United States occasionally 

reached the GYA (McKelvey et al. 

2000a, pp. 229–230). Additionally, at 

least nine radio-marked lynx released in 

Colorado subsequently moved into or 

through the GYA unit in the period 

1999–2010, with several establishing 

temporary residency in the area 

proposed for critical habitat designation 

(Ivan 2017, entire). 

Land ownership within the unit is 

more than 99 percent Federal and 

includes small (less than 4 mi2 (10 km2) 

parcels of private and State lands; there 

are no Tribal lands. Most of this unit 

occurs within the Bridger-Teton 

National Forest, with a smaller area in 

the Shoshone National Forest and 

several small parcels of BLM lands 

managed by the Kemmerer and Pinedale 

Field Offices. 

The physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

Canada lynx in this unit may require 

special management considerations or 

protection to address activities that may 

result in removal or reduction of boreal/ 

subalpine forest conditions that support 

Canada lynx and snowshoe hares. Such 

activities may include, but are not 

limited to road construction and 

maintenance, and commercial, 

recreational, and energy/mineral 

development, when they remove or 

reduce boreal forest in a manner that 

impacts snowshoe hare densities, the 

size of suitable habitat patches to 

support breeding lynx populations, and 

permeability of landscapes for lynx 

daily movements and dispersal in this 

unit. Climate change is expected to 

negatively impact the duration of deep 

fluffy snow conditions favorable to lynx 

in this unit over time. 

Unit 6: Southern Rockies 

Unit 6 consists of 7,679 mi2 (19,889 

km2) located in west-central and 

southwestern Colorado in portions of 

Archuleta, Boulder, Chaffee, Clear 

Creek, Conejos, Dolores, Eagle, Gilpin, 

Grand, Gunnison, Hinsdale, La Plata, 

Lake, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, 

Ouray, Park, Pitkin, Rio Grande, 

Saguache, San Juan, San Miguel, and 

Summit Counties, and northern New 

Mexico in portions of Rio Arriba 

County. Critical habitat was not 

previously designated in the Southern 

Rockies. At the time of listing, this unit 

was occupied by lynx translocated from 

Canada and Alaska and it is currently 

occupied by the descendants of those 

released lynx. It is uncertain whether 

this unit historically supported a 

resident population or if lynx presence 

was naturally ephemeral and 

intermittent. 

The area currently supports a resident 

breeding population that is the result of 

the State of Colorado’s Canada Lynx 

Reintroduction Program, which 

included the 1999–2006 translocations 

of 218 lynx from Canada and Alaska 

into the San Juan Mountains in 

southwestern Colorado, with continued 

lynx occurrence and reproduction 

documented annually since then. Lynx 

researchers with Colorado Parks and 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
94666 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Wildlife estimate the current size of the 

population at 75–150 resident lynx. 

This unit is not directly connected to 

lynx habitats and populations elsewhere 

in the DPS range or in the core of the 

species’ range in western Canada. 

However, historical records suggest that 

dispersing lynx associated with cyclic 

irruptions of lynx from Canada into the 

northern contiguous United States 

occasionally reached the Southern 

Rockies. Some of the lynx released into 

Colorado dispersed into surrounding 

States, with some traveling north into 

the GYA, Montana and Idaho. 

Land ownership within the unit is 

almost 89 percent Federal, almost 9 

percent private, 1 percent State, and less 

than 1 percent Tribal and local 

government. Most (96 percent of) 

Federal lands occur on national forests, 

including the Arapaho, Gunnison, Pike, 

Rio Grande, Roosevelt, San Isabel, San 

Juan, Uncompahgre, and White River 

National Forests in Colorado, and the 

Carson National Forest in New Mexico. 

The remaining 4 percent of Federal 

lands occur on BLM lands, mostly those 

managed by the Gunnison Field Office 

with smaller parcels managed by the 

Kremmling, Royal Gorge, and 

Uncompahgre field offices, and smaller 

parcels of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and Bureau of Reclamation lands. Less 

than 1 percent of this unit includes OffReservation Tribal Trust lands of the 

Jicarilla Apache Nation in northern New 

Mexico. Tribal lands will be considered 

for exclusion in accordance with section 

4(b)(2) of the Act and some or all may 

be excluded from the final designation. 

It also includes small parcels of State 

and local government lands which, 

combined, represent less than one-half 

of 1 percent of the proposed critical 

habitat designation. 

The physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

Canada lynx in this unit may require 

special management considerations or 

protection to address activities that may 

result in removal or reduction of boreal/ 

subalpine forest conditions that support 

Canada lynx and snowshoe hares. Such 

activities may include, but are not 

limited to road construction and 

maintenance, and commercial, 

recreational, and energy/mineral 

development, when they remove or 

reduce boreal forest in a manner that 

impacts snowshoe hare densities, the 

size of suitable habitat patches to 

support breeding lynx populations, and 

permeability of landscapes for lynx 

daily movements and dispersal in this 

unit. Climate change is expected to 

negatively impact the duration of deep 

fluffy snow conditions favorable to lynx 

in this unit over time. 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to ensure that any action they authorize, 

fund, or carry out is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any endangered species or threatened 

species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of designated 

critical habitat of such species. In 

addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act 

requires Federal agencies to confer with 

the Service on any agency action which 

is likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any species proposed to be 

listed under the Act or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat. 

Destruction or adverse modification 

means a direct or indirect alteration that 

appreciably diminishes the value of 

critical habitat as a whole for the 

conservation of a listed species (50 CFR 

402.02). 

Compliance with the requirements of 

section 7(a)(2) is documented through 

our issuance of: 

(1) A concurrence letter for Federal 

actions that may affect, but are not 

likely to adversely affect, listed species 

or critical habitat; or 

(2) A biological opinion for Federal 

actions that may affect, and are likely to 

adversely affect, listed species or critical 

habitat. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species and/or destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat, we 

provide reasonable and prudent 

alternatives to the project, if any are 

identifiable, that would avoid the 

likelihood of jeopardy and/or 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. We define ‘‘reasonable 

and prudent alternatives’’ (at 50 CFR 

402.02) as alternative actions identified 

during formal consultation that: 

(1) Can be implemented in a manner 

consistent with the intended purpose of 

the action, 

(2) Can be implemented consistent 

with the scope of the Federal agency’s 

legal authority and jurisdiction, 

(3) Are economically and 

technologically feasible, and 

(4) Would, in the Service Director’s 

opinion, avoid the likelihood of 

jeopardizing the continued existence of 

the listed species or avoid the likelihood 

of destroying or adversely modifying 

critical habitat. 

Reasonable and prudent alternatives 

can vary from slight project 

modifications to extensive redesign or 

relocation of the project. Costs 

associated with implementing a 

reasonable and prudent alternative are 

similarly variable. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth 

requirements for Federal agencies to 

reinitiate consultation. Reinitiation of 

consultation is required and shall be 

requested by the Federal agency, where 

discretionary Federal involvement or 

control over the action has been 

retained or is authorized by law and: (1) 

If the amount or extent of taking 

specified in the incidental take 

statement is exceeded; (2) if new 

information reveals effects of the action 

that may affect listed species or critical 

habitat in a manner or to an extent not 

previously considered; (3) if the 

identified action is subsequently 

modified in a manner that causes an 

effect to the listed species or critical 

habitat that was not considered in the 

biological opinion or written 

concurrence; or (4) if a new species is 

listed or critical habitat designated that 

may be affected by the identified action. 

As provided in 50 CFR 402.16, the 

requirement to reinitiate consultations 

for new species listings or critical 

habitat designation does not apply to 

certain agency actions (e.g., land 

management plans issued by the BLM in 

certain circumstances). 

Destruction or Adverse Modification of 

Critical Habitat 

The key factor related to the 

destruction or adverse modification 

determination is whether 

implementation of the proposed Federal 

action directly or indirectly alters the 

designated critical habitat in a way that 

appreciably diminishes the value of the 

critical habitat for the conservation of 

the listed species. As discussed above, 

the role of critical habitat is to support 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of a listed species 

and provide for the conservation of the 

species. 

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires that 

our Federal Register documents ‘‘shall, 

to the maximum extent practicable also 

include a brief description and 

evaluation of those activities (whether 

public or private) which, in the opinion 

of the Secretary, if undertaken may 

adversely modify [critical] habitat, or 

may be affected by such designation.’’ 

Activities that may be affected by 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Canada lynx include those that may 

affect the physical or biological features 

of the Canada lynx’ critical habitat (see 

Physical or Biological Features Essential 

to the Conservation of the Species). 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules 94667 

Exemptions 

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act 

Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) provides that the 

Secretary shall not designate as critical 

habitat any lands or other geographical 

areas owned or controlled by the 

Department of Defense (DoD), or 

designated for its use, that are subject to 

an integrated natural resources 

management plan (INRMP) prepared 

under section 101 of the Sikes Act 

Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 

670a), if the Secretary determines in 

writing that such plan provides a benefit 

to the species for which critical habitat 

is proposed for designation. No DoD 

lands with a completed INRMP are 

within the proposed critical habitat 

designation. 

Consideration of Impacts Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that 

the Secretary shall designate and make 

revisions to critical habitat on the basis 

of the best available scientific data after 

taking into consideration the economic 

impact, national security impact, and 

any other relevant impact of specifying 

any particular area as critical habitat. 

The Secretary may exclude any area 

from critical habitat if the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh those of inclusion, 

so long as exclusion will not result in 

extinction of the species concerned. 

Exclusion decisions are governed by the 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.19 and the 

Policy Regarding Implementation of 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act (hereafter, the ‘‘2016 

Policy’’; 81 FR 7226, February 11, 2016), 

both of which were developed jointly 

with the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS). We also refer to a 2008 

Department of the Interior Solicitor’s 

opinion entitled ‘‘The Secretary’s 

Authority to Exclude Areas from a 

Critical Habitat Designation under 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act’’ (M–37016). 

In considering whether to exclude a 

particular area from the designation, we 

identify the benefits of including the 

area in the designation, identify the 

benefits of excluding the area from the 

designation, and evaluate whether the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion. If the analysis 

indicates that the benefits of exclusion 

outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the 

Secretary may exercise discretion to 

exclude the area only if such exclusion 

would not result in the extinction of the 

species. In making the determination to 

exclude a particular area, the statute on 

its face, as well as the legislative history, 

are clear that the Secretary has broad 

discretion regarding which factor(s) to 

use and how much weight to give to any 

factor. In our final rules, we explain any 

decision to exclude areas, as well as 

decisions not to exclude, to make clear 

the rational basis for our decision. We 

describe below the process that we use 

for taking into consideration each 

category of impacts and any initial 

analyses of the relevant impacts. 

Consideration of Economic Impacts 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its 

implementing regulations require that 

we consider the economic impact that 

may result from a designation of critical 

habitat. To assess the probable 

economic impacts of a designation, we 

must first evaluate specific land uses or 

activities and projects that may occur in 

the area of the critical habitat. We then 

must evaluate the impacts that a specific 

critical habitat designation may have on 

restricting or modifying specific land 

uses or activities for the benefit of the 

species and its habitat within the areas 

proposed. We then identify which 

conservation efforts may be the result of 

the species being listed under the Act 

versus those attributed solely to the 

designation of critical habitat for this 

particular species. The probable 

economic impact of a proposed critical 

habitat designation is analyzed by 

comparing scenarios both ‘‘with critical 

habitat’’ and ‘‘without critical habitat.’’ 

The ‘‘without critical habitat’’ 

scenario represents the baseline for the 

analysis, which includes the existing 

regulatory and socio-economic burden 

imposed on landowners, managers, or 

other resource users potentially affected 

by the designation of critical habitat 

(e.g., under the Federal listing as well as 

other Federal, State, and local 

regulations). Therefore, the baseline 

represents the costs of all efforts 

attributable to the listing of the species 

under the Act (i.e., conservation of the 

species and its habitat incurred 

regardless of whether critical habitat is 

designated). The ‘‘with critical habitat’’ 

scenario describes the incremental 

impacts associated specifically with the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

species. The incremental conservation 

efforts and associated impacts would 

not be expected without the designation 

of critical habitat for the species. In 

other words, the incremental costs are 

those attributable solely to the 

designation of critical habitat, above and 

beyond the baseline costs. These are the 

costs we use when evaluating the 

benefits of inclusion and exclusion of 

particular areas from the final 

designation of critical habitat should we 

choose to conduct a discretionary 

4(b)(2) exclusion analysis. 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and E.O. 

13563 direct Federal agencies to assess 

the costs and benefits of available 

regulatory alternatives in quantitative 

(to the extent feasible) and qualitative 

terms. Consistent with these E.O. 

regulatory analysis requirements, our 

effects analysis under the Act may take 

into consideration impacts to both 

directly and indirectly affected entities, 

where practicable and reasonable. If 

sufficient data are available, we assess 

to the extent practicable the probable 

impacts to both directly and indirectly 

affected entities. To determine whether 

the designation of critical habitat may 

have an economic effect of $200 million 

or more in any given year (which would 

trigger section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866, as 

amended by E.O. 14094), we used a 

screening analysis to assess whether a 

revised designation of critical habitat for 

the Canada lynx DPS is likely to exceed 

this threshold. 

For this particular designation, we 

developed an incremental effects 

memorandum (IEM) considering the 

probable incremental economic impacts 

that may result from this proposed 

designation of critical habitat. The 

information contained in our IEM was 

then used to develop a screening 

analysis of the probable effects of the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Canada lynx DPS (Industrial Economics, 

Inc. (IEc) 2024, entire). We began by 

conducting a screening analysis of the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

in order to focus our analysis on the key 

factors that are likely to result in 

incremental economic impacts. The 

purpose of the screening analysis is to 

filter out particular geographical areas of 

critical habitat that are already subject 

to such protections and are, therefore, 

unlikely to incur incremental economic 

impacts. In particular, the screening 

analysis considers baseline costs (i.e., 

absent critical habitat designation) and 

includes any probable incremental 

economic impacts where land and water 

use may already be subject to 

conservation plans, land management 

plans, best management practices, or 

regulations that protect the habitat area 

as a result of the Federal listing status 

of the species. Ultimately, the screening 

analysis allows us to focus our analysis 

on evaluating the specific areas or 

sectors that may incur probable 

incremental economic impacts as a 

result of the designation. 

The presence of the listed species in 

occupied areas of critical habitat means 

that any destruction or adverse 

modification of those areas is also likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

the species. Therefore, designating 

occupied areas as critical habitat 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
94668 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

typically causes little if any incremental 

impacts above and beyond the impacts 

of listing the species. As a result, we 

generally focus the screening analysis 

on areas of unoccupied critical habitat 

(unoccupied units or unoccupied areas 

within occupied units). 

Overall, the screening analysis 

assesses whether designation of critical 

habitat is likely to result in any 

additional management or conservation 

efforts that may incur incremental 

economic impacts. This screening 

analysis combined with the information 

contained in our IEM constitute what 

we consider to be our economic analysis 

of the proposed critical habitat 

designation for the Canada lynx DPS 

and is summarized in the narrative 

below. 

As part of our screening analysis, we 

considered the types of economic 

activities that are likely to occur within 

the areas likely affected by the proposed 

critical habitat designations. In our 

evaluation of the probable incremental 

economic impacts that may result from 

the proposed designation of critical 

habitat for the Canada lynx, first we 

identified, in the IEM dated May 31, 

2024, probable incremental economic 

impacts associated with the following 

categories of activities: (1) timber 

harvest; (2) silviculture; (3) wildfire 

response and management; (4) fuels 

reduction; (5) recreation management; 

(6) domestic livestock grazing; (7) 

infrastructure/facilities maintenance/ 

development; and (8) residential 

development/construction. We 

considered each industry or category 

individually. Additionally, we 

considered whether their activities have 

any Federal involvement. Critical 

habitat designation generally will not 

affect activities that do not have any 

Federal involvement; under the Act, 

designation of critical habitat affects 

only activities conducted, funded, 

permitted, or authorized by Federal 

agencies. Because the species is listed, 

in areas where the Canada lynx is 

present, Federal agencies are required to 

consult with the Service under section 

7 of the Act on activities they authorize, 

fund, or carry out that may affect the 

species. If when we finalize this 

proposed critical habitat designation, 

Federal agencies would be required to 

consider the effects of their actions on 

the designated habitat, and if the 

Federal action may affect critical 

habitat, our consultations would 

include an evaluation of measures to 

avoid the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

In our IEM, we attempted to clarify 

the distinction between the effects that 

would result from the species being 

listed and those attributable to the 

critical habitat designation (i.e., 

difference between the jeopardy and 

adverse modification standards) for the 

Canada lynx’s critical habitat. Because 

this species has been listed since 2000 

and critical habitat has been designated 

since 2006, we have a long consultation 

history to inform this distinction. The 

following specific circumstances in this 

case help to inform our evaluation: (1) 

The essential physical or biological 

features identified for critical habitat are 

the same features essential for the life 

requisites of the species, and (2) any 

actions that would likely adversely 

affect the essential physical or biological 

features of occupied critical habitat are 

also likely to adversely affect the species 

itself. The IEM outlines our rationale 

concerning this limited distinction 

between baseline conservation efforts 

and incremental impacts of the revision 

and designation of critical habitat for 

this species. This evaluation of the 

incremental effects has been used as the 

basis to evaluate the probable 

incremental economic impacts of this 

proposed designation of critical habitat. 

The proposed revised critical habitat 

designation for the Canada lynx DPS in 

the Western United States includes 

approximately 19,112 mi2 (49,500 km2) 

in four occupied critical habitat units in 

Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, 

Washington, and Wyoming. This 

proposed revision results in an 

approximately 1,650-mi2 (4,274-km2) 

reduction from the 2014 critical habitat 

designation in the Western United 

States. Land ownership is 

approximately 91 percent Federal, 5 

percent private, 3 percent State, 1 

percent Tribal, and less than 1 percent 

other. This rule makes no updates to 

existing critical habitat in Maine and 

Minnesota; therefore, the economic 

analysis does not consider the effects of 

critical habitat in those States. 

The incremental effects of revising 

critical habitat for the Canada lynx are 

likely to be limited to changes in 

administrative effort to evaluate the 

potential for adverse modification of 

Canda lynx critical habitat. The entities 

most likely to incur incremental costs 

are parties to section 7 consultations, 

including Federal action agencies and, 

in some cases, third parties, most 

frequently State agencies or 

municipalities. This analysis finds that 

administrative costs and cost savings are 

on the order of $66,000 and $47,000 

respectively, in a given year (2024 

dollars). The expected net effect of 

revising critical habitat for the Canada 

lynx is a $19,000 increase in 

administrative costs per year. Thus, this 

analysis finds that despite a net 

reduction in the size of critical habitat 

for the species, the costs of critical 

habitat are expected to increase given 

the geographic representation of 

consultations across the new and 

removed areas. Incremental economic 

benefits and forgone benefits are not 

anticipated. Therefore, the rule is 

unlikely to meet the threshold for a 

significant rule as defined in section 

3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866, as amended by 

E.O. 14094. 

This finding is based on several 

factors, including: 

• No change in costs of complying 

with critical habitat in existing critical 

habitat that is included in the proposed 

revised critical habitat. 

• The proposed units are considered 

occupied by the Canada lynx, and 

occupied units are afforded significant 

baseline protection under the Act due to 

the presence of the listed species. 

• All projects with a Federal nexus 

would be subject to section 7 

consultation regardless of the 

designation of critical habitat due to the 

presence of the listed species. 

• Critical habitat is not likely to 

change the Service’s recommendation 

for project modifications as part of 

future consultations considering the 

Canada lynx. 

• The Canada lynx receives 

additional baseline protection from cooccurring listed species, which include 

species with overlapping critical habitat 

and similar resource and habitat needs. 

Our analysis finds that the proposed 

revised critical habitat for the Canada 

lynx is unlikely to result in economic 

impacts that exceed $200 million in any 

single year; therefore, they would not be 

significant. The incremental effects 

resulting from the proposed critical 

habitat for the Canada lynx are subject 

to uncertainty due to limited 

information on what future projects may 

require section 7 consultation that 

considers Canada lynx habitat. 

However, the focus of the screening 

analysis is on the likelihood that this 

proposed rule is economically 

significant. It is unlikely that additional 

data gathering and analysis to address 

uncertainty would change the findings 

of this analysis. 

We are soliciting data and comments 

from the public on the economic 

analysis discussed above. During the 

development of a final designation, we 

will consider the information presented 

in the economic analysis and any 

additional information on economic 

impacts we receive during the public 

comment period to determine whether 

any specific areas should be excluded 

from the final critical habitat 

designation under authority of section 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules 94669 

4(b)(2), our implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 424.19, and the 2016 Policy. We 

may exclude an area from critical 

habitat if we determine that the benefits 

of excluding the area outweigh the 

benefits of including the area, provided 

the exclusion will not result in the 

extinction of this species. 

Consideration of National Security 

Impacts 

Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act may 

not cover all DoD lands or areas that 

pose potential national-security 

concerns (e.g., a DoD installation that is 

in the process of revising its INRMP for 

a newly listed species or a species 

previously not covered). If a particular 

area is not covered under section 

4(a)(3)(B)(i), then national-security or 

homeland-security concerns are not a 

factor in the process of determining 

what areas meet the definition of 

‘‘critical habitat.’’ However, we must 

still consider impacts on national 

security, including homeland security, 

on those lands or areas not covered by 

section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) because section 

4(b)(2) requires us to consider those 

impacts whenever it designates critical 

habitat. Accordingly, if DoD, 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS), or another Federal agency has 

requested exclusion based on an 

assertion of national-security or 

homeland-security concerns, or we have 

otherwise identified national-security or 

homeland-security impacts from 

designating particular areas as critical 

habitat, we generally have reason to 

consider excluding those areas. 

However, we cannot automatically 

exclude requested areas. When DoD, 

DHS, or another Federal agency requests 

exclusion from critical habitat on the 

basis of national-security or homelandsecurity impacts, we must conduct an 

exclusion analysis if the Federal 

requester provides information, 

including a reasonably specific 

justification of an incremental impact 

on national security that would result 

from the designation of that specific 

area as critical habitat. That justification 

could include demonstration of 

probable impacts, such as impacts to 

ongoing border-security patrols and 

surveillance activities, or a delay in 

training or facility construction, as a 

result of compliance with section 7(a)(2) 

of the Act. If the agency requesting the 

exclusion does not provide us with a 

reasonably specific justification, we will 

contact the agency to recommend that it 

provide a specific justification or 

clarification of its concerns relative to 

the probable incremental impact that 

could result from the designation. If we 

conduct an exclusion analysis because 

the agency provides a reasonably 

specific justification or because we 

decide to exercise the discretion to 

conduct an exclusion analysis, we will 

defer to the expert judgment of DoD, 

DHS, or another Federal agency as to: 

(1) Whether activities on its lands or 

waters, or its activities on other lands or 

waters, have national-security or 

homeland-security implications; (2) the 

importance of those implications; and 

(3) the degree to which the cited 

implications would be adversely 

affected in the absence of an exclusion. 

In that circumstance, in conducting a 

discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion 

analysis, we will give great weight to 

national-security and homeland-security 

concerns in analyzing the benefits of 

exclusion. 

In preparing this proposal, we have 

determined that the lands within the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for the Canada lynx DPS are not owned 

or managed by the DoD or DHS, and, 

therefore, we anticipate no impact on 

national security or homeland security. 

Consideration of Other Relevant 

Impacts 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

consider any other relevant impacts, in 

addition to economic impacts and 

impacts on national security discussed 

above. To identify other relevant 

impacts that may affect the exclusion 

analysis, we consider a number of 

factors, including whether there are 

approved and permitted conservation 

agreements or plans covering the 

species in the area—such as safe harbor 

agreements (SHAs), candidate 

conservation agreements with 

assurances (CCAAs) or ‘‘conservation 

benefit agreement’’ or ‘‘conservation 

agreement’’ (CBAs) (CBAs are a new 

type of agreement replacing SHAs and 

CCAAs in use after April 2024 (89 FR 

26070; April 12, 2024)) or HCPs, or 

whether there are non-permitted 

conservation agreements and 

partnerships that may be impaired by 

designation of, or exclusion from, 

critical habitat. In addition, we look at 

whether Tribal conservation plans or 

partnerships, Tribal resources, or 

government-to-government 

relationships of the United States with 

Tribal entities may be affected by the 

designation. We also consider any State, 

local, social, or other impacts that might 

occur because of the designation. 

When analyzing other relevant 

impacts of including a particular area in 

a designation of critical habitat, we 

weigh those impacts relative to the 

conservation value of the particular 

area. To determine the conservation 

value of designating a particular area, 

we consider a number of factors, 

including, but not limited to, the 

additional regulatory benefits that the 

area would receive due to the protection 

from destruction or adverse 

modification as a result of actions with 

a Federal nexus, the educational 

benefits of mapping essential habitat for 

recovery of the listed species, and any 

benefits that may result from a 

designation due to State or Federal laws 

that may apply to critical habitat. 

In the case of the Canada lynx, the 

benefits of critical habitat include 

public awareness of the presence of 

Canada lynx and the importance of 

habitat protection, and, where a Federal 

nexus exists, increased habitat 

protection for Canada lynx due to 

protection from destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

Continued implementation of an 

ongoing management plan that provides 

conservation equal to or more than the 

protections that result from a critical 

habitat designation would reduce those 

benefits of including that specific area 

in the critical habitat designation. 

After identifying the benefits of 

inclusion and the benefits of exclusion, 

we carefully weigh the two sides to 

evaluate whether the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. 

If our analysis indicates that the benefits 

of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion, we then determine whether 

exclusion would result in extinction of 

the species. If exclusion of an area from 

critical habitat will result in extinction, 

we will not exclude it from the 

designation. 

Private or Other Non-Federal 

Conservation Plans or Agreements 

Associated With Permits Under Section 

10 of the Act 

As mentioned above, as part of our 

section 4(b)(2) analysis, we consider 

whether there are approved and 

permitted conservation agreements or 

plans covering the species in the area 

such as SHAs, CCAAs, CBAs or HCPs. 

Under sections 10(a)(1)(A) and 

10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, non-Federal 

entities may develop these agreements 

or plans when they seek authorization 

for take that may otherwise be 

prohibited under section 9 through an 

enhancement of survival (EOS) or 

incidental take permit (ITP), 

respectively. 

Property owners seeking an EOS 

permit collaborate with the Service to 

develop a CBA to support the 

application. The EOS permit authorizes 

take associated with implementing the 

agreement and ongoing land 

management activities that provide a net 

conservation benefit to the covered 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
94670 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

species. The CBA replaces two previous 

types of voluntary agreements (SHAs 

and CCAAs) going forward for new 

agreements after May 2024. However, 

permitted SHAs and CCAAs or those 

noticed in the Federal Register prior to 

May 2024 remain in effect. 

For incidental take permits issued 

under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 

applicants are required to develop a 

conservation plan, more commonly 

known as an HCP, to support their 

application. ITPs authorize take that is 

incidental to, but not the purpose of, 

carrying out otherwise lawful activities 

provided that the impact of the taking 

is minimized and mitigated to the 

maximum extent practicable. 

For both section 10(a)(1)(A) and 

10(a)(1)(B) permits, we provide 

permittees with assurances. In the case 

of section 10(a)(1)(A) permits, we may 

not require additional or different 

conservation measures to be undertaken 

by a permittee without the consent of 

the permittee. In the case of section 

10(a)(1)(B), we will not impose further 

land-, water-, or resource-use 

restrictions, or require additional 

commitments of land, water, or 

finances, beyond those agreed to in the 

HCP. 

We place great value on the 

partnerships that are developed during 

the preparation and implementation of 

conservation plans and agreements. In 

some cases, permittees agree to do more 

for the conservation of the species and 

their habitats on private lands than 

designation of critical habitat would 

provide alone. 

When we undertake a discretionary 

section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis based 

on conservation plans or agreements, we 

anticipate consistently excluding such 

areas if incidental take caused by the 

activities in those areas is covered by 

the permit under section 10 of the Act 

and the plan meets all of the following 

three factors: 

a. The permittee is properly 

implementing the CCAA/SHA/HCP and 

is expected to continue to do so for the 

term of the agreement. A CCAA/SHA/ 

HCP is properly implemented if the 

permittee is and has been fully 

implementing the commitments and 

provisions in the CCAA/SHA/HCP, 

implementing agreement, and permit. 

b. The species for which critical 

habitat is being designated is a covered 

species in the CCAA/SHA/HCP, or very 

similar in its habitat requirements to a 

covered species. The recognition that 

the Services extend to such an 

agreement depends on the degree to 

which the conservation measures 

undertaken in the CCAA/SHA/HCP 

would also protect the habitat features 

of the similar species. 

c. The CCAA/SHA/HCP specifically 

addresses that species’ habitat and 

meets the conservation needs of the 

species in the planning area. 

See the 2016 Policy for additional 

details. Because combining types of 

agreements such as SHAs and CCAAs 

into the term ‘‘CBAs’’ is a recent 

development (89 FR 26070; April 12, 

2024), the 2016 Policy did not expressly 

reference CBAs. However, because 

CBAs replace CCAAs and SHAs moving 

forward we treat CBAs similarly to how 

we treat CCAAs/SHAs/HCPs described 

above. 

The proposed critical habitat 

designation includes areas that are 

covered by the following permitted plan 

providing for the conservation of the 

Canada lynx: Montana Department of 

Natural Resources and Conservation 

(DNRC) Forested State Trust Lands 

Habitat Conservation Plan. After 

considering the factors described above, 

we have identified 159 mi2 (413 km2) 

that we have reason to consider 

excluding because of this permitted 

plan. We describe below our reasons for 

considering these areas for potential 

exclusion. 

State of Montana Department of Natural 

Resources and Conservation Forested 

State Trust Lands Habitat Conservation 

Plan (DNRC HCP) 

The Montana DNRC multi-species 

HCP includes a lynx conservation 

strategy that minimizes impacts of forest 

management activities on lynx, 

complements lynx conservation 

objectives set forth in the States’ 

comprehensive fish and wildlife 

conservation strategy (Montana 

Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks 

2005, entire), and describes 

conservation commitments that are 

based on recent information from lynx 

research in Montana (Montana DNRC 

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2010, pp. 2–45–2–61). It also commits to 

active lynx monitoring and adaptive 

management programs (Montana DNRC 

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2010, pp. 4–27–4–37). The Montana 

DNRC worked closely with the Service 

in developing and completing a 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) analysis on this multi-species 

HCP (Montana DNRC and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2010, entire). 

In our biological opinion regarding 

potential impacts to lynx of 

implementation of this HCP, the Service 

concluded that the HCP promotes the 

conservation of lynx and their habitat 

through increased conservation 

commitments by [Montana] DNRC for 

forest management practices, 

maintenance of the habitat mosaic, 

structure, and components required to 

support lynx and their primary prey, the 

snowshoe hare, monitoring, and 

adaptive management (Service 2011, p. 

III–94). We determined that the 

proposed action is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

Canada lynx within the contiguous U.S. 

DPS and that forest management 

activities managed under the 

conservation commitments of the DNRC 

HCP would not appreciably reduce the 

likelihood of survival and recovery of 

Canada lynx (Service 2011, p. III–94). 

In the previous final revised critical 

habitat designation, published in the 

Federal Register on September 12, 2014 

(79 FR 54782), we determined that the 

benefits of excluding lands managed in 

accordance with the DNRC HCP 

outweighed the benefits of including 

them in the designation, and that doing 

so would not result in extinction of the 

species. We, therefore, again consider 

excluding 159 mi2 (413 km2) of forested 

State Trust lands managed in 

accordance with the DNRC HCP from 

the revised lynx critical habitat 

designation in Unit 3. However, in the 

final rule, we will again weigh the 

benefits of inclusion versus exclusion of 

these lands in the final critical habitat 

designation. 

Non-Permitted Conservation Plans, 

Agreements, or Partnerships 

We sometimes exclude specific areas 

from critical habitat designations based 

in part on the existence of private or 

other non-Federal conservation plans or 

agreements and their attendant 

partnerships. A conservation plan or 

agreement describes actions that are 

designed to provide for the conservation 

needs of a species and its habitat, and 

may include actions to reduce or 

mitigate negative effects on the species 

caused by activities on or adjacent to the 

area covered by the plan. Conservation 

plans or agreements can be developed 

by private entities with no Service 

involvement, or in partnership with the 

Service. 

Shown below is a non-exhaustive list 

of factors that we consider in evaluating 

how non-permitted plans or agreements 

affect the benefits of inclusion or 

exclusion. These are not required 

elements of plans or agreements. Rather, 

they are some of the factors we may 

consider, and not all of these factors 

apply to every plan or agreement. 

(i) The degree to which the record of 

the plan, or information provided by 

proponents of an exclusion, supports a 

conclusion that a critical habitat 

designation would impair the 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules 94671 

realization of the benefits expected from 

the plan, agreement, or partnership. 

(ii) The extent of public participation 

in the development of the conservation 

plan. 

(iii) The degree to which agency 

review and required determinations 

(e.g., State regulatory requirements) 

have been completed, as necessary and 

appropriate. 

(iv) Whether National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.) compliance was required. 

(v) The demonstrated implementation 

and success of the chosen mechanism. 

(vi) The degree to which the plan or 

agreement provides for the conservation 

of the essential physical or biological 

features for the species. 

(vii) Whether there is a reasonable 

expectation that the conservation 

management strategies and actions 

contained in a management plan or 

agreement will be implemented. 

(viii) Whether the plan or agreement 

contains a monitoring program and 

adaptive management to ensure that the 

conservation measures are effective and 

can be modified in the future in 

response to new information. 

The proposed critical habitat 

designation includes areas that are 

covered by the following non-permitted 

plan providing for the conservation of 

the Canada lynx: State of Washington 

Department of Natural Resources 

(WDNR) Lynx Habitat Management Plan 

for DNR-managed Lands (WDNR 

LHMP). After considering the factors 

described above, we have identified 168 

mi2 (435 km2) that we have reason to 

consider excluding because of this plan. 

We describe below our reasons for 

considering these areas for potential 

exclusion. 

State of Washington Department of 

Natural Resources Lynx Habitat 

Management Plan for DNR-Managed 

Lands (WDNR LHMP) 

The WDNR LHMP encompasses 197 

mi2 (510 km2) of WDNR-managed lands 

distributed throughout north-central 

and northeastern Washington in areas 

delineated as Lynx Management Zones 

in the Washington State Lynx Recovery 

Plan (Stinson 2001, p. 39; Washington 

DNR 2006, pp. 5–13). Of the area 

covered by the plan, 168 mi2 (435 km2) 

overlaps the area proposed for 

designation as critical habitat. The 

WDNR LHMP was finalized in 2006 and 

is a revision of the lynx plan that WDNR 

began implementing in 1996. The 1996 

plan was developed as a substitute for 

a species-specific critical habitat 

designation required by Washington 

Forest Practices rules in response to the 

lynx being State-listed as threatened 

(Washington DNR 2006, p. 5). The 2006 

WDNR LHMP provided further 

provisions to avoid the incidental take 

of lynx (Washington DNR 2006, p. 6). 

WDNR is committed to following the 

LHMP until 2076, or until the lynx is 

delisted (Washington DNR 2006, p. 6). 

WDNR requested that lands subject to 

the plan be excluded from previous 

critical habitat designation in 2014. 

The WDNR LHMP contains measures 

to guide WDNR in creating and 

preserving quality lynx habitat through 

its forest management activities. The 

objectives and strategies of the LHMP 

are developed for multiple planning 

scales (ecoprovince and ecodivision, 

lynx management zone, lynx analysis 

unit (LAU), and ecological community), 

and include: 

(1) Encouraging genetic integrity at 

the species level by preventing 

bottlenecks between British Columbia 

and Washington by limiting size and 

shape of temporary non-habitat along 

the border and maintaining major routes 

of dispersal between British Columbia 

and Washington; 

(2) Maintaining connectivity between 

subpopulations by maintaining 

dispersal routes between and within 

zones and arranging timber harvest 

activities that result in temporary nonhabitat patches among watersheds so 

that connectivity is maintained within 

each zone; 

(3) Maintaining the integrity of 

requisite habitat types within individual 

home ranges by maintaining 

connectivity between and integrity 

within home ranges used by individuals 

and/or family groups; and 

(4) Providing a diversity of 

successional stages within each LAU 

and connecting denning sites and 

foraging sites with forested cover 

without isolating them with open areas 

by prolonging the persistence of 

snowshoe hare habitat and retaining 

coarse woody debris for denning sites 

(Washington DNR 2006, p. 29). 

The LHMP identifies specific 

guidelines to achieve the objectives and 

strategies at each scale; it also describes 

how WDNR will monitor and evaluate 

the implementation and effectiveness of 

the LHMP by providing implementation 

monitoring reports to the Service and 

Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife every 2 years (Washington DNR 

2006, pp. 29–63). 

In both of the previous final revised 

critical habitat designations for lynx, 

published in the Federal Register on 

February 25, 2009 (74 FR 8616) and 

September 12, 2014 (79 FR 54782), we 

determined that the benefits of 

excluding lands managed in accordance 

with the WDNR LHMP outweighed the 

benefits of including them in the 

designation, and that doing so would 

not result in extinction of the species. 

We again consider excluding 168 mi2

(435 km2) of lands managed in 

accordance with the WDNR LHMP from 

the revised lynx critical habitat 

designation. However, in the final rule, 

we will again weigh the benefits of 

inclusion versus exclusion of these 

lands in the final critical habitat 

designation. 

Tribal Lands 

Several Executive Orders, Secretary’s 

Orders, and policies concern working 

with Tribes. These guidance documents 

generally confirm our trust 

responsibilities to Tribes, recognize that 

Tribes have sovereign authority to 

control Tribal lands, emphasize the 

importance of developing partnerships 

with Tribal governments, and direct the 

Service to consult with Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. 

A joint Secretary’s Order that applies 

to both the Service and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)— 

Secretary’s Order 3206, American 

Indian Tribal Rights, Federal–Tribal 

Trust Responsibilities, and the 

Endangered Species Act (June 5, 1997) 

(S.O. 3206)—is the most comprehensive 

of the various guidance documents 

related to Tribal relationships and Act 

implementation, and it provides the 

most detail directly relevant to the 

designation of critical habitat. In 

addition to the general direction 

discussed above, the Appendix to S.O. 

3206 explicitly recognizes the right of 

Tribes to participate fully in any listing 

process that may affect Tribal rights or 

Tribal trust resources; this includes the 

designation of critical habitat. Section 

3(B)(4) of the Appendix requires the 

Service to consult with affected Tribes 

when considering the designation of 

critical habitat in an area that may 

impact Tribal trust resources, Tribally 

owned fee lands, or the exercise of 

Tribal rights. That provision also 

instructs the Service to avoid including 

Tribal lands within a critical habitat 

designation unless the area is essential 

to conserve a listed species, and it 

requires the Service to evaluate and 

document the extent to which the 

conservation needs of the listed species 

can be achieved by limiting the 

designation to other lands. 

Our implementing regulations at 50 

CFR 424.19 and the 2016 Policy are 

consistent with S.O. 3206. When we 

undertake a discretionary exclusion 

analysis under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, 

in accordance with S.O. 3206, we 

consult with any Tribe whose Tribal 

trust resources, Tribally owned fee 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
94672 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

lands, or Tribal rights may be affected 

by including any particular areas in the 

designation. We evaluate the extent to 

which the conservation needs of the 

species can be achieved by limiting the 

designation to other areas and give great 

weight to Tribal concerns in analyzing 

the benefits of exclusion. 

However, S.O. 3206 does not override 

the Act’s statutory requirement of 

designation of critical habitat. As stated 

above, we must consult with any Tribe 

when a designation of critical habitat 

may affect Tribal lands or resources. 

The Act requires us to identify areas 

that meet the definition of ‘‘critical 

habitat’’ (i.e., areas occupied at the time 

of listing that contain the essential 

physical or biological features that may 

require special management 

considerations or protection and 

unoccupied areas that are essential to 

the conservation of a species), without 

regard to land ownership. While S.O. 

3206 provides important direction, it 

expressly states that it does not modify 

the Secretaries’ statutory authority 

under the Act or other statutes. 

The proposed critical habitat 

designation includes the following 

Tribal lands or resources: the 

Confederated Salish and Kootenai 

Tribes of the Flathead Indian 

Reservation in Montana (Unit 3), the 

Blackfeet Indian Reservation in 

Montana (Unit 3), and Jicarilla Apache 

Tribal Trust Lands in New Mexico (Unit 

6). 

Flathead Indian Reservation Lands 

In the previous final rules designating 

revised critical habitat for lynx, 

published in the Federal Register on 

February 25, 2009 (74 FR 8616) and 

September 12, 2014 (79 FR 54782), we 

determined that the benefits of 

excluding Flathead Indian Reservation 

Lands outweighed the benefits of 

including them. We determined that 

exclusion of these Tribal lands from the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

lynx will not result in the extinction of 

the species because the Confederated 

Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the 

Flathead Nation implement programs 

for the conservation of the species, and 

physical and biological features 

essential to it, in occupied areas. The 

protections afforded to the lynx under 

the jeopardy standard will remain in 

place for the areas considered for 

exclusion from revised critical habitat. 

Therefore, and in light of Secretary’s 

Order 3206 and Tribal management of 

lynx and their habitat, we are 

considering excluding 186 mi2 (482 

km2) of Flathead Indian Reservation 

Lands from the revised lynx critical 

habitat designation. However, in the 

final rule, we will again weigh the 

benefits of inclusion versus exclusion of 

these lands in the final critical habitat 

designation. 

Blackfeet Indian Reservation Lands & 

Jicarilla Apache Tribal Trust Lands 

Approximately 44 mi2 (114 km2) of 

Blackfeet Indian Reservation Lands and 

37 mi2 (97 km2) of Jicarilla Apache 

Tribal Trust lands overlaps the area 

proposed for designation as critical 

habitat for the Canada lynx in the 

Western United States. In light of 

Secretary’s Order 3206, we will consider 

these lands for exclusion from the final 

critical habitat designation. We will 

coordinate with these Tribes to evaluate 

any programs that are implemented for 

the conservation of the species, and 

physical and biological features 

essential to it, in occupied areas on 

Tribal lands. We will weigh the benefits 

of inclusion versus exclusion of these 

lands in the final critical habitat 

designation. 

Summary of Exclusions Considered 

Under 4(b)(2) of the Act 

We have reason to consider excluding 

the following areas under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act from the final critical habitat 

designation for the Canada lynx DPS in 

the Western United States. Table 2 

below provides approximate areas (mi2, 

km2) of lands that meet the definition of 

critical habitat, but for which we are 

considering possible exclusion under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act from the final 

critical habitat rule. 

TABLE 2—AREAS CONSIDERED FOR EXCLUSION BY UNIT FOR CANADA LYNX CRITICAL HABITAT

Unit Specific area 

Areas meeting the 

definition of critical 

habitat considered 

for exclusion, in 

mi2 (km2) 

Reasons for considering exclusion 

3. Northern Rockies ............................... Tribal Lands: Flathead Reservation, MT 186 (482) Confederated Salish and Kootenai 

Tribes of the Flathead Nation land 

management plan with considerations for conserving lynx habitat on 

Tribal lands within the Reservation. 

3. Northern Rockies ............................... Tribal Lands: Blackfeet Reservation, 

MT.

44 (114) Existing land management. 

3. Northern Rockies ............................... Montana DNRC Multi-species Habitat 

Conservation Plan.

159 (413) Existing Habitat Conservation Plan 

(HCP) with protections for lynx habitat on all DNRC State Trust lands. 

4. North Cascades ................................. Washington DNR Lynx Habitat Management Plan.168 (435) Existing management plan that includes considerations for conserving 

lynx habitat. 

6. Southern Rockies ............................... Tribal Lands: Jicarilla Apache Tribal 

Trust Lands, NM.

37 (97) Existing land management. 

In conclusion, for this proposed rule, 

we have reason to consider excluding 

the areas identified above from the final 

designation based on other relevant 

impacts. We specifically solicit 

comments on the inclusion or exclusion 

of such areas. We also solicit comments 

on whether there are potential 

economic, national security, or other 

relevant impacts from designating any 

other particular areas as critical habitat. 

As part of developing the final 

designation of critical habitat, we will 

evaluate the information we receive 

regarding potential impacts from 

designating the areas described above or 

any other particular areas, and we may 

conduct a discretionary exclusion 

analysis to determine whether to 

exclude those areas under authority of 

section 4(b)(2) and our implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. If we 

receive a request for exclusion of a 

particular area and after evaluation of 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules 94673 

supporting information we do not 

exclude, we will fully describe our 

decision in the final rule for this action. 

Required Determinations 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by E.O.s 12866 and 

12988 and by the Presidential 

Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write 

all rules in plain language. This means 

that each rule we publish must: 

(1) Be logically organized; 

(2) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(3) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(4) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(5) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To 

better help us revise the rule, your 

comments should be as specific as 

possible. For example, you should tell 

us the numbers of the sections or 

paragraphs that are unclearly written, 

which sections or sentences are too 

long, the sections where you feel lists or 

tables would be useful, etc. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Orders 12866, 13563 and 

14094) 

Executive Order (E.O.) 14094 amends 

and reaffirms the principles of E.O. 

12866 and E.O. 13563 and states that 

regulatory analysis should facilitate 

agency efforts to develop regulations 

that serve the public interest, advance 

statutory objectives, and are consistent 

with E.O.s 12866 and 13563. Regulatory 

analysis, as practicable and appropriate, 

shall recognize distributive impacts and 

equity, to the extent permitted by law. 

E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that 

regulations must be based on the best 

available science and that the 

rulemaking process must allow for 

public participation and an open 

exchange of ideas. We have developed 

this proposed rule in a manner 

consistent with these requirements. 

Executive Order 12866, as reaffirmed 

by E.O. 13563 and amended and 

reaffirmed by E.O. 14094, provides that 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 

Management and Budget will review all 

significant rules. OIRA has determined 

that this rule is significant. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA; title II of Pub. L. 104–121, 

March 29, 1996), whenever an agency is 

required to publish a notice of 

rulemaking for any proposed or final 

rule, it must prepare and make available 

for public comment a regulatory 

flexibility analysis that describes the 

effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., 

small businesses, small organizations, 

and small government jurisdictions). 

However, no regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required if the head of the 

agency certifies the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The SBREFA amended the RFA to 

require Federal agencies to provide a 

certification statement of the factual 

basis for certifying that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration, small entities include 

small organizations such as 

independent nonprofit organizations; 

small governmental jurisdictions, 

including school boards and city and 

town governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents; and small businesses 

(13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 

include manufacturing and mining 

concerns with fewer than 500 

employees, wholesale trade entities 

with fewer than 100 employees, retail 

and service businesses with less than $5 

million in annual sales, general and 

heavy construction businesses with less 

than $27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

agricultural businesses with annual 

sales less than $750,000. To determine 

whether potential economic impacts to 

these small entities are significant, we 

considered the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this designation as well as types of 

project modifications that may result. In 

general, the term ‘‘significant economic 

impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

Under the RFA, as amended, and as 

understood in light of recent court 

decisions, Federal agencies are required 

to evaluate the potential incremental 

impacts of rulemaking on those entities 

directly regulated by the rulemaking 

itself; in other words, the RFA does not 

require agencies to evaluate the 

potential impacts to indirectly regulated 

entities. The regulatory mechanism 

through which critical habitat 

protections are realized is section 7 of 

the Act, which requires Federal 

agencies, in consultation with the 

Service, to ensure that any action 

authorized, funded, or carried out by the 

agency is not likely to destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. 

Therefore, under section 7, only Federal 

action agencies are directly subject to 

the specific regulatory requirement 

(avoiding destruction and adverse 

modification) imposed by critical 

habitat designation. Consequently, only 

Federal action agencies would be 

directly regulated if we adopt the 

proposed critical habitat designation. 

The RFA does not require evaluation of 

the potential impacts to entities not 

directly regulated. Moreover, Federal 

agencies are not small entities. 

Therefore, because no small entities 

would be directly regulated by this 

rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if 

made final as proposed, the proposed 

critical habitat designation will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

In summary, we have considered 

whether the proposed designation 

would result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. For the above reasons and 

based on currently available 

information, we certify that, if made 

final, the proposed critical habitat 

designation would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small business entities. 

Therefore, an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use— 

Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211 (Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) requires agencies 

to prepare statements of energy effects 

‘‘to the extent permitted by law’’ when 

undertaking actions identified as 

significant energy actions (66 FR 28355; 

May 22, 2001). E.O. 13211 defines a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ as an action 

that (i) is a significant regulatory action 

under E.O. 12866 or E.O. 14094 (88 FR 

21879; April 11, 2023)); and (ii) is likely 

to have a significant adverse effect on 

the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. This rule is a significant 

regulatory action under E.O. 12866. In 

our economic analysis, we did not find 

that this proposed critical habitat 

designation revision would significantly 

affect energy supplies, distribution, or 

use. Therefore, this action is not a 

significant energy action, and there is no 

requirement to prepare a statement of 

energy effects for this action. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.), we make the following finding: 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
94674 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

(1) This proposed rule would not 

produce a Federal mandate. In general, 

a Federal mandate is a provision in 

legislation, statute, or regulation that 

would impose an enforceable duty upon 

State, local, or Tribal governments, or 

the private sector, and includes both 

‘‘Federal intergovernmental mandates’’ 

and ‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ 

These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 

658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandates’’ include a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or Tribal 

governments’’ with two exceptions. It 

excludes ‘‘a condition of Federal 

assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty 

arising from participation in a voluntary 

Federal program,’’ unless the regulation 

‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal 

program under which $500,000,000 or 

more is provided annually to State, 

local, and Tribal governments under 

entitlement authority,’’ if the provision 

would ‘‘increase the stringency of 

conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps 

upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding,’’ and the State, local, or Tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children work programs; 

Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social 

Services Block Grants; Vocational 

Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, 

Adoption Assistance, and Independent 

Living; Family Support Welfare 

Services; and Child Support 

Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon the private sector, except (i) a 

condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a 

duty arising from participation in a 

voluntary Federal program.’’ 

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal Government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions are not 

likely to destroy or adversely modify 

critical habitat under section 7. While 

non-Federal entities that receive Federal 

funding, assistance, or permits, or that 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 

extent that non-Federal entities are 

indirectly impacted because they 

receive Federal assistance or participate 

in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would 

not apply, nor would critical habitat 

shift the costs of the large entitlement 

programs listed above onto State 

governments. 

(2) We do not believe that this rule 

would significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments, because much of the 

proposed designation (91 percent) 

occurs on Federal lands. Furthermore, 

based on an analysis conducted for the 

previous designation of critical habitat 

in 2014 and extrapolated to this 

designation, we do not expect this rule 

to significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Small governments will 

be affected only to the extent that any 

programs having Federal funds, permits, 

or other authorized activities must 

ensure that their actions will not 

adversely affect the critical habitat. 

Therefore, a Small Government Agency 

Plan is not required. 

Takings—Executive Order 12630 

In accordance with E.O. 12630 

(Government Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Private 

Property Rights), we have analyzed the 

potential takings implications of 

designating critical habitat for the 

Canada lynx in a takings implications 

assessment. The Act does not authorize 

the Services to regulate private actions 

on private lands or confiscate private 

property as a result of critical habitat 

designation. Designation of critical 

habitat does not affect land ownership, 

or establish any closures, or restrictions 

on use of or access to the designated 

areas. Furthermore, the designation of 

critical habitat does not affect 

landowner actions that do not require 

Federal funding or permits, nor does it 

preclude development of habitat 

conservation programs or issuance of 

incidental take permits to permit actions 

that do require Federal funding or 

permits to go forward. However, Federal 

agencies are prohibited from carrying 

out, funding, or authorizing actions that 

would destroy or adversely modify 

critical habitat. A takings implications 

assessment has been completed for the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for the Canada lynx, and it concludes 

that, if adopted, this designation of 

critical habitat does not pose significant 

takings implications for lands within or 

affected by the designation. 

Federalism—Executive Order 13132 

In accordance with E.O. 13132 

(Federalism), this proposed rule does 

not have significant federalism effects. 

A federalism summary impact statement 

is not required. In keeping with 

Department of the Interior and 

Department of Commerce policy, we 

requested information from, and 

coordinated development of this 

proposed critical habitat designation 

with, the appropriate State resource 

agencies. From a federalism perspective, 

the designation of critical habitat 

directly affects only the responsibilities 

of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no 

other duties with respect to critical 

habitat, either for States and local 

governments, or for anyone else. As a 

result, the proposed rule does not have 

substantial direct effects either on the 

States, or on the relationship between 

the Federal government and the States, 

or on the distribution of powers and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. The proposed 

designation may have some benefit to 

these governments because the areas 

that contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the species are more 

clearly defined, and the physical or 

biological features of the habitat 

essential to the conservation of the 

species are specifically identified. This 

information does not alter where and 

what federally sponsored activities may 

occur. However, it may assist State and 

local governments in long-range 

planning because they no longer have to 

wait for case-by-case section 7 

consultations to occur. 

Where State and local governments 

require approval or authorization from a 

Federal agency for actions that may 

affect critical habitat, consultation 

under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would 

be required. While non-Federal entities 

that receive Federal funding, assistance, 

or permits, or that otherwise require 

approval or authorization from a Federal 

agency for an action, may be indirectly 

impacted by the designation of critical 

habitat, the legally binding duty to 

avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat rests 

squarely on the Federal agency. 

Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 

12988 

In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil 

Justice Reform), the Office of the 

Solicitor has determined that the rule 

would not unduly burden the judicial 

system and that it meets the 

requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 

of the Order. We have proposed 

designating critical habitat in 

accordance with the provisions of the 

Act. To assist the public in 

understanding the habitat needs of the 

species, this proposed rule identifies the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. The 

proposed areas of critical habitat are 

presented on maps, and the proposed 

rule provides several options for the 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules 94675 

interested public to obtain more 

detailed location information, if desired. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This rule does not contain 

information collection requirements, 

and a submission to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not required. 

We may not conduct or sponsor and you 

are not required to respond to a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

Regulations adopted pursuant to 

section 4(a) of the Act are exempt from 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and do 

not require an environmental analysis 

under NEPA. We published a notice 

outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This 

includes listing, delisting, and 

reclassification rules, as well as critical 

habitat designations and speciesspecific protective regulations 

promulgated concurrently with a 

decision to list or reclassify a species as 

threatened. The courts have upheld this 

position (e.g., Douglas County v. 

Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995) 

(critical habitat); Center for Biological 

Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2005 WL 2000928 (N.D. Cal. 

Aug. 19, 2005) (concurrent 4(d) rule)). 

However, when we designate as 

‘‘critical habitat’’ any of the areas that 

fall within the jurisdiction of the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 

including this designation proposed for 

the Canada lynx, we undertake a NEPA 

analysis for that critical habitat 

designation consistent with the Tenth 

Circuit’s ruling in Catron County Board 

of Commissioners v. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 75 F.3d 1429 (10th Cir. 

1996). We invite the public to comment 

on the extent to which this proposed 

critical habitat designation may have a 

significant impact on the human 

environment, or fall within one of the 

categorical exclusions for actions that 

have no individual or cumulative effect 

on the quality of the human 

environment. We will complete our 

analysis, in compliance with NEPA, 

before finalizing this proposed rule. 

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, May 4, 

1994), E.O. 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments), the President’s 

memorandum of November 30, 2022 

(Uniform Standards for Tribal 

Consultation; 87 FR 74479, December 5, 

2022), and the Department of the 

Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

federally recognized Tribes and Alaska 

Native Corporations (ANCs) on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with joint Secretary’s 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. 

On October 13, 2022, the Service sent 

a letter to Tribal partners across the 

range of the Canada lynx in the Western 

United States, indicating that we would 

be updating the SSA, explaining why it 

was necessary to revise the SSA to 

inform this critical habitat revision, and 

requesting additional information. We 

will coordinate with Tribes that have 

lands within the boundary of this 

proposed critical habitat revision to 

determine eligibility for exclusion of 

those lands from the final designation of 

critical habitat. We will continue to 

work with Tribal entities during the 

development of a final rule for the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Canada lynx. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

internet at https://www.regulations.gov 

and upon request from the Montana 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are the staff members of the Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s Species 

Assessment Team and the Montana 

Ecological Services Field Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Wildlife. 

Signing Authority 

Martha Williams, Director of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, approved this 

action on November 18, 2024, for 

publication. On November 21, 2024, 

Martha Williams authorized the 

undersigned to sign the document 

electronically and submit it to the Office 

of the Federal Register for publication as 

an official document of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Services proposes to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

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

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. In § 17.95, in paragraph (a), amend 

the entry for ‘‘Canada Lynx (Lynx 

canadensis)’’ by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (1) through (5); 

■ b. Adding headings to the figures in 

paragraphs (6) and (7); 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (8) through 

(10); and 

■ d. Adding paragraph (11). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(a) Mammals. 

* * * * * 

Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for States and Counties on the maps in 

this entry. 

(2) Within these areas, the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of Canada lynx consist of 

the following components: 

(i) Snowshoe hare densities adequate 

to support lynx residency and 

reproduction over time, distributed 

across large landscapes. 

(ii) A mosaic of boreal/subalpine 

forest at variable forest structural stages, 

the majority of which provide yearround dense horizontal cover at ground 

or snow level. 

(iii) Winter conditions that provide 

and maintain deep fluffy snow for 

extended periods of time. 

(iv) Spatial and temporal 

arrangements of habitat large enough 

(483 square miles (mi2) (≥1,250 square 

kilometers (km2))) to support breeding 

populations. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
94676 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

(v) Permeable landscapes conducive 

to within-unit lynx daily movements 

and dispersal. 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

manmade structures (such as buildings, 

aqueducts, runways, roads, and other 

paved areas) and the land on which they 

are located existing within the legal 

boundaries on the effective date of the 

final rule. 

(4) Data layers defining map units 

were created using the Interagency 

Western Lynx Bio Team tier 1 polygons. 

These are based on spatial distribution 

models that capture 95 percent of 

withheld and 90 percent of independent 

lynx GPS (Global Positioning System) 

locations while accounting for 

minimum patch size necessary to 

support multiple home ranges and highquality habitat metrics. These areas 

were then verified by species experts to 

contain the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species. Critical habitat units were 

mapped and analyzed using 

Environmental Systems Research 

Institute (ESRI) ArcGIS Pro 2.9.11 

Geographic Information System (GIS) 

program. Area calculations were done in 

ArcGIS Pro using the North American 

Datum (NAD) 1983 USA Contiguous 

Albers Equal Area Conic USGS 

projection. The maps in this entry, as 

modified by any accompanying 

regulatory text, establish the boundaries 

of the critical habitat designation. The 

coordinates or plot points or both on 

which each map is based are available 

to the public at the Service’s internet 

site, https://www.fws.gov/species/ 

canada-lynx-lynx-canadensis, at https:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R6–ES–2024–0142 and Docket No. 

FWS–R6–ES–2013–0101, and at the 

field office responsible for this 

designation. You may obtain field office 

location information by contacting one 

of the Service regional offices, the 

addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 

2.2. 

(5) Index map follows: 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

Figure 1 to Canada Lynx (Lynx 

canadensis) paragraph (5) 

(6) * * * 

Figure 2 to Canada Lynx (Lynx 

canadensis) paragraph (6) 

* * * * * 

(7) * * * 

Figure 3 to Canada Lynx (Lynx 

canadensis) paragraph (7) 

* * * * * 

(8) Unit 3: Northern Rockies—The 

entirety or portions of Bonner, 

Boundary, Clearwater, and Idaho 

Counties, ID, and Flathead, Glacier, 

Granite, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Lincoln, 

Mineral, Missoula, Pondera, Powell, 

Ravalli, and Teton Counties, MT. 

(i) Unit 3 consists of 7,959 mi2 (20,613 

km2) located in northwestern Montana 

and northern and east-central Idaho. 

Land ownership within the unit is 90 

percent Federal, 4 percent State, 3 

percent Tribal, and 3 percent private. 

(ii) Map of Unit 3 follows: 

Figure 4 to Canada Lynx (Lynx 

canadensis) paragraph (8)(ii) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALSEP29NO24.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules 94677 

(9) Unit 4: North Cascades—The 

entirety or portions of Chelan, 

Okanogan, Skagit, and Whatcom 

Counties, WA. 

(i) Unit 4 consists of 2,354 mi2 (6,097 

km2) located in north-central 

Washington. Land ownership within the 

unit is 93 percent Federal and 7 percent 

State, with small parcels of private 

lands that represent less than one-half of 

1 percent of the unit. 

(ii) Map of Unit 4 follows: 

Figure 5 to Canada Lynx (Lynx 

canadensis) paragraph (9)(ii) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALSEP29NO24.006</GPH>
94678 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

(10) Unit 5: Greater Yellowstone 

Area—The entirety or portions of 

Fremont, Lincoln, Sublette, and Teton 

Counties, WY. 

(i) Unit 5 consists of 1,121 mi2 (2,902 

km2) located in west-central and 

northwestern Wyoming. Land 

ownership within the unit is over 99 

percent Federal and includes small (less 

than 4 mi2 (10 km2)) parcels of private 

and State lands. 

(ii) Map of Unit 5 follows: 

Figure 6 to Canada Lynx (Lynx 

canadensis) paragraph (10)(ii) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALSEP29NO24.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules 94679 

(11) Unit 6: Southern Rockies—The 

entirety or portions of Archuleta, 

Boulder, Chaffee, Clear Creek, Conejos, 

Dolores, Eagle, Gilpin, Grand, 

Gunnison, Hinsdale, La Plata, Lake, 

Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Ouray, 

Park, Pitkin, Rio Grande, Saguache, San 

Juan, San Miguel, and Summit Counties, 

CO, and Rio Arriba County, NM. 

(i) Unit 6 consists of 7,679 mi2 (19,889 

km2) located in west-central and 

southwestern Colorado and northern 

New Mexico. Land ownership within 

the unit is almost 89 percent Federal, 

almost 9 percent private, 1 percent 

State, and less than 1 percent Tribal and 

local government. 

(ii) Map of Unit 6 follows: 

Figure 7 to Canada Lynx (Lynx 

canadensis) paragraph (11)(ii) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALSEP29NO24.008</GPH>
94680 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

* * * * * 

Madonna Baucum, 

Regulations and Policy Chief, Division of 

Policy, Economics, Risk Management, and 

Analytics of the Joint Administrative 

Operations, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–27767 Filed 11–27–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 241121–0299; RTID 0648– 

XE336] 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Gulf of Alaska; 

Proposed 2025 and 2026 Harvest 

Specifications for Groundfish 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; harvest 

specifications and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes 2025 and 

2026 harvest specifications, 

apportionments, and Pacific halibut 

prohibited species catch (PSC) limits for 

the groundfish fisheries of the Gulf of 

Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary 

to establish harvest limits for groundfish 

during the 2025 and 2026 fishing years 

and to accomplish the goals and 

objectives of the Fishery Management 

Plan for Groundfish of the GOA (FMP). 

The 2025 harvest specifications 

supersede those previously set in the 

final 2024 and 2025 harvest 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALSEP29NO24.009</GPH>