68294 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AU52 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Proposed Designation of 

Critical Habitat for the Contiguous 

United States Distinct Population 

Segment of the Canada Lynx 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

designate critical habitat for the 

contiguous United States distinct 

population segment of the Canada lynx 

(Lynx canadensis) (lynx) pursuant to the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). The lynx generally 

inhabits cold, moist boreal forests in the 

contiguous United States. In total, 

approximately 26,935 square miles (mi2) 

(69,760 square kilometers (km2)) fall 

within the boundaries of the proposed 

critical habitat designation, in four units 

in the States of Idaho, Maine, 

Minnesota, Montana, and Washington. 

However, we are not proposing to 

designate all of the area with the 

boundaries. In particular, we are not 

including lands within Lynx Analysis 

Units in the Superior National Forest in 

Minnesota, because they do not meet 

the definition of critical habitat 

pursuant to section 3(5)(A) of the Act as 

a consequence of the Superior National 

Forest having amended its Forest Plan 

to adopt the Lynx Conservation 

Assessment and Strategy. These lands 

are not included in the estimated square 

miles of the proposed designation. In 

addition, we are not proposing to 

designate critical habitat on the Federal 

lands within seven National Forests in 

Idaho, Montana, and Washington that 

are covered by the May 2005 

Conservation Agreement and therefore 

do not meet the definition of critical 

habitat. These lands, however, are 

included in the estimated square miles 

of the proposed designation owing to 

difficulties in obtaining accurate 

estimates of the area of Federal land 

within each national forest boundary in 

a timely manner. This will be corrected 

in the final designation. 

We hereby solicit data and comments 

from the public on all aspects of this 

proposal, including data on economic 

and other potential impacts of the 

designation. We are also soliciting 

public comments on inclusion of certain 

lands in the designation and on the 

appropriateness of excluding lands from 

this designation that are covered by 

management plans that provide for the 

conservation of lynx and our 

determination as to whether existing 

management plans provide special 

management and protection for lynx 

habitat. In addition, depending on 

public comment and our analysis at the 

time of the final designation, any or all 

of these Forest Service lands described 

above may be included in the final 

designation, and we are specifically 

seeking comment on whether these 

lands are covered by the definition of 

critical habitat and should be included 

in the final designation. 

In the development of our final 

designation, we will incorporate or 

address any new information received 

during the public comment period, or 

from our evaluation of the potential 

economic impacts of this proposal. We 

may revise this proposal to address new 

information, to exclude areas that may 

warrant exclusion pursuant to section 

4(b)(2) of the Act, or to add in those 

areas determined to be essential to 

conservation of the species, but not 

included in this proposal. 

DATES: We will accept comments from 

all interested parties until February 7, 

2006. We will hold public hearings and 

informational sessions on the following 

dates: December 7, 2005, (Minnesota); 

December 14, 2005, (Maine); January 10, 

2006, (Montana); and January 18, 2006, 

(Washington) (see SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section, below, for 

locations and times). 

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, 

you may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposal by 

any one of several methods: 

1. You may submit written comments 

and information by mail or handdelivery to Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Montana 

Ecological Services Office, 100 N. Park 

Avenue, Suite 320, Helena, Montana 

59601. 

2. You may submit oral and/or written 

comments and information at the public 

hearings (see SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION, below, for locations and 

times). 

3. You may send comments by 

electronic mail (e-mail) to 

fw6_lynx@fws.gov. Please see the Public 

Comments Solicited section below for 

file format and other information about 

electronic filing. 

4. You may fax your comments to 

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Montana Ecological Services 

Office at 406–449–5339. 

Comments and materials received, as 

well as supporting documentation used 

in the preparation of this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection, 

by appointment, during normal business 

hours at the Montana Ecological 

Services Office at the above address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lori 

Nordstrom, Montana Ecological Services 

Office (address above), telephone 406– 

449–5225; facsimile 406–449–5339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public 

hearings and informational sessions on 

this proposal will be held in the 

following locations: 

Maine 

Wednesday, December 14, 2005, from 

8 to 9 p.m. at the Black Bear Inn and 

Conference Center, 4 Godfrey Drive, 

Orono, Maine. The hearing will be 

preceded by an informational session 

from 7 to 8 p.m. 

Minnesota 

Wednesday, December 7, 2005, from 

7:30 to 9 p.m. at The Inn on Lake 

Superior, 350 Canal Park Drive, Duluth, 

Minnesota. The hearing will be 

preceded by an informational session 

from 6 to 7:30 p.m. 

Montana 

Tuesday, January 10, 2006, from 6 to 

8 p.m. at Westcoast Kalispell Center, 20 

North Main Street, Kalispell, Montana. 

The hearing will be preceded by an 

informational session from 4:30 to 6 

p.m. 

Washington 

Wednesday, January 18, 2006, from 7 

to 8:30 p.m. at Methow Valley 

Community Center, 201 South Methow 

Valley, Hwy 20, Twisp, Washington. 

The hearing will be preceded by an 

informational session from 5 to 6:30 

p.m. 

Public Comments Solicited 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposal will be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, comments or suggestions 

from the public, concerned 

governmental agencies, the scientific 

community, industry, or any other 

interested party concerning this 

proposed rule are hereby solicited. 

Maps of the proposed critical habitat are 

available for viewing by appointment 

during regular business hours at (1) The 

Montana Ecological Services Office (see 

ADDRESSES); (2) the Service offices 

identified in the Section 7 Consultation 

section below (Maine Field Office (Old 

Town, ME), Twin Cities Field Office 

(Bloomington, MN), and the Upper 

Columbia River Basin Office (Spokane, 

WA)); or (3) the Internet at http:// 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68295 

mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/ 

mammals/lynx/. 

On the basis of public comment, 

during the development of the final rule 

we may find, among other things, that 

areas proposed are not essential to the 

conservation of the species or do not 

require special management 

considerations or protection, are 

appropriate for exclusion under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate 

for exclusion, and in all of these cases, 

this information will be incorporated 

into the final designation. Final 

management plans and data supporting 

their effectiveness that address the 

conservation of the lynx must be 

submitted to us during the public 

comment period so that we can take 

them into consideration when making 

our final critical habitat determination. 

Comments Are Invited Specifically 

Concerning 

(1) The reasons any habitat should or 

should not be determined to be critical 

habitat as provided by section 4 of the 

Act, including, but not limited to, 

whether the benefit of designation will 

outweigh any threats to the species due 

to designation; 

(2) Specific information on the 

amount and distribution of lynx habitat 

in the contiguous United States, and 

what occupied habitat has features that 

are essential to the conservation of the 

species and why and what unoccupied 

habitat is essential to the conservation 

of the species and why; 

(3) Comments or information that may 

assist us with identifying or clarifying 

the Primary Constituent Elements 

(PCEs); 

(4) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in areas proposed 

as critical habitat and their possible 

impacts on proposed critical habitat; 

(5) Any foreseeable economic, 

national security, or other potential 

impacts resulting from the proposed 

designation and, in particular, any 

impacts on small entities; 

(6) As discussed in this proposed rule, 

we are considering whether some of the 

lands we have identified as having 

features essential for the conservation of 

the lynx should not be included in the 

final designation of critical habitat if, 

prior to the final critical habitat 

designation, they are covered by final 

management plans that incorporate the 

conservation measures for the lynx (i.e., 

the Lynx Conservation Assessment and 

Strategy (LCAS) (Ruediger et al. 2000), 

or comparable). In particular, seven 

National Forests and one Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) district are in 

the process of revising or amending 

their Land and Resource Management 

Plans (LRMP) to provide measures for 

lynx conservation. It is anticipated that 

all of these plans will be complete prior 

to promulgation of the final critical 

habitat designation. As a result, all 

National Forest and BLM plans would 

have measures that provide for 

conservation of lynx, and consequently 

will not be in need of special 

management or protection. 

Currently, National Forests that have 

not revised or amended their LRMPs 

operate under a Conservation 

Agreement with the Service in which 

the parties agree to take measures to 

reduce or eliminate adverse effects or 

risks to lynx and its occupied habitat 

pending amendments to LRMPs. The 

LCAS is a basis for implementing this 

Agreement. 

In addition, we will be evaluating the 

adequacy of existing management plans 

to conserve lynx on lands that are 

designated wilderness areas or National 

Parks, as discussed in this proposed 

rule. 

We specifically solicit comment on 

whether such areas meet the definition 

of critical habitat based on: 

(A) Whether these areas contain 

features essential to the conservation of 

the lynx; 

(B) The adequacy of these 

management plans or the Conservation 

Agreement to provide special 

management and protection to lynx 

habitat; 

Any of these lands identified above 

may, if appropriate, be included in the 

final critical habitat designation, even if 

not proposed for designation in this 

notice. 

(7) Our proposal to not include tribal 

lands in the Maine and Minnesota units 

under the Secretarial Order Number 

3206. The size of the individual 

reservation lands in the Maine and 

Minnesota units is relatively small. As 

a result, we believe conservation of the 

lynx can be achieved by limiting the 

designation to the other lands in the 

proposed units (see ‘‘Relationship of 

Critical Habitat to Tribal Lands’’ below). 

(8) Whether lands in three areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species and the basis for why they might 

be essential. These areas are: (a) The 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem 

(Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho); (b) the 

‘‘Kettle Range’’ in Ferry County, 

Washington; and (c) the Southern Rocky 

Mountains. 

(9) How the proposed boundaries of 

critical habitat units could be refined to 

more closely conform to the boreal 

forest types occupied by lynx. Maps that 

accurately depict the specific vegetation 

types on all land ownerships were not 

readily available. Additionally, even if 

accurate, detailed vegetation maps were 

available, we were unsure how to 

delineate and describe critical habitat 

boundaries that solely encompassed 

lands containing the features essential 

to the conservation of the lynx. 

(10) Whether our approach to 

designating critical habitat could be 

improved or modified in any way to 

provide for greater public participation 

and understanding, or to assist us in 

accommodating public concerns and 

comments. 

If you wish to comment, you may 

submit your comments and materials 

concerning this proposal by any one of 

several methods (see ADDRESSES

section). Please submit Internet 

comments to fw6_lynx@fws.gov in ASCII 

file format and avoid the use of special 

characters or any form of encryption. 

Please also include ‘‘Attn: lynx 

comments’’ in your e-mail subject 

header and your name and return 

address in the body of your message. If 

you do not receive a confirmation from 

the system that we have received your 

Internet message, contact us directly by 

calling our Montana Ecological Services 

Office at telephone number 406–449–

5225. 

Our practice is to make comments, 

including names and home addresses of 

respondents, available for public review 

during regular business hours. 

Individual respondents may request that 

we withhold their home addresses from 

the rulemaking record, which we will 

honor to the extent allowable by law. 

There also may be circumstances in 

which we would withhold from the 

rulemaking record a respondent’s 

identity, as allowable by law. If you 

wish us to withhold your name and/or 

address, you must state this 

prominently at the beginning of your 

comment. However, we will not 

consider anonymous comments. We 

will make all submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, available 

for public inspection in their entirety. 

Comments and materials received will 

be available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the above address. 

Designation of Critical Habitat Provides 

Little Additional Protection to Species 

In 30 years of implementing the Act, 

the Service has found that the 

designation of statutory critical habitat 

provides little additional protection to 

most listed species, while consuming 

significant amounts of available 

conservation resources. The Service’s 

present system for designating critical 

68296 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

habitat has evolved since its original 

statutory prescription into a process that 

provides little real conservation benefit, 

is driven by litigation and the courts 

rather than biology, limits our ability to 

fully evaluate the science involved, 

consumes enormous agency resources, 

and imposes huge social and economic 

costs). The Service believes that 

additional agency discretion would 

allow our focus to return to those 

actions that provide the greatest benefit 

to the species most in need of 

protection. 

Role of Critical Habitat in Actual 

Practice of Administering and 

Implementing the Endangered Species 

Act 

While attention to and protection of 

habitat is paramount to successful 

conservation actions, we have 

consistently found that, in most 

circumstances, the designation of 

critical habitat is of little additional 

value for most listed species, yet it 

consumes large amounts of conservation 

resources. Sidle (1987) stated, ‘‘Because 

the Act can protect species with and 

without critical habitat designation, 

critical habitat designation may be 

redundant to the other consultation 

requirements of section 7.’’ Currently, 

only 466 species or 35 percent of the 

1,268 listed species in the United States 

under the jurisdiction of the Service 

have designated critical habitat. 

We address the habitat needs of all 

1,268 listed species through 

conservation mechanisms such as 

listing, section 7 consultations, the 

section 4 recovery planning process, the 

section 9 protective prohibitions of 

unauthorized take, section 6 funding to 

the States, and the section 10 incidental 

take permit process. The Service 

believes that it is these measures that 

may make the difference between 

extinction and survival for many 

species. 

We note, however, that the August 6, 

2004, Ninth Circuit judicial opinion, 

(Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service) found 

our definition of adverse modification 

invalid. In response to the decision, the 

Director has provided guidance to the 

Service based on the statutory language. 

In this rule, our analysis of the 

consequences and relative costs and 

benefits of the critical habitat 

designation is based on application of 

the statute consistent with the 9th 

Circuit’s ruling and the Director’s 

guidance. 

Procedural and Resource Difficulties in 

Designating Critical Habitat 

We have been inundated with 

lawsuits for our failure to designate 

critical habitat, and we face a growing 

number of lawsuits challenging critical 

habitat determinations once they are 

made. These lawsuits have subjected the 

Service to an ever-increasing series of 

court orders and court-approved 

settlement agreements, compliance with 

which now consumes nearly the entire 

listing program budget. This leaves the 

Service with little ability to prioritize its 

activities to direct scarce listing 

resources to the listing program actions 

with the most biologically urgent 

species conservation needs. 

The consequence of the critical 

habitat litigation activity is that limited 

listing funds are used to defend active 

lawsuits, to respond to Notices of Intent 

to sue relative to critical habitat, and to 

comply with the growing number of 

adverse court orders. As a result, listing 

petition responses, the Service’s own 

proposals to list critically imperiled 

species, and final listing determinations 

on existing proposals are all 

significantly delayed. 

The accelerated schedules of court 

ordered designations have left the 

Service with almost no ability to 

provide for adequate public 

participation or to ensure a defect-free 

rulemaking process before making 

decisions on listing and critical habitat 

proposals due to the risks associated 

with noncompliance with judiciallyimposed deadlines. This in turn fosters 

a second round of litigation in which 

those who fear adverse impacts from 

critical habitat designations challenge 

those designations. The cycle of 

litigation appears endless, is very 

expensive, and in the final analysis 

provides relatively little additional 

protection to listed species. 

The costs resulting from the 

designation include legal costs, the cost 

of preparation and publication of the 

designation, the analysis of the 

economic effects and the cost of 

requesting and responding to public 

comment, and in some cases the costs 

of compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). None 

of these costs result in any benefit to the 

species that is not already afforded by 

the protections of the Act enumerated 

earlier, and they directly reduce the 

funds available for direct and tangible 

conservation actions. 

Background 

It is our intent to discuss only those 

topics directly relevant to the 

designation of critical habitat in this 

proposed rule. For more information on 

the lynx, refer to the final listing rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 24, 2000 (65 FR 16052), and the 

clarification of findings published in the 

Federal Register on July 3, 2003 (68 FR 

40076). 

Canada lynx are medium-sized cats, 

generally measuring 75 to 90 

centimeters (cm) (30 to 35 inches (in)) 

long and weighing 8 to10.5 kilograms 

(18 to 23 pounds) (Quinn and Parker 

1987). They have large, well-furred feet 

and long legs for traversing snow; tufts 

on the ears; and short, black-tipped 

tails. 

Lynx are highly specialized predators 

of snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) 

(McCord and Cardoza 1982; Quinn and 

Parker 1987; Aubry et al. 2000). Lynx 

and snowshoe hares are strongly 

associated with what is broadly 

described as boreal forest (Bittner and 

Rongstad 1982; McCord and Cardoza 

1982; Quinn and Parker 1987; Agee 

2000; Aubry et al. 2000; Hodges 2000a, 

b; McKelvey et al. 2000b). The 

predominant vegetation of boreal forest 

is conifer trees, primarily species of 

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

(Elliot-Fisk 1988). In the contiguous 

United States, the boreal forest types 

transition to deciduous temperate forest 

in the Northeast and Great Lakes, and to 

subalpine forest in the West (Agee 

2000). Lynx habitat can generally be 

described as moist boreal forests that 

have cold, snowy winters and a 

snowshoe hare prey base (Quinn and 

Parker 1987; Agee 2000; Aubry et al. 

2000; Buskirk et al. 2000b; Ruggiero et 

al. 2000). 

Snow conditions also determine the 

distribution of lynx (Ruggiero et al. 

2000). Lynx are morphologically and 

physiologically adapted for hunting 

snowshoe hares and surviving in areas 

that have cold winters with deep, fluffy 

snow for extended periods. These 

adaptations provide lynx a competitive 

advantage over potential competitors, 

such as bobcats (Lynx rufus) or coyotes 

(Canis latrans) (McCord and Cardoza 

1982; Buskirk et al 2000a; Ruediger et 

al. 2000; Ruggiero et al. 2000). Bobcats 

and coyotes have a higher foot load 

(more weight per surface area of foot), 

which causes them to sink into the 

snow more than lynx. Therefore, 

bobcats and coyotes cannot efficiently 

hunt in fluffy or deep snow and are at 

a competitive disadvantage to lynx. 

Long-term snow conditions presumably 

limit the winter distribution of potential 

lynx competitors such as bobcats 

(McCord and Cardoza 1982) or coyotes. 

Because of the patchiness and 

temporal nature of high-quality 

snowshoe hare habitat, lynx populations 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68297 

require large boreal forest landscapes to 

ensure that sufficient high-quality 

snowshoe hare habitat is available at 

any point in time and to ensure that 

lynx may move freely among patches of 

suitable habitat and among 

subpopulations of lynx. Populations 

that are composed of a number of 

discrete subpopulations, connected by 

dispersal, are called metapopulations 

(McKelvey et al. 2000c). Individual lynx 

maintain large home ranges (reported as 

generally ranging between 31–216 km2

[12–83 mi2]) (Koehler 1990; Aubry et al. 

2000; Squires and Laurion 2000; Squires 

et al. 2004b; Vashon et al. 2005a). The 

size of lynx home ranges varies 

depending on the abundance of prey, 

the animal’s gender and age, season, and 

the density of the lynx population 

(Koehler 1990; Poole 1994; Slough and 

Mowat 1996; Aubry et al. 2000; Mowat 

et al. 2000; Vashon et al. 2005a). When 

densities of snowshoe hares decline, for 

example, lynx enlarge their home ranges 

to obtain sufficient amounts of food to 

survive and reproduce. 

In the contiguous United States, the 

boreal forest landscape is naturally 

patchy and transitional because it is the 

southern edge of the boreal forest range. 

This generally limits snowshoe hare 

populations in the contiguous United 

States from achieving densities similar 

to those of the expansive northern 

boreal forest in Canada (Wolff 1980; 

Buehler and Keith 1982; Koehler 1990; 

Koehler and Aubry 1994). Additionally, 

the presence of more snowshoe hare 

predators and competitors at southern 

latitudes may inhibit the potential for 

high-density hare populations (Wolff 

1980). As a result, lynx generally occur 

at relatively low densities in the 

contiguous United States as compared 

to the high lynx densities in the 

northern boreal forest of Canada (Aubry 

et al. 2000) or the densities of a species 

such as the bobcat, which is a habitat 

and prey generalist. 

Lynx are highly mobile; long-distance 

movements (greater than 100 km (60 

mi)) are characteristic (Aubry et al. 

2000; Mowat et al. 2000). Lynx disperse 

primarily when snowshoe hare 

populations decline (Ward and Krebs 

1985; O’Donoghue et al. 1997; Poole 

1997). Subadult lynx also disperse even 

when prey is abundant (Poole 1997), 

presumably to establish new home 

ranges. Lynx also make exploratory 

movements outside their home ranges 

(Aubry et al. 2000; Squires et al. 2001). 

The boreal forest landscape is 

naturally dynamic. Forest stands within 

the landscape change as they undergo 

succession after natural or humancaused disturbances such as fire, insect 

epidemics, wind, ice, disease, and forest 

management (Elliot-Fisk 1988, Agee 

2000). As a result, lynx habitat within 

the boreal forest landscape is typically 

patchy because the boreal forest 

contains stands of differing ages and 

conditions, only some of which are 

suitable as lynx foraging or denning 

habitat at any point in time (McKelvey 

et al. 2000a; Hoving et al. 2004). 

Snowshoe hares comprise a majority 

of the lynx diet (Nellis et al. 1972; Brand 

et al. 1976; Koehler 1990; Apps 2000; 

Aubry et al. 2000; Mowat et al. 2000; 

von Kienast 2003; Squires et al. 2004b). 

When snowshoe hare populations are 

low, female lynx produce few or no 

kittens that survive to independence 

(Nellis et al. 1972; Brand et al. 1976; 

Brand and Keith 1979; Poole 1994; 

Slough and Mowat 1996; O’Donoghue et 

al. 1997, Aubry et al. 2000; Mowat et al. 

2000). Lynx prey opportunistically on 

other small mammals and birds, 

particularly during lows in the 

snowshoe hare population, but alternate 

prey species may not sufficiently 

compensate for low availability of 

snowshoe hares, resulting in reduced 

lynx populations (Brand et al. 1976; 

Brand and Keith 1979; Koehler 1990; 

Mowat et al. 2000). 

In northern Canada, lynx populations 

fluctuate in response to the cycling of 

snowshoe hare populations (Hodges 

2000a; Mowat et al. 2000). Although 

snowshoe hare populations in the 

northern portion of their range show 

strong, regular population cycles, these 

fluctuations are generally much less 

pronounced in the southern portion of 

the range in the contiguous United 

States (Hodges 2000b). In the contiguous 

United States, the degree to which 

regional local lynx population 

fluctuations are influenced by local 

snowshoe hare population dynamics is 

unclear. However, it is anticipated that 

because of natural fluctuations in 

snowshoe hare populations, there will 

be periods when lynx densities are 

extremely low. 

Because lynx population dynamics, 

survival and recruitment are closely tied 

to snowshoe hare availability, snowshoe 

hare habitat is a component of lynx 

habitat. Lynx generally concentrate their 

foraging and hunting activities in areas 

where snowshoe hare populations are 

high (Koehler et al. 1979; Ward and 

Krebs 1985; Murray et al. 1994; 

O’Donoghue et al. 1997, 1998). 

Snowshoe hares are most abundant in 

forests with dense understories that 

provide forage, cover to escape from 

predators, and protection during 

extreme weather (Wolfe et al. 1982; 

Litvaitis et al. 1985; Hodges 2000a, b). 

Generally, hare densities are higher in 

regenerating, earlier successional forest 

stages because they have greater 

understory structure than mature forests 

(Buehler and Keith 1982; Wolfe et al. 

1982; Koehler 1990; Hodges 2000b; 

Homyack 2003; Griffin 2004). However, 

snowshoe hares can be abundant in 

mature forests with dense understories 

(Griffin 2004). 

Within the boreal forest, lynx den 

sites are located where coarse woody 

debris, such as downed logs and 

windfalls, provides security and thermal 

cover for lynx kittens (McCord and 

Cardoza 1982; Koehler 1990; Slough 

1999; Squires and Laurion 2000; J. 

Organ, Service, in litt. 2001). The 

amount of structure (e.g., downed, large 

woody debris) appears to be more 

important than the age of the forest 

stand for lynx denning habitat (Mowat 

et al. 2000). 

Previous Federal Actions 

For more information on previous 

Federal actions concerning the lynx, 

refer to the final listing rule published 

in the Federal Register on March 24, 

2000 (65 FR 16052), and the 

clarification of findings published in the 

Federal Register on July 3, 2003 (68 FR 

40076). As a result of litigation from 

Defenders of Wildlife, et al., the U.S. 

District Court for the District of 

Columbia instructed us to propose 

critical habitat by November 1, 2005, 

and to issue a final rule for critical 

habitat by November 1, 2006. This 

proposal has been completed in 

compliance with the Court order. 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as—(i) the specific areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by a species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features (I) essential to the conservation 

of the species and (II) that may require 

special management considerations or 

protection; and (ii) specific areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by a species at the time it is listed, upon 

a determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. ‘‘Conservation’’ means the use 

of all methods and procedures that are 

necessary to bring an endangered or a 

threatened species to the point at which 

listing under the Act is no longer 

necessary. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

prohibition against destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

with regard to actions carried out, 

funded, or authorized by a Federal 

agency. Section 7 of the Act requires 

consultation on Federal actions that are 

68298 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

likely to result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of 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 does not allow government 

or public access to private lands. 

To be included in a critical habitat 

designation, the habitat within the area 

occupied by the species at the time of 

listing must first have features that are 

‘‘essential to the conservation of the 

species.’’ Critical habitat designations 

identify, to the extent known using the 

best scientific data available, habitat 

areas that provide essential life cycle 

needs of the species (i.e., areas on which 

are found the primary constituent 

element, as defined at 50 CFR 

424.12(b)). 

Habitat occupied at the time of listing 

may be included in critical habitat only 

if the essential features thereon may 

require special management or 

protection. Thus, we do not include 

areas where existing management is 

sufficient to conserve the species. (As 

discussed below, such areas may also be 

excluded from critical habitat pursuant 

to section 4(b)(2).) Accordingly, when 

the best available scientific data do not 

demonstrate that the conservation needs 

of the species so require, we will not 

designate critical habitat in areas 

outside the geographic area occupied by 

the species at the time of listing. 

The Service’s Policy on Information 

Standards Under the Endangered 

Species Act, published in the Federal 

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

and Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–

554; H.R. 5658) and the associated 

Information Quality Guidelines issued 

by the Service, provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that decisions made 

by the Service represent the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available. They require Service 

biologists to the extent consistent with 

the Act and with the use of the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. When determining which areas 

are critical habitat, a primary source of 

information is generally the listing 

package for the species. Additional 

information sources include 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, or other 

unpublished materials and expert 

opinion or personal knowledge. All 

information is used in accordance with 

the provisions of Section 515 of the 

Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 

(Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 5658) and the 

associated Information Quality 

Guidelines issued by the Service. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific data available. Habitat 

is often dynamic, and species may move 

from one area to another over time. 

Furthermore, we recognize that 

designation of critical habitat may not 

include all of the habitat areas that may 

eventually be determined to be 

necessary for the recovery of the 

species. For these reasons, critical 

habitat designations do not signal that 

habitat outside the designation is 

unimportant or may not be required for 

recovery. 

Areas that support populations, but 

are outside the critical habitat 

designation, will continue to be subject 

to conservation actions implemented 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to 

the regulatory protections afforded by 

the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as 

determined on the basis of the best 

available information at the time of the 

action. Federally funded or permitted 

projects affecting listed species outside 

their designated critical habitat areas 

may still result in jeopardy findings in 

some cases. Similarly, critical habitat 

designations made on the basis of the 

best scientific information available at 

the time of designation will not control 

the direction and substance of future 

recovery plans, habitat conservation 

plans, or other species conservation 

planning efforts if new information 

available to these planning efforts calls 

for a different outcome. 

Methods 

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

Act, we use the best scientific data 

available in determining critical habitat. 

We have reviewed the approach to the 

conservation of the lynx provided in a 

recovery outline (Service 2005); 

information from State, Federal and 

Tribal agencies; and information from 

academia and private organizations that 

have collected scientific data on lynx. 

The Service recently completed a 

recovery outline for the lynx (Service 

2005). Recovery outlines are brief, 

internally-developed documents 

intended as preliminary strategies for 

conservation of listed species until a 

formal recovery plan is completed (F. 

Dunkle, USFWS, in litt. 1989). 

Development of a formal recovery plan 

for lynx has not yet begun. The lynx 

recovery outline was prepared by 

Service staff experienced in lynx 

conservation and/or recovery planning 

under the Act and two lynx experts 

from the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 

The lynx recovery outline presents 

current understandings of historical and 

current lynx distribution, ecology, and 

population dynamics. The outline 

introduces concepts regarding the 

relative importance of different 

geographic areas to the persistence of 

lynx in the contiguous United States, 

identifying areas as either core, 

provisional core, secondary or 

peripheral based on lynx records over 

time and evidence of reproduction. 

Additionally, the outline describes 

preliminary recovery objectives and 

actions. 

We also reviewed available 

information that pertains to the habitat 

requirements of this species and its 

principal prey, the snowshoe hare. This 

included data in reports submitted by 

researchers holding recovery permits 

under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act; 

research published in peer-reviewed 

articles, presented in academic theses, 

agency reports and unpublished data; 

and various Geographic Information 

System (GIS) coverages (e.g., land cover 

type information, land ownership 

information, snow depth information, 

topographic information, locations of 

lynx obtained from radio- or GPS-collars 

and locations of lynx confirmed via 

DNA analysis or other verified records). 

In evaluating areas to propose as 

critical habitat we first determined the 

geographic area occupied by the species. 

We utilized data providing verified 

evidence of the occurrence of lynx and 

evidence of the presence of breeding 

lynx populations as represented by 

records of lynx reproduction. We 

utilized records since 1995 to ensure 

that this proposed critical habitat 

designation is based on the data that 

most closely represents the current 

status of lynx in the contiguous United 

States and the geographic area occupied 

by the species. Data that define the 

historic and current range of the lynx 

(e.g., McKelvey et al. 2000b; Hoving et 

al. 2003) constitute the geographic area 

that may be occupied by the species; 

therefore, we determined that areas 

outside the historic distribution are not 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. Although the average life span 

of a wild lynx is not known, we have 

assumed that a lynx born in 1995 could 

have been alive in 2000 or 2003, the 

dates of publication of the final listing 

rule and the clarification of findings. 

Furthermore, lynx-related research in 

the contiguous United States 

substantially increased after the 1998 

proposal to list, providing additional 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68299 

information on which to base this 

proposed critical habitat designation. 

These recent verified records were 

provided by Federal research entities, 

state wildlife agencies, academic 

researchers, and private individuals or 

organizations working on lynx (K. 

Aubry, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, unpubl. data; S. Gehman, 

Wildthings Unlimited, unpubl. data; S. 

Gniadek, Glacier National Park, unpubl. 

data; S. Loch, Independent Scientist, 

and E. Lindquist, Superior National 

Forest, unpubl. data; K. McKelvey, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station; 

unpubl. data; Minnesota Department of 

Natural Resources 2005; R. Moen, 

University of Minnesota, Natural 

Resources Research Institute, unpubl. 

data.; J. Squires, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, unpubl. data; J. 

Vashon, Maine Department of Inland 

Fisheries and Wildlife, unpubl. data). 

By accepting only verified recent lynx 

records, we restricted the available lynx 

occurrence dataset because we wanted 

reliable data for the purposes of 

evaluating areas and features for critical 

habitat designation. The reliability of 

lynx occurrence reports can be 

questionable because the bobcat, a 

common species, can be confused with 

the lynx, which is similar in 

appearance. Additionally, many surveys 

are conducted by snow tracking in 

which correct identification of tracks 

can be difficult because of variable 

conditions affecting the quality of the 

track and variable expertise of the 

tracker. Our definition of a verified lynx 

record is modified from McKelvey et al. 

(2000b)—(1) An animal (live or dead) in 

hand or observed closely by a person 

knowledgeable in lynx identification, 

(2) genetic (DNA) confirmation, (3) 

snow tracks only when confirmed by 

genetic analysis (see for example 

Murphy et al. 2004; McKelvey et al. in 

press) or (4) location data from radio- or 

GPS-collared lynx. Documentation of 

lynx reproduction consists of lynx 

kittens in hand, or observed with the 

mother by someone knowledgeable in 

lynx identification, or snow tracks 

demonstrating family groups traveling 

together, as identified by a person 

highly knowledgeable in identification 

of carnivore tracks. 

The geographical area occupied by the 

species was then delineated to 

encompass areas containing features 

essential to the conservation of the lynx, 

the majority of recent lynx records, 

evidence of breeding lynx populations, 

the boreal forest type that is currently 

occupied by lynx in that particular 

region and direct connectivity with lynx 

populations in Canada. Lynx 

populations in the contiguous United 

States seem to be influenced by lynx 

population dynamics in Canada (Thiel 

1987; McKelvey et al. 2000a, c). Many 

of these populations in Canada are 

directly interconnected with United 

States populations, and are likely a 

source of emigration into contiguous 

United States lynx populations. 

Therefore, we assume that retaining 

connectivity with larger lynx 

populations in Canada is important to 

ensuring long-term persistence of lynx 

populations in the United States. We 

assume that, regionally, lynx within the 

contiguous United States and adjacent 

Canadian provinces interact as 

metapopulations. Where available, data 

on historic average snow depths and 

bobcat harvest provided additional 

insight for refining and delineating 

appropriate boundaries. In Maine and 

Minnesota, we used the international 

border with Canada and roads or 

township lines where possible for ease 

in description and clarity. In the North 

Cascades and Northern Rockies, the 

features essential to the conservation of 

lynx, the majority of lynx records, 

evidence of reproduction, and the boreal 

forest types are found above 4,000 feet 

(ft) (1,219 meters [m]) in elevation 

(McKelvey et al. 2000b; K. McAllister et 

al. USFS, in litt. 2000). Thus we limited 

the delineation of proposed critical 

habitat to lands above this elevation. 

Additionally, in the North Cascades, 

features essential to the conservation of 

the lynx and the majority of the lynx 

records and evidence of reproduction 

are from east of the crest of the Cascade 

Mountains. Therefore, in the Cascades 

we used the international border with 

Canada, the Cascade crest and the 4,000- 

ft (1,219 m) elevation contour east of the 

crest as the boundary. In the Northern 

Rockies, the 4,000-ft (1,219 m) contour 

was used as the primary boundary west 

of the Continental Divide. However, the 

climatic effects of the Continental 

Divide cause the 4,000-ft (1,219 m) 

elevation contour to be too broad east of 

the Continental Divide, such that it 

includes substantial areas of grassland 

habitats that do not contain features 

essential to the conservation of the lynx 

or important for snowshoe hares. 

Therefore, east of the Continental Divide 

in the Northern Rockies, we used USFS 

and National Park Service (NPS) 

boundaries to circumscribe critical 

habitat boundaries to more closely 

encompass essential features, recent 

records of lynx, including records of 

reproduction, and boreal forest 

currently occupied by lynx. The 

northern boundary for the Northern 

Rockies unit is the International border 

with Canada. 

Primary Constituent Elements 

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

of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12, in determining which areas to 

propose as critical habitat, we are 

required to base critical habitat 

determinations on the best scientific 

data available and to consider those 

physical and biological features 

(primary constituent element) that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, and that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. The regulations indicate 

these may 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, and rearing (or 

development) of offspring; and habitats 

that are protected from disturbance or 

are representative of the historic 

geographical and ecological 

distributions of a species. 

The area proposed for designation as 

critical habitat provides boreal forest 

habitat for breeding, non-breeding, and 

dispersing lynx in metapopulations 

across the species’ range in the 

contiguous United States. No areas are 

being proposed solely because they 

provide habitat for dispersing animals. 

At this time, the biological or physical 

features of habitats lynx choose for 

dispersal is not well-understood; while 

it is assumed lynx would prefer to travel 

where there is forested cover, the 

literature contains many examples of 

lynx crossing large, unforested openings 

(e.g., Roe et al. 2000). The areas being 

proposed as critical habitat serve a 

variety of functions that include acting 

as a source of dispersing animals and 

providing habitat that may serve as 

travel corridors to facilitate dispersal 

and exploratory movements. The 

features or habitat components essential 

for the conservation of the species were 

determined from studies of lynx and 

snowshoe hare ecology. 

The specific biological and physical 

features, otherwise known as the 

primary constituent elements, essential 

to the conservation of the lynx are: 

(1) Boreal forest landscapes 

supporting a mosaic of differing 

successional forest stages and 

containing: 

(a) Presence of snowshoe hares and 

their preferred habitat conditions, 

which include dense understories of 

young trees or shrubs tall enough to 

protrude above the snow; and 

(b) Winter snow conditions that are 

generally deep and fluffy for extended 

periods of time; and 

68300 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

(c) Sites for denning that have 

abundant coarse woody debris, such as 

downed trees and root wads. 

A description of the primary 

constituent elements are described 

below. 

Boreal Forest Landscapes (Space for 

Individual and Population Growth and 

Normal Behavior) 

Lynx populations respond to biotic 

and abiotic factors at different scales. At 

the regional scale, snow conditions, 

boreal forest, and competitors 

(especially bobcat) influence the 

species’ range (Aubry et al. 2000; 

McKelvey et al. 2000b; Hoving et al. 

2005). At the landscape scale within 

each region, natural and human-caused 

disturbance processes (e.g., fire, wind, 

insect infestations and forest 

management) influence the spatial and 

temporal distribution of lynx 

populations by affecting the distribution 

of good habitat for snowshoe hares 

(Agee 2000; Ruediger et al. 2000). At the 

stand-level scale, quality, quantity, and 

juxtaposition of habitats influence home 

range size, productivity, and survival 

(Aubry et al. 2000; Vashon et al. 2005a). 

At the substand scale, spatial 

distribution and abundance of prey and 

microclimate influence movements, 

hunting behavior, den, and resting site 

locations. 

All of the primary constituent 

elements of critical habitat for lynx are 

found in what is broadly described as 

the boreal forest landscape. In the 

contiguous United States, the boreal 

forest is more transitional rather than 

true boreal forest of northern Canada 

and Alaska (Agee 2000). This difference 

is because the boreal forest is at its 

southern limits in the contiguous 

United States, where it transitions to 

deciduous temperate forest in the 

northeast and Great Lakes and subalpine 

forest in the west (Agee 2000). We use 

the term ‘‘boreal forest’’ because it 

generally encompasses most of the 

vegetative descriptions of the 

transitional forest types that comprise 

lynx habitat in the contiguous United 

States (Agee 2000). 

At a regional scale, lynx habitat is 

within the areas that generally support 

deep snow throughout the winter and 

that support boreal forest vegetation 

types (see below for more detail). In 

eastern North America, lynx 

distribution was strongly associated 

with areas of deep snowfall (greater than 

268 cm (105 in) of mean annual 

snowfall) and 100 km2 (40 mi2) 

landscapes with a high proportion of 

regenerating forest (Hoving 2001). 

Hoving et al. (2004) concluded that the 

broad geographic distribution of lynx in 

eastern North America is most 

influenced by snowfall, but within areas 

of similarly deep snowfall, measures of 

forest succession become more 

important factors in determining lynx 

distribution. 

As described above (see 

‘‘Background’’), boreal forests used by 

lynx are cool, moist and dominated by 

conifer tree species, primarily spruce 

and fir (Elliot-Fisk 1988; Agee 2000; 

Aubry et al. 2000; Ruediger et al. 2000). 

Boreal forest landscapes used by lynx 

are a heterogeneous mosaic of vegetative 

cover types and successional forest 

stages created by natural and humancaused disturbances (McKelvey et al. 

2000a). Periodic vegetation disturbances 

stimulate development of dense 

understory or early successional habitat 

for snowshoe hares (Ruediger et al. 

2000). In Maine, lynx were positively 

associated with landscapes altered by 

clearcutting 15 to 25 years previously 

(Hoving et al. 2004). 

The overall quality of the boreal forest 

landscape matrix and juxtaposition of 

stands in suitable condition within the 

landscape is important for both lynx 

and snowshoe hares in that it can 

influence connectivity or movements 

between suitable stands, availability of 

food and cover and spatial structuring of 

populations or subpopulations (Hodges 

2000b; McKelvey et al. 2000a; Ricketts 

2001; Walker 2005). For example, lynx 

foraging habitat must be near denning 

habitat to allow females to adequately 

provision dependent kittens, especially 

when the kittens are relatively 

immobile. In north-central Washington, 

hare densities were higher in landscapes 

with an abundance of dense boreal 

forest interspersed with small patches of 

open habitat, in contrast to landscapes 

composed primarily of open forest 

interspersed with few dense vegetation 

patches (Walker 2005). Similarly, in 

northwest Montana, connectivity of 

dense patches within the forest matrix 

benefited snowshoe hares (Ausband and 

Baty 2005). In mountainous areas, lynx 

appear to prefer flatter slopes (Apps 

2000; McKelvey et al. 2000d; von 

Kienast 2003; Maletzke 2004). 

Individual lynx require large portions 

of boreal forest landscapes to support 

their home ranges and to facilitate 

dispersal and exploratory travel. The 

size of lynx home ranges is believed to 

be strongly influenced by the quality of 

the habitat, particularly the abundance 

of snowshoe hares, in addition to other 

factors such as gender, age, season, and 

density of the lynx population (Aubry et 

al. 2000; Mowat et al. 2000). Generally, 

females with kittens have the smallest 

home ranges while males have the 

largest home ranges (Moen et al. 2004). 

Reported home range size varies from 31 

km2 (12 mi2) for females and 68 km2 (26 

mi2) for males in Maine (Vashon et al. 

2005a) to much larger ranges of 88 km2

(34 mi2) for females and 216 km2 (83 

mi2) for males in northwest Montana 

(Squires et al. 2004b). 

Forest Type Associations 

Maine 

Lynx were more likely to occur in 100 

km2 (40 mi2) landscapes with 

regenerating forest, and less likely to 

occur in landscapes with recent clearcut 

or partial harvest, (Hoving et al. 2004). 

Lynx in Maine select softwood (spruce 

and fir) dominated regenerating stands 

(Vashon et al. 2005a). Regenerating 

stands used by lynx generally develop 

15–30 years after forest disturbance and 

are characterized by dense horizontal 

structure and high stem density within 

a meter of the ground. These habitats 

support high snowshoe hare densities 

(Homyack 2003; Fuller and Harrison 

2005; Vashon et al. 2005a). At the stand 

scale, lynx in northwestern Maine 

selected older (11 to 26 year-old), tall 

(4.6 to 7.3 m (15 to 24 ft)) regenerating 

clearcut stands and older (11 to 21 yearold) partially harvested stands (A. 

Fuller, University of Maine, unpubl. 

data). 

Minnesota 

In Minnesota, lynx primarily occur in 

the Northern Superior Uplands 

Ecological Section of the Laurentian 

Mixed Forest Province. Historically, this 

area was dominated by red pine (Pinus 

resinosa) and white pine (P. strobus) 

mixed with aspen (Populus spp.), paper 

birch (Betula papyrifera), spruce, 

balsam fir (A. balsamifera) and jack pine 

(P. banksiana) (Minnesota Department 

of Natural Resources [Minnesota DNR] 

2003). 

Preliminary research suggests lynx in 

Minnesota generally use younger stands 

(less than 50 years) with a conifer 

component in greater proportion than 

their availability (R. Moen, University of 

Minnesota, unpubl. data). Lynx prefer 

predominantly upland forests 

dominated by red pine, white pine, jack 

pine, black spruce (P. mariana), paper 

birch, quaking aspen (P. tremuloides), or 

balsam fir (R. Moen, unpubl. data). 

Washington 

In the North Cascades in Washington, 

the majority of lynx occurrences were 

found above 1,250 m (4,101 ft) elevation 

(McKelvey et al. 2000b,d; von Kienast 

2003; Maletzke 2004). In this area, lynx 

selected Engelman spruce (P. 

engelmanii)-subalpine-fir (A. 

lasiocarpa) forest cover types in winter 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68301 

(von Kienast 2003, Maletzke 2004). 

Lodgepole pine (P. contorta) is a 

dominant tree species in the earlier 

successional stages of these climax 

cover types. Seral lodgepole stands 

contained dense understories and 

therefore received high use by snowshoe 

hares and lynx (Koehler 1990; McKelvey 

et al. 2000d). 

Northern Rockies 

In the Northern Rocky Mountains, the 

majority of lynx occurrences are 

associated with the Rocky Mountain 

Conifer Forest vegetative class (Kuchler 

1964; McKelvey et al. 2000b) and occur 

above 1,250 m (4,101 ft) elevation 

(Aubry et al. 2000; McKelvey et al. 

2000b). The dominant vegetation that 

constitutes lynx habitat in these areas is 

subalpine fir, Engelman spruce and 

lodgepole pine (Aubry et al. 2000; 

Ruediger et al. 2000). As in the 

Cascades, lodgepole pine is an earlier 

successional stage of subalpine fir and 

Engelman spruce climax forest cover 

types. 

a. Snowshoe Hares (Food) 

Snowshoe hare density is the most 

important factor explaining the 

persistence of lynx populations (Steury 

and Murray 2004). A minimum 

snowshoe hare density necessary to 

maintain a persistent, reproducing lynx 

population within the contiguous 

United States has not been determined, 

although Ruggiero et al. (2000) 

suggested that at least 0.5 hares per 

hectare (ha) (0.2 hares per acre (ac)) may 

be necessary. Steury and Murray (2004) 

modeled lynx and snowshoe hare 

populations and predicted that a 

minimum of 1.1 to 1.8 hares per ha (0.4 

to 0.7 hares per ac) was required for 

persistence of a reintroduced lynx 

population in the southern portion of 

the lynx range. 

The boreal forest landscape must 

contain a mosaic of forest stand 

successional stages to sustain lynx 

populations over the long term as the 

condition of individual stands changes 

over time. If the vegetation potential (or 

climax forest type) of a particular forest 

stand is conducive to supporting 

abundant snowshoe hares, it likely will 

also go through successional phases that 

are unsuitable as lynx foraging 

(snowshoe hare habitat) or lynx denning 

habitat (Agee 2000; Buskirk et al. 

2000b). For example, a boreal forest 

stand where there has been recent 

disturbance, such as fire or timber 

harvest, resulting in little or no 

understory structure is unsuitable as 

snowhoe hare habitat for lynx foraging. 

That temporarily unsuitable stand may 

regenerate into suitable snowshoe hare 

(lynx foraging) habitat within 10 to 25 

years, depending on local conditions 

(Ruediger et al. 2000). Forest 

management techniques that thin the 

understory, however, may render the 

habitat unsuitable for hares and, thus, 

for lynx (Ruediger et al. 2000; Hoving et 

al. 2004). Stands may continue to 

provide suitable snowshoe hare habitat 

for many years until woody stems in the 

understory become too sparse, as a 

result of undisturbed forest succession 

or management (e.g., clearcutting or 

thinning). Thus, if the vegetation 

potential of the stand is appropriate, a 

stand that is not currently in a condition 

that is suitable to support abundant 

snowshoe hares for lynx foraging or 

coarse woody debris for den sites has 

the capability to develop into suitable 

habitat for lynx and snowshoe hares 

with time. 

As described previously, snowshoe 

hares prefer boreal forest stands that 

have a dense horizontal understory to 

provide food, cover and security from 

predators. Snowshoe hares feed on 

conifers, deciduous trees and shrubs 

(Hodges 2000b). Snowshoe hare density 

is correlated to understory cover 

between approximately 1 to 3 m (3 to 10 

ft) above the ground or snow level 

(Hodges 2000b). Habitats most heavily 

used by snowshoe hares are stands with 

shrubs, stands that are densely stocked, 

and stands at ages where branches have 

more lateral cover (Hodges 2000b). In 

Maine, unthinned stands supporting 

1.83 hares per ha (0.7 hares per ac) had 

average stem densities of 11,600 stems 

per ha (4700 stems per ac) (Homyack et 

al. 2004). In northcentral Washington, 

snowshoe hare density was highest in 

20 year old lodgepole pine stands where 

the average density of trees and shrubs 

was 15,840 stems per ha (6415 stems per 

ac) (Koehler 1990). Generally, earlier 

successional forest stages support a 

greater density of horizontal understory 

and more abundant snowshoe hares 

(Buehler and Keith 1982; Wolfe et al. 

1982; Koehler 1990; Hodges 2000b; 

Homyack 2003; Griffin 2004); however, 

sometimes mature stands also can have 

adequate dense understory to support 

abundant snowshoe hares (Griffin 2004). 

In Maine, the highest snowshoe hare 

densities were found in regenerating 

softwood (spruce and fir) and 

mixedwood stands (Homyack 2003, 

Fuller and Harrison 2005). In the north 

Cascades, the highest snowshoe hare 

densities were found in 20-year-old 

seral lodgepole pine stands with a dense 

understory (Koehler 1990). In montane 

and subalpine forests in northwest 

Montana, the highest snowshoe hare 

densities in summer were generally in 

younger stands with dense forest 

structure, whereas in winter, snowshoe 

hare densities were as high or higher in 

mature stands with dense understory 

forest structure (Griffin 2004). 

Snowshoe hare studies are just 

underway in Minnesota (University of 

Minnesota Web site http:// 

www.nrri.umn.edu/lynx/research.html); 

therefore, results are not available at this 

time. 

Habitats supporting abundant 

snowshoe hares must be present in a 

large proportion of the landscape to 

support a viable lynx population. Broadscale snowshoe hare density estimates 

are not available for the areas being 

proposed as lynx critical habitat; 

available snowshoe hare density 

estimates are only applicable for the 

immediate area and time frame for 

which the study was conducted and 

cannot be extrapolated further. 

b. Snow Conditions (Other 

Physiological Requirements) 

As described in the ‘‘Background’’

above, snow conditions also determine 

the distribution of lynx. Deep, fluffy 

snow conditions likely restrict potential 

competitors such as bobcat or coyote 

from effectively encroaching on or 

hunting in winter lynx habitat. Snowfall 

was the strongest predictor of lynx 

occurrence at a regional scale (Hoving et 

al. 2005). In addition to snow depth, 

other snow properties, including surface 

hardness or sinking depth, are 

important factors in the spatial, 

ecological, and genetic structuring of the 

species (Stenseth et al. 2004). 

In the northeastern United States, 

lynx are most likely to occur in areas 

with a 10-year mean annual snowfall 

greater than 268 cm (105 in) (Hoving 

2001). The Northern Superior Uplands 

section of Minnesota, which roughly 

corresponds to the area proposed as 

critical habitat, receives more of its 

precipitation as snow than any section 

in the State, has the longest period of 

snow cover, and the shortest growing 

season (Minnesota DNR 2003). Mean 

annual snowfall from 1971 to 2000 in 

this area was generally greater than 149 

cm (55 in) (University of Minnesota 

2005). 

Information on average snowfall or 

snow depths in mountainous areas such 

as the Cascades or northwest Montana is 

limited because there are few weather 

stations in these regions that have 

measured snow fall or snow depth over 

time. An important consideration is that 

the topography strongly influences local 

snow conditions. In the Cascades, at the 

Mazama station, average annual 

snowfall from 1948 to 1976 was 292 cm 

(115 in) (Western Regional Climate 

Center 2005). In Montana, at the Seeley 

68302 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Lake Ranger Station, average annual 

snowfall from 1948 to 2005 was 315 cm 

(124 in), while at the Troy station the 

average total snowfall from 1961 to 1994 

was 229 cm (90 in) (Western Regional 

Climate Center 2005). 

c. Denning Habitat (Sites for 

Reproduction and Rearing of Offspring) 

Lynx den sites are found in mature 

and younger boreal forest stands that 

have a large amount of cover and 

downed, large woody debris. The 

structural components of lynx den sites 

are common features in managed 

(logged) and unmanaged (e.g., insect 

damaged, wind-throw) stands. Downed 

trees provide excellent cover for den 

sites and kittens and often are 

associated with dense woody stem 

growth. 

Sub-stand characteristics were 

evaluated for 26 lynx dens from 1999 to 

2004 in northwest Maine. Dens were 

found in several stand types. Modeling 

of den site variables determined that tipup mounds (exposed roots from fallen 

trees) alone best explained den site 

selection (J. Organ, Service, unpubl. 

data). Tip-up mounds may purely be an 

index of downed trees, which were 

abundant on the landscape. Horizontal 

cover at 5 m (16 ft) alone was the next 

best performing model (J. Organ, 

unpubl. data). Dead downed trees were 

sampled, but did not explain den site 

selection as well as tip-up mounds and 

cover at 5 m (16 ft). Lynx essentially 

select dense cover in a cover-rich area. 

In the North Cascades, Washington, 

lynx denned in mature (older than 250 

years) stands with an overstory of 

Engelman spruce, subalpine fir and 

lodgepole pine with an abundance of 

downed woody debris (Koehler 1990). 

In this study, all den sites were located 

on north-northeast aspects (Koehler 

1990). In northwest Montana, the 

immediate areas around dens were in a 

variety of stand ages but all contained 

abundant woody debris including 

downed logs, blowdowns, and 

rootwads, and dense understory cover 

(Squires et al. 2004b). ). Information on 

den site characteristics in Minnesota has 

not yet been reported (Moen et al. 2004). 

Primary Constituent Elements Summary 

The discussion above outlines those 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the lynx 

and provides a basis for their selection 

as the primary constituent element for 

this proposed critical habitat. The 

primary constituent elements comprise 

the essential features of boreal forest 

that (1) Provide adequate prey resources 

necessary for the persistence of local 

populations and metapopulations of 

lynx through reproduction; (2) act as a 

possible source of lynx for more 

peripheral boreal forested areas; (3) 

enable the maintenance of home ranges; 

(4) incorporate snow conditions for 

which lynx are highly specialized that 

give lynx a competitive advantage over 

potential competitors; (5) provide 

denning habitat; and (6) provide habitat 

connectivity for travel within home 

ranges, exploratory movements, and 

dispersal. 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat 

To identify areas containing features 

that are essential to the conservation of 

the lynx, we considered the concepts 

introduced in the recovery outline for 

the species (Service 2005) and the above 

analysis concerning occupancy, 

evidence of reproduction, connectivity 

with adjacent lynx populations in 

Canada and the primary constituent 

elements. In summary, the area 

occupied by the lynx in the contiguous 

United States is broadly delineated by 

the distribution of the southern 

extensions of boreal forest, which occur 

in the Northeast (portions of Maine, 

New Hampshire, Vermont, New York); 

the western Great Lakes (portions of 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan); the 

Northern Rocky Mountains/Cascades 

(portions of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, 

Montana, northwestern Wyoming, 

Utah); and the Southern Rocky 

Mountains (portions of Colorado, 

southeastern Wyoming) (Agee 2000; 

McKelvey et al. 2000b; Hoving et al. 

2003). Within this broad distribution the 

recovery outline (Service 2005) 

delineated core areas that contain 

consistent, verified records of lynx over 

time and evidence of reproduction 

within the past 20 years. The long-term 

occupation of these general areas by 

lynx supports the assumption that they 

contain habitats sufficient in quality and 

quantity to continue to sustain lynx 

populations. An additional factor 

strongly influencing most of these core 

areas is their connection with larger 

lynx populations in Canada. Each 

proposed critical habitat unit occurs 

within one of these core areas. 

The proposed critical habitat 

designation does not include all the 

areas identified in the recovery outline 

as core areas. This is because the 

recovery outline did not define areas 

essential to the conservation of lynx as 

is necessary for this proposed critical 

habitat designation. The criteria we 

used for determining areas essential to 

the conservation of lynx for the 

proposed critical habitat were more 

rigorous than those used for delineating 

the recovery areas in the lynx recovery 

outline; in particular, for critical habitat 

we focused closely on areas with 

reliable evidence of lynx occurrence and 

reproduction since 1995. The recovery 

outline more broadly encompassed 

older records of lynx. For example, the 

core area in the northeastern United 

States extends from northern Maine into 

northern New Hampshire because of 

historic records of lynx in New 

Hampshire. However, because there is 

no verified evidence of lynx occupation 

or reproduction in New Hampshire or 

western Maine since 1995, the critical 

habitat unit does not extend into these 

areas. Furthermore, the preliminary 

boundaries for the recovery areas were 

intended to be for representative 

purposes only so were drawn on a gross 

scale compared to the proposed critical 

habitat boundaries. To simplify the 

mapping of the recovery area 

boundaries we often used highways or 

rivers or, as in Minnesota, general maps 

of average snowfall for the boundaries 

although we knew that these recovery 

outline boundaries encompassed 

habitats that were not boreal forest 

habitat. In Minnesota, the recovery core 

area boundary was drawn according to 

an approximate line where average 

snow fall was greater than 55 in (140 

cm). However, while subsequently 

evaluating information for the critical 

habitat proposal, we received bobcat 

harvest data for Minnesota showing 

abundant bobcat harvest and reduced 

lynx presence in the area west of the 

proposed critical habitat unit in 

Minnesota, which suggests the western 

portion of the area preliminarily 

delinated as core in Minnesota may not 

be of high quality for lynx. The Montana 

and north Cascades (Washington) core 

area boundaries were drawn primarily 

along highways and rivers that occur 

below the 4,000 ft (1,219 m) elevation 

contour, which is below the elevation 

that supports lynx habitat. As a result, 

the proposed critical habitat units are 

subsets of four of the six areas 

preliminarily delineated as core areas in 

the lynx recovery outline. 

We did not propose critical habitat in 

two areas the recovery outline defined 

as core, the Kettle Range in northcentral 

Washington and the Greater 

Yellowstone Ecosystem. The Kettle 

Range historically supported lynx 

populations (Stinson 2001). However, 

although boreal forest habitat within the 

Kettle Range appears of high quality for 

lynx, there is no evidence that the Kettle 

Range is currently occupied by a lynx 

population (G. Koehler, Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, pers. 

comm. 2005). In particular, we have no 

information to suggest a lynx population 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68303 

has occupied the Kettle area since 1995. 

Therefore, we did not propose the Kettle 

Range as critical habitat. 

Although lynx currently occupy the 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem 

(Murphy et al. 2004; J. Squires, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, unpubl. 

data; S. Gehman, Wildthings Unlimited, 

unpubl. data), their presence has been at 

a lower level compared to areas we are 

proposing as critical habitat. In the 

clarification of findings published in the 

Federal Register on July 3, 2003 (68 FR 

40076), we concluded this was because 

habitat in this area is less capable of 

supporting snowshoe hares because it is 

naturally marginal (more patchy and 

drier forest types) and because the 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem is 

disjunct from likely source populations. 

Within Yellowstone National Park, few 

lynx were detected during recent 

surveys (Murphy et al. 2004) and 

snowshoe hare densities were very low 

(Hodges and Mills 2005). Murphy et al. 

(2004) concluded that elevations and 

slope aspects cause lynx habitat in this 

area to be naturally highly fragmented, 

resulting in low lynx densities. Few 

lynx were documented in the Wyoming 

Mountain Range in the southern portion 

of the ecosystem (Squires and Laurion 

2000; Squires et al. 2001). On study sites 

on the western edge of the Greater 

Yellowstone Ecosystem in Idaho, the 

subalpine fir vegetation series that 

comprises lynx and snowshoe hare 

habitat was found only in small, 

discontinuous patches (McDaniel and 

McKelvey 2004). In this study area, few 

stands supported snowshoe hare 

densities similar to areas known to 

support lynx (McKelvey and McDaniel 

2001). Therefore, because the habitat 

appears to be of lower quality as 

indicated by the low numbers of lynx 

records, we are not proposing to 

designate critical habitat for lynx within 

the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem 

although it is delineated as a core area 

in the lynx recovery outline. 

The recovery outline identified one 

area, the Southern Rocky Mountains, as 

a ‘‘provisional core’’ because of the 

current uncertainty that ongoing lynx 

reintroduction efforts will result in a 

self-sustaining lynx population. Native 

lynx were functionally extirpated from 

their historic range in Colorado and 

southern Wyoming in the Southern 

Rocky Mountains by the time the lynx 

was listed in 2000. In 1999, the State of 

Colorado began an intensive effort to 

reintroduce lynx. Although it is too 

early to determine whether the 

introduction will result in a selfsustaining population, the reintroduced 

lynx have produced kittens and now are 

distributed throughout the lynx habitat 

in Colorado and southern Wyoming. 

These animals are not designated as 

experimental under section 10(j) of the 

Act. Although Colorado’s reintroduction 

effort is an important step toward the 

recovery of lynx, we are not proposing 

to designate critical habitat in the 

Southern Rockies because of the current 

uncertainty that a self-sustaining lynx 

population will become established. 

Many areas within the contiguous 

United States have one or more 

individual lynx records with no 

evidence of persistent, reproducing lynx 

populations. It is possible some of these 

areas may support undocumented 

persistent populations of lynx. 

However, most of these records are 

likely a result of wide-ranging dispersal 

events, occur in habitat that is less 

suitable for lynx than in the core areas, 

and are mostly disjunct from areas that 

contain persistent lynx populations. Our 

recovery outline defines these areas as 

secondary or peripheral and their role in 

sustaining persistent lynx populations is 

unclear; such areas may provide habitat 

to dispersing lynx, especially when 

populations are extremely high and 

some of these animals may eventually 

settle in areas capable of supporting 

lynx populations. 

Areas delineated as secondary or 

peripheral in the lynx recovery outline 

are not included in our proposed critical 

habitat designation because they 

support only periodic records of lynx 

over time and they lack evidence that 

reproducing lynx populations occupy 

any of the secondary or peripheral areas. 

Habitat suitability for lynx has not been 

assessed throughout the secondary and 

peripheral areas, but the relative lack of 

lynx records over time, and, in 

particular the lack of evidence of 

reproducing populations, may suggest 

that habitat, in particular snowshoe hare 

densities, has not been adequate 

historically, nor is it currently adequate, 

to support reproducing lynx 

populations. Additionally, some of the 

peripheral areas are naturally disjunct 

and support few historical records of 

lynx. If unsuitable habitat conditions are 

the reason these areas have no record of 

supporting reproducing lynx 

populations, then these areas do not 

support the PCE for lynx. 

We propose to designate critical 

habitat on lands we have determined 

were occupied at the time of listing, 

currently support the most abundant, 

reproducing lynx populations in the 

contiguous United States, and contains 

the primary constituent element that is 

essential to the conservation of the lynx. 

The focus of our strategy for proposed 

critical habitat is on boreal forest 

landscapes of sufficient size to 

encompass the temporal and spatial 

changes in habitat and snowshoe hare 

populations to support interbreeding 

lynx populations or metapopulations 

over time within each unit. Individual 

lynx maintain large home ranges; the 

areas proposed as critical habitat are 

large enough to encompass multiple 

home ranges. A secondary consideration 

is that, in addition to supporting 

breeding populations, these areas 

provide connectivity among patches of 

suitable habitat (e.g., patches containing 

abundant snowshoe hares), whose 

locations in the landscape shift through 

time. 

At the scale of the proposed units it 

was not feasible to completely avoid 

encompassing waterbodies, including 

lakes, reservoirs and rivers, and 

developed areas such as towns (see 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

section below), or human-made 

structures such as buildings, airports, 

paved and gravel roadbeds, active 

railroad beds, and other structures that 

lack the PCEs for the lynx. Any such 

developed areas and the land on which 

such structures are located, inside 

proposed critical habitat boundaries, are 

not considered part of the proposed 

unit. Therefore, section 7 consultation 

would not be required for Federal 

actions that affect only these areas 

because they would not affect critical 

habitat or lynx, although any indirect 

effects of such actions must also be 

considered when determining whether 

section 7 consultation is required. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection 

As we undertake the process of 

designating critical habitat for a species, 

in the geographical area occupied by the 

lynx at the time of listing we first 

evaluate lands defined by those physical 

and biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species for inclusion 

in the designation pursuant to section 

3(5)(A) of the Act. We then evaluate 

those lands to assess whether they, or 

the features themselves, may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. The areas proposed for 

designation as critical habitat will 

require some level of management to 

address the current and future threats to 

the lynx and to maintain the primary 

constituent elements essential to the 

conservation of the species. In all units, 

special management will be required to 

ensure that boreal forest landscapes 

provide a mosaic of forest stands of 

various ages to provide abundant prey 

habitat, denning habitat, and 

connectivity within the landscape. 

The designation of critical habitat 

does not imply that lands outside of 

68304 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

critical habitat do not play an important 

role in the conservation of the lynx. 

Federal activities that may affect areas 

outside of critical habitat, such as forest 

management, development, and road 

construction, are still subject to review 

under section 7 of the Act if they may 

affect lynx because Federal agencies 

must consider both effects to lynx and 

effects to critical habitat independently. 

The prohibitions of section 9 of the Act 

(e.g., harm, harass, capture, kill) also 

continue to apply both inside and 

outside of designated critical habitat. 

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation 

We are proposing four units as critical 

habitat for the lynx. These areas occur 

in northern Maine, northeastern 

Minnesota, the Northern Rocky 

Mountains (northwestern Montana/ 

northeastern Idaho), and the Northern 

Cascades (north-central Washington). 

The areas are distributed across the 

known occupied range of the lynx in the 

contiguous United States, and are 

necessary to conserve the species. The 

critical habitat areas described below 

constitute our best assessment at this 

time of the areas essential for the 

conservation of the lynx and that 

require special management 

considerations or protection. To further 

understand the location of these 

proposed areas please see the associated 

maps found within this proposed rule 

(also available at our Web site: http:// 

mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/ 

mammals/lynx/). 

The four critical habitat units are: (1) 

Maine unit; (2) Minnesota unit; (3) 

Northern Rocky Mountains unit 

(northwestern Montana/northeastern 

Idaho); and (4) Northern Cascades unit 

(north-central Washington) (Table 1). 

Proposed critical habitat by land 

ownership and State is in Table 2. 

TABLE 1.—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS PROPOSED FOR THE CANADA LYNX

Critical Habitat Unit Miles 2 Kilometers 2

1. Maine ....................................................................................................................................................... 10,633 27,539 

2. Minnesota ................................................................................................................................................ 3,546 9,183 

3. Northern Rocky Mountains (ID/MT)* ....................................................................................................... 10,760 27,869 

4. Northern Cascades (WA)* ....................................................................................................................... 1,996 5,169 

Total* .................................................................................................................................................... 26,935 69,760 

(Note U.S. Forest Service lands in Idaho, Montana, and Washington are not included in this proposal, although their area is reflected in the 

values in the table (*).) 

TABLE 2.—CRITICAL HABITAT PROPOSED FOR THE CANADA LYNX BY LAND OWNERSHIP AND STATE (MI 2 /KM 2) 

Federal* State Private Tribal Other 

Idaho ...................................................... 0/0 1/3 0/0 0/0 0/0 

Maine ..................................................... 13/34 758/1,962 9,741/25,230 86/223 35/90 

Minnesota .............................................. 440/1,139 1,355/3,510 1,661/4,303 74/192 15/39 

Montana ................................................. * 365/946 1,691/4,381 0/0 63/162 

Washington ............................................ * 164/426 5/13 0/0 0.5/1 

Total ................................................ * 2,643/6,847 13,098/33,927 160/415 114/293 

(Note U.S. Forest Service lands in Idaho, Montana, and Washington are not included in this proposal, although their area is reflected in the 

values in the table (*).) 

We present brief descriptions of each 

critical habitat unit below. 

Unit 1: Maine 

Unit 1 is located in northern Maine in 

portions of Aroostook, Franklin, 

Penobscot, Piscataquis and Somerset 

Counties. This area was occupied by the 

lynx at the time of listing and, since that 

time, lynx have been documented 

throughout northern Maine. Research in 

northwestern Maine has documented 

high productivity of lynx; 91 percent (30 

of 33 potential litters) of available adult 

females (greater than 2 years) produced 

litters and litters averaged 2.83 kittens 

(Vashon et al. 2005b). This area contains 

the features essential to the conservation 

of the lynx as it is comprised of 

extensive boreal forest supporting the 

primary constituent element and its 

components. This area is also important 

for lynx conservation because it is the 

only area in the northeastern region of 

the lynx’s range within the contiguous 

United States that currently supports 

breeding lynx populations, and likely 

acts as a source or provides connectivity 

for more peripheral portions of the 

lynx’s range in the Northeast. Timber 

harvest and management is the 

dominant land use within the unit, 

therefore, special management is 

required depending on the silvicultural 

practices conducted (Service 2003). 

Timber management practices that 

provide for a dense understory are 

beneficial for lynx and snowshoe hares. 

In this area, other habitat-related threats 

to lynx are lack of an International 

conservation strategy for lynx, traffic 

and development (Service 2003). 

Unit 2: Minnesota 

Unit 2 is located in northeastern 

Minnesota in portions of Cook, 

Koochiching, Lake, and St. Louis 

Counties. In 2003, when we last 

formally reviewed the status of the lynx, 

there were numerous verified records of 

lynx from northeastern Minnesota (68 

FR 40076, July 3, 2003). Lynx are 

currently known to be distributed 

throughout northeastern Minnesota, as 

has been confirmed through DNA 

analysis, radio- and GPS-collared 

animals, and documentation of 

reproduction (Moen et al. 2004; 

Minnesota DNR 2005; S. Loch, 

independent scientist, unpubl. data; 

Minnesota Department of Natural 

Resources, unpubl. data). This area 

contains the features essential to the 

conservation of the lynx as it comprises 

extensive boreal forest supporting the 

primary constituent elements. This area 

is also important for lynx conservation 

because it is the only area in the Great 

Lakes region of the lynx’s range in the 

contiguous United States for which we 

have evidence of recent lynx 

reproduction, and it likely acts as a 

source or provides connectivity for more 

peripheral portions of the lynx’s range 

in the Great Lakes region. Timber 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68305 

harvest and management is a dominant 

land use (Service 2003). Therefore, 

special management is required 

depending on the silvicultural practices 

conducted Timber management 

practices that provide for a dense 

understory are beneficial for lynx and 

snowshoe hares. In this area, lack of an 

international conservation strategy for 

lynx, fire suppression or fuels treatment, 

traffic and/or development are other 

habitat-related threats to lynx (Service 

2003). 

As described below, the lands (both 

Superior National Forest and non-USFS 

lands) encompassed in Lynx Analysis 

Units (LAUs) mapped by the Superior 

National Forest and lands the Forest 

delineated as a Lynx Refugium are not 

included in this proposed designation 

because, although important to the 

conservation of the lynx, the Superior 

National Forest manages its lands 

within the LAUs with measures to 

conserve lynx and takes into 

consideration habitat conditions for 

lynx throughout a LAU regardless of 

land ownership. Therefore, no special 

management consideration or protection 

of this area is necessary. 

Public Land Survey sections 

encompassing a mining district in 

Minnesota known as the Iron Range 

were not included in the proposed 

designation because they do not contain 

the physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of lynx. In 

much of the Iron Range, mining has 

removed all vegetation and much of this 

area was subsequently flooded. Areas 

that are still vegetated and not flooded 

are extensively fragmented by the mined 

areas and haul roads. We used the ‘‘GAP 

Land Cover—Tiled Raster’’ dataset 

(Minnesota Department of Natural 

Resources 2002) to identify sections that 

are heavily influenced by mining 

activities. Areas described as ‘‘Barren’’

and ‘‘Mixed Developed’’ in the GAP 

dataset appeared to correspond to areas 

that were mined or extensively 

disturbed by mining related activities 

(service roads, etc.), based on analyses 

of aerial photos (National Agricultural 

Imagery Program 2003). Further 

inspection of the aerial photos indicated 

that there were additional sections with 

extensive effects of mining, beyond that 

indicated by the GAP data, which is 

based on 10–15 year-old satellite 

imagery. 

Unit 3: Northern Rocky Mountains 

Unit 3 is located in northwestern 

Montana and a small portion of 

northeastern Idaho in portions of 

Boundary County in Idaho and 

Flathead, Glacier, Granite, Lake, Lewis 

and Clark, Lincoln, Missoula, Pondera, 

Powell and Teton Counties in Montana. 

This area was known to be occupied by 

lynx at the time of listing. Lynx are 

currently known to be widely 

distributed throughout this unit and 

breeding has been documented in 

multiple locations (Gehman et al. 2004; 

Squires et al. 2004a, 2004b). The Salish 

Mountains appear to support few recent 

verified lynx records. However, survey 

effort in the Salish Mountains has been 

limited, boreal forest conditions exist, 

and the Salish Mountains likely provide 

east-west connectivity between the 

Purcell Mountains and the Whitefish 

Mountains. This area contains the 

features essential to the conservation of 

the lynx as it is comprised of boreal 

forest supporting the primary 

constituent elements. This area is also 

important for lynx conservation because 

it appears to support the highest density 

lynx populations in the Northern Rocky 

Mountain region of the lynx’s range. It 

likely acts as a source or provides 

connectivity for other portions of the 

lynx’s range in the Rocky Mountains, 

particularly the Yellowstone area. 

As described below, the Flathead 

Indian Reservation and Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) lands in the Garnet 

Resource Area, and Federal lands 

within the Flathead, Helena, Idaho 

Panhandle, Kootenai, Lewis and Clark, 

and Lolo National Forests are not 

included in this proposed designation 

because, although important to the 

conservation of the lynx, these lands are 

sufficiently managed with measures to 

conserve lynx. Therefore, no special 

management considerations or 

protection of these areas is needed. 

Unit 4: North Cascades 

Unit 4 is located in north-central 

Washington in portions of Chelan and 

Okanogan Counties. This area was 

known to be occupied at the time lynx 

was listed. This unit supports the 

highest densities of lynx in Washington 

(Stinson 2001). Evidence from limited 

recent research and DNA shows lynx 

distributed within this unit, with 

breeding being documented (von 

Kienast 2003; K. Aubry, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, unpubl. 

data; B. Maletzke, Washington State 

University, unpubl. data). Although 

there appear to be fewer records in the 

portion of the unit south of Highway 20, 

few surveys have been conducted in this 

portion of the unit. This area does 

support boreal forest habitat and the 

components essential to the 

conservation of the lynx. Further, it is 

contiguous with the portion of the unit 

north of Highway 20, particularly in 

winter when deep snows close Highway 

20. The northern portion of the unit 

adjacent to the Canadian border also 

appears to support few recent lynx 

records; however, it is designated 

wilderness so access to survey this area 

is difficult. This northern portion 

supports extensive boreal forest 

vegetation types and the components 

essential to the conservation of the lynx. 

Additionally, lynx populations exist in 

British Columbia directly north of and 

likely continuous with this unit (E. 

Lofrothe, British Columbia Ministry of 

the Environment, unpubl. data). This 

area contains the features essential to 

the conservation of the lynx as it is 

comprised of extensive boreal forest 

supporting the primary constituent 

element and its components. This area 

is also important for lynx conservation 

because it is the only area in the 

Cascades region of the lynx’s range that 

is known to support breeding lynx 

populations. 

The BLM lands in the Spokane 

District and Federal lands within the 

Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest 

are not included in this proposed 

designation because, although important 

to the conservation of the lynx, these 

lands are sufficiently managed with 

measures to conserve lynx. Since no 

special management considerations or 

protection is needed for lynx, the area 

does not meet the definition of critical 

habitat. 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to evaluate their actions with respect to 

any species that is proposed or listed as 

endangered or threatened and with 

respect to its critical habitat, if any is 

proposed or designated. Regulations 

implementing this interagency 

cooperation provision of the Act are 

codified at 50 CFR part 402. We are 

currently reviewing the regulatory 

definition of adverse modification in 

relation to the conservation of the 

species. 

Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to confer with us on 

any action that is likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of a proposed 

species or result in destruction or 

adverse modification of proposed 

critical habitat. Conference reports 

provide conservation recommendations 

to assist the agency in eliminating 

conflicts that may be caused by the 

proposed action. We may issue a formal 

conference report if requested by a 

Federal agency. Formal conference 

reports on proposed critical habitat 

contain an opinion that is prepared 

according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if critical 

68306 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

habitat were designated. We may adopt 

the formal conference report as the 

biological opinion when the critical 

habitat is designated, if no substantial 

new information or changes in the 

action alter the content of the opinion 

(see 50 CFR 402.10(d)). The 

conservation recommendations in a 

conference report are advisory. 

If a species is listed or critical habitat 

is designated, section 7(a)(2) requires 

Federal agencies to ensure that activities 

they authorize, fund, or carry out are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of such a species or to destroy 

or adversely modify its critical habitat. 

If a Federal action may affect a listed 

species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency (action 

agency) must enter into consultation 

with us. Through this consultation, the 

action agency ensures that their actions 

do not destroy or adversely modify 

critical habitat. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat, we also 

provide reasonable and prudent 

alternatives to the project, if any are 

identifiable. ‘‘Reasonable and prudent 

alternatives’’ are defined at 50 CFR 

402.02 as alternative actions identified 

during consultation that can be 

implemented in a manner consistent 

with the intended purpose of the action, 

that are consistent with the scope of the 

Federal agency’s legal authority and 

jurisdiction, that are economically and 

technologically feasible, and that the 

Director believes would avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

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 require 

Federal agencies to reinitiate 

consultation on previously reviewed 

actions in instances where critical 

habitat is subsequently designated and 

the Federal agency has retained 

discretionary involvement or control 

over the action or such discretionary 

involvement or control is authorized by 

law. Consequently, some Federal 

agencies may request reinitiation of 

consultation or conference with us on 

actions for which formal consultation 

has been completed, if those actions 

may affect designated critical habitat or 

adversely modify or destroy proposed 

critical habitat. 

Federal activities that may affect the 

lynx or its critical habitat will require 

section 7 consultation. Activities on 

private or State lands requiring a permit 

from a Federal agency, such as a permit 

from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

under section 404 of the Clean Water 

Act, a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit from 

the Service, or some other Federal 

action, including funding (e.g., Federal 

Highway Administration or Federal 

Emergency Management Agency 

funding), will also continue to be 

subject to the section 7 consultation 

process. Federal actions not affecting 

listed species or critical habitat and 

actions on non-Federal and private 

lands that are not federally funded, 

authorized, or permitted do not require 

section 7 consultation. 

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

to briefly evaluate and describe in any 

proposed or final regulation that 

designates critical habitat those 

activities involving a Federal action that 

may destroy or adversely modify such 

habitat, or that may be affected by such 

designation. Activities that may destroy 

or adversely modify critical habitat may 

also jeopardize the continued existence 

of the lynx. Federal activities that when 

carried out may adversely affect critical 

habitat for the lynx include, but are not 

limited to, the following. Note that the 

scale of these activities would be a 

crucial factor in determining whether, 

in any instance, they would directly or 

indirectly alter critical habitat to the 

extent that the value of the critical 

habitat for the survival and recovery of 

lynx would be appreciably diminished: 

(1) Actions that would reduce or 

remove understory vegetation within 

boreal forest stands. Such activities 

could include, but are not limited to, 

pre-commercial thinning or fuels 

treatment of forest stands. These 

activities could significantly reduce the 

quality of snowshoe hare habitat such 

that the landscape’s ability to produce 

adequate densities of snowshoe hares to 

support persistent lynx populations is at 

least temporarily diminished. 

(2) Actions that would cause 

permanent loss or conversion of the 

boreal forest. Such activities could 

include, but are not limited to, 

commercial, residential or recreational 

area developments; certain types of 

mining activities and associated 

developments; and road building. Such 

activities would eliminate and fragment 

lynx and snowshoe hare habitat. 

(3) Actions that would increase traffic 

volume and speed on roads that divide 

lynx critical habitat. Such activities 

could include, but are not limited to, 

transportation projects to upgrade roads 

or development of a new tourist 

destination. These activities could 

reduce connectivity within the boreal 

forest landscape for lynx and could 

result in increased mortality of lynx 

within the critical habitat units as lynx 

are highly mobile and frequently cross 

roads during dispersal, exploratory 

movements or travel within their home 

ranges. 

If you have questions regarding 

whether specific activities may 

constitute destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat, contact 

the Supervisor of the appropriate 

Ecological Services Field Office (see list 

below). 

State Address Phone No. 

Maine ....................................................... 1168 Main Street, Old Town, Maine 04468 ............................................................ (207) 827–5938 

Minnesota ................................................ 4101 East 80th Street, Bloomington, Minnesota 55425 ......................................... (612) 725–3548 

Montana ................................................... 100 N. Park Ave, Suite 320, Helena, Montana 59601 ............................................ (406) 449–5225 

Idaho and Washington ............................ 11103 E. Montgomery Drive, Spokane, Washington 99206 ................................... (509) 893–8015 

We consider each of the proposed 

critical habitat units to have been 

occupied by the species at the time we 

last formally reviewed the status of the 

species under the Act in 2003 based on 

surveys and research documenting the 

presence and reproduction of lynx (68 

FR 40076, July 3, 2003). We consider 

each of these units included in this 

proposed designation to contain the 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the lynx 

(i.e., the primary constituent element). 

Application of Section 3(5)(A) of the 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act defines 

critical habitat as the specific areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time of listing on 

which are found those physical and 

biological features (I) essential to the 

conservation of the species and (II) 

which may require special management 

considerations or protection. Therefore, 

areas within the geographical area 

occupied by the species at the time of 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68307 

listing that do not contain the features 

essential for the conservation of the 

species are not, by definition, critical 

habitat. Similarly, those physical and 

biological features within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing determined 

to be essential to the conservation of the 

species that may not require special 

management or protection also are not, 

by definition, critical habitat. 

In certain cases, we have determined 

that management plans or programs 

afford adequate management 

considerations or protection to essential 

features, such that the features no longer 

require special management or 

protection. We consider a current 

management program or plan to provide 

adequate special management or 

protection if it meets three criteria—(1) 

The plan is complete and provides 

special management or protection (i.e., 

the plan must provide the species’

population, or the protection, 

enhancement or restoration of its habitat 

within the area covered by the plan); (2) 

the plan provides assurances that the 

management and protection strategies 

will be implemented (i.e., those 

responsible for implementing the plan 

are capable of accomplishing the 

objectives, and have an implementation 

schedule or adequate funding for 

implementing the management plan); 

and (3) the plan provides assurances 

that the management and protection 

strategies will be effective (i.e., it 

identifies biological goals, has 

provisions for reporting progress, and is 

of a duration sufficient to implement the 

plan and achieve the plan’s goals and 

objectives). 

During development of this critical 

habitat proposal for the lynx, we first 

determined which physical and 

biological features are essential to the 

species’ conservation and delineated the 

specific areas that contain those features 

and recent verified records of lynx 

presence and reproduction. Next, we 

refined the delineation of the 

designation to include only those lands 

that contained essential features that 

require special management or 

protection pursuant to the definition of 

critical habitat in 3(5)(A) of the Act. 

During this process, we identified 

several areas where land management 

plans have been amended or revised to 

incorporate the lynx management 

strategy as outlined in the Lynx 

Conservation Assessment and Strategy 

(LCAS) or comparable programs. The 

USFS, BLM, NPS, and the Service 

developed the LCAS using the best 

available science specifically to provide 

a consistent and effective approach to 

conserve lynx and lynx habitat on 

Federal lands (Ruediger et al. 2000). The 

overall goals of the LCAS were to 

recommend lynx conservation 

measures, to provide a basis for 

reviewing the adequacy of USFS and 

BLM land and resource management 

plans with regard to lynx conservation, 

and to facilitate conferencing and 

consultation under section 7 of the Act. 

The LCAS identifies an inclusive list of 

17 potential risk factors for lynx or lynx 

habitat that may be addressed under 

programs, practices, and activities 

within the authority and jurisdiction of 

Federal land management agencies. The 

risks identified in the LCAS are based 

on effects to either individual lynx, lynx 

populations, both, or lynx habitat. 

Potential risk factors the LCAS 

addresses that may affect lynx 

productivity include: timber 

management, wildland fire 

management, recreation, forest/ 

backcountry roads and trails, livestock 

grazing, and other human 

developments. Potential risk factors the 

LCAS addresses that may affect lynx 

mortality include: trapping, predator 

control, incidental or illegal shooting, 

competition and predation as 

influenced by human activities and 

highways. Potential risk factors the 

LCAS addresses that may affect lynx 

movement include: highways, railroads 

and utility corridors, land ownership 

pattern, and ski areas and large resorts. 

Other potential large-scale risk factors 

for lynx addressed by the LCAS include: 

fragmentation and degradation of lynx 

refugia, lynx movement and dispersal 

across shrub-steppe habitats, and habitat 

degradation by non-native and invasive 

plant species. 

The LCAS ensures the appropriate 

mosaic of habitat is provided for lynx on 

Federal lands. Although the LCAS was 

written specifically for Federal lands, 

many of the conservation measures are 

pertinent for non-Federal lands. To 

facilitate project planning and allow for 

the assessment of the potential effects of 

a project on an individual lynx, the 

LCAS directs Federal land management 

agencies to delineate Lynx Analysis 

Units (LAUs) (Ruediger et al. 2000). The 

scale of an LAU approximates the size 

of area used by an individual lynx (25 

to 50 mi2 (65 to 130 km2)) (Ruediger et 

al. 2000). The LCAS recognizes that 

LAUs will likely encompass both lynx 

habitat and other areas (e.g., lakes, low 

elevation ponderosa pine (Pinus 

ponderosa) forest, and alpine tundra). 

Habitat-related standards the LCAS 

provides to address potential risks 

include: (1) If more than 30 percent of 

lynx habitat in an LAU is currently in 

unsuitable condition, no further 

reduction of suitable condition shall 

occur as a result of vegetation 

management activities by Federal 

agencies; (2) within an LAU, maintain 

denning habitat in patches generally 

larger than 5 acres, comprising at least 

10 percent of lynx habitat; (3) maintain 

habitat connectivity within and between 

LAUs; (4) management actions (e.g., 

timber sales, salvage sales) shall not 

change more than 15 percent of lynx 

habitat within an LAU to an unsuitable 

condition within a 10 year period; (5) 

pre-commercial thinning will only be 

allowed when stands no longer provide 

snowshoe hare habitat; (6) on Federal 

lands in lynx habitat, allow no net 

increase in groomed or designated overthe-snow routes and snowmobile play 

areas by LAU (Ruediger et al. 2000). 

With the listing of the lynx in 2000, 

Federal agencies across the contiguous 

United States range of the lynx were 

required to consult with the Service on 

actions that may affect lynx. The LCAS 

assists Federal agencies in planning 

activities and projects in ways that 

benefit lynx or avoid adverse impacts to 

lynx or lynx habitat (Ruediger et al. 

2000). If projects are designed that fail 

to meet the standards in the LCAS, the 

biologists using the LCAS would arrive 

at an adverse effect determination for 

lynx. 

A Conservation Agreement between 

the USFS and the Service (U.S. Forest 

Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2000) and a similar Agreement 

between the BLM and the Service 

(Bureau of Land Management and U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2000) 

committed the USFS and BLM to use 

the LCAS in determining the effects of 

actions on lynx until Forest Plans were 

amended or revised to adequately 

conserve lynx. A programmatic 

biological opinion pursuant to section 7 

of the Act analyzed and confirmed the 

adequacy of the LCAS and its 

conservation measures to conserve lynx 

and concluded that Forest and BLM 

land management plans as implemented 

in accordance with the Conservation 

Agreements would not jeopardize the 

continued existence of lynx (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2000). 

In 2005, the USFS and the Service 

renewed the conservation agreement 

(U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2005) because the 

original agreement had expired. In the 

2005 agreement, the parties agree to take 

measures to reduce or eliminate adverse 

effects or risks to lynx and its occupied 

habitat pending amendments to Forest 

Plans. The LCAS is a basis for 

implementing this agreement (U.S. 

Forest Service and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2005). The 2005 

68308 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

agreement expires December 31, 2006, 

unless renewed. The BLM continues to 

adhere to their original agreement 

although it expired in December 2004. 

Lynx conservation depends on 

supporting boreal forest landscapes of 

sufficient size to encompass the 

temporal and spatial changes in habitat 

and snowshoe hare populations to 

support interbreeding lynx populations 

or metapopulations over time. We have 

determined that management plans that 

incorporate the LCAS provide adequate 

management or protection for lynx 

because they meet the three criteria 

identified above. Specifically—(1) The 

management plans have been finalized 

and incorporate the provisions of the 

LCAS, which provides the best 

scientifically-based conservation 

measures known for lynx at this time; at 

a minimum, the incorporation of the 

LCAS conservation measures to address 

risk factors affecting lynx productivity 

into a management plan provides 

adequate management and protection 

for lynx and features essential to the 

conservation of lynx; (2) where Federal 

agencies and non-Federal entities 

(including Tribes) have amended or 

revised their management plans to 

incorporate provisions of the LCAS, 

these provisions become the 

management direction for that particular 

land base; conservation measures in the 

LCAS are designed to be implemented 

at the programmatic and project level 

scale; and (3) the land management 

entities have incorporated provisions of 

the LCAS in order the provide for the 

conservation of the lynx; the 

conservation measures in the LCAS are 

intended to conserve lynx and to reduce 

or eliminate adverse effects from the 

spectrum of management activities on 

Federal lands (or other lands where the 

conservation measures are applied), at 

this time, there is no other scientificallybased land management guidance 

available for lynx; these management 

plans are in effect until future plan 

revisions or plan amendments 

supercede the current plans. 

We evaluated areas to determine if 

they meet the definition of critical 

habitat by (1) containing features 

essential to the conservation of the lynx, 

and (2) if the essential features may 

require special management or 

protection. We determined that these 

lands did contain features essential to 

the conservation of the lynx. However, 

based on the provisions in the LCAS 

beneficial to the lynx, we determined 

that the features on lands covered by 

management programs or plans that 

have been revised or amended to adopt 

the LCAS do not require special 

management or protection and, 

therefore, these lands do not meet the 

definition of critical habitat pursuant to 

section 3(5)(A) of the Act. These lands, 

described below, are not included in the 

proposed designation: 

Superior National Forest 

The Superior National Forest located 

in northeastern Minnesota has revised 

its Land and Resource Management Plan 

(LRMP) to include specific measures to 

conserve lynx, based on the LCAS 

(Ruediger et al. 2000; USFS 2004a, b; 

Service 2004). Much of the boreal forest 

habitat in northeastern Minnesota is 

found on Superior National Forest 

(Service 2004), and a large proportion of 

the recent lynx records in Minnesota 

have been detected on the Superior 

National Forest (Moen et al. 2004; 

Minnesota DNR 2005). The revised 

LRMP went through stakeholder 

meetings, section 7 consultation with 

the Service, and public review. The 

LRMP will guide day-to-day 

management decisions for the next 15 

years, whereupon the LRMP will again 

undergo revision. (USFS 2004a). 

The Superior LRMP adopted the 

standards, guidelines, and objectives of 

the LCAS (Ruediger et al. 2000; K. 

McAllister, in litt. 2002) that the USFS 

determined were appropriate and 

relevant to lynx conservation in 

Minnesota, in consultation with the 

Service. To remove redundancies with 

other management direction, the LRMP 

excluded certain LCAS standards, 

guidelines, and objectives and 

reclassified some to increase their 

potential to benefit lynx, to avoid 

confusion with terms found elsewhere 

in the LRMP, and to allow for 

management flexibility that would not 

compromise lynx conservation. In 

addition, it designated the Boundary 

Waters Canoe and Wilderness Area as a 

Lynx Refugium, in which natural 

processes will be the predominant 

determinant of lynx habitat conditions 

with some active management that 

would be ‘‘compatible with wilderness 

values’’ (USFS 2004a). 

The Superior National Forest has 

delineated Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) 

within which it applies the lynx 

conservation measures prescribed in the 

LRMP. The LAUs are the smallest 

landscape scale analysis units upon 

which direct, indirect, and cumulative 

effects analyses for lynx will be 

performed (Ruediger et al. 2000; USFS 

2004a). They encompass lynx habitat 

(on all ownerships) within the 

administrative unit that has been 

mapped (in coordination with adjacent 

management agencies and the Service) 

using specific criteria to identify 

appropriate vegetation and 

environmental conditions (U.S. Forest 

Service 2004a). 

Within the proclamation boundaries 

of the Superior National Forest are 

numerous inholdings of non-USFS land 

(e.g., lands owned by State of 

Minnesota, private companies, etc.). The 

Superior National Forest may only 

control management on National Forest 

lands, but the LRMP’s objectives, 

standards, and guidelines ensure that 

National Forest actions may be 

restricted based on the condition of nonUSFS lands in LAUs. For example, if 

greater than 30 percent of lynx habitat 

within an LAU is in an unsuitable 

condition (e.g., very recent clearcuts), 

Superior National Forest would not take 

any action to further increase the extent 

of unsuitable habitat, even if all of the 

unsuitable habitat were on non-USFS 

lands. Therefore, the LRMP is able to 

affect the general condition of lynx 

habitat within LAUs, even where the 

LAUs contain lands that are not owned 

or directly controlled by the USFS. 

However, most of the land within the 

LAUs is under USFS management. 

On the basis of the conservation 

benefits afforded the lynx from the 

measures in the approved, revised 

LRMP and the definition of critical 

habitat contained in section 3(5)(A) of 

the Act, we have not included those 

lands (both Superior National Forest 

and non-USFS lands within the 

proclamation boundary) encompassed 

in LAUs mapped by the Superior 

National Forest or delineated by the 

Forest as a Lynx Refugium in this 

proposed designation because we have 

determined that special management or 

protection of these lands and the 

features essential to the conservation of 

the lynx is not required. Although 

important to the conservation of the 

lynx, the Superior National Forest 

manages its lands within the LAUs with 

measures to conserve lynx and takes 

into consideration habitat conditions for 

lynx throughout a LAU regardless of 

land ownership. 

Garnet Resource Area, Bureau of Land 

Management 

The BLM’s Garnet Resource 

Management plan has been amended to 

incorporate all provisions of the LCAS 

(State Director, BLM, in litt. 2004; R.M. 

Wilson, in litt. 2004). The Garnet 

Resource Area supports blocks of boreal 

forest that currently support lynx 

populations on the southern edge of the 

Northern Rockies Unit. The amendment 

went through public review and 

consultation with us under section 7 of 

the Act; a finding of no significant 

impact was issued by BLM in 2004 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68309 

(R.M. Wilson, in litt. 2004; State 

Director, BLM, in litt. 2004). 

On the basis of the conservation 

benefits afforded the lynx from the 

measures in the amended Garnet 

Resource Management Plan and the 

definition of critical habitat contained 

in section 3(5)(A) of the Act, we have 

not included those lands that are within 

the boundaries of the approved Garnet 

Resource Management Plan in this 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for the lynx. These lands, and features 

there on, are being adequately managed 

for lynx and, as a result, do not meet the 

definition of critical habitat. Because the 

BLM already manages these lands, and 

features there on, consistent with lynx 

conservation, we have determined that 

no special management or protection 

pursuant to section 3(5)(A) is required. 

Flathead Indian Reservation 

The tribal lands in the Northern 

Rockies unit (portions of the Flathead 

Indian Reservation) are managed by the 

Confederated Salish and Kootenai 

Tribes (CSKT) under their Forest 

Management Plan that incorporates the 

provisions of the LCAS (CSKT 2000). 

On the basis of the conservation benefits 

afforded the lynx from the measures in 

the CSKT’s Forest Management Plan 

and the definition of critical habitat 

contained in section 3(5)(A) of the Act, 

we have not included lands that are 

within the boundaries of the Flathead 

Indian Reservation in this proposed 

designation of critical habitat for the 

lynx. These lands, and features there on, 

are being adequately managed for lynx 

and, as a result, do not meet the 

definition of critical habitat. Because the 

Tribes already manage these lands, and 

features there on, consistent with lynx 

conservation, no special management or 

protection pursuant to section 3(5)(A) is 

required. 

Spokane District, Bureau of Land 

Management 

Small portions of lands administered 

by the BLM’s Spokane District are 

encompassed in the proposed 

boundaries delineated as proposed lynx 

critical habitat in the North Cascades 

unit in Washington. These lands 

support boreal forest habitat but only 

occur in extremely small areas within 

the proposed critical habitat boundary. 

The BLM Spokane District Resource 

Management Plan was modified in 2003 

to incorporate all of the provisions of 

the LCAS through what is called 

‘‘Resource Management Plan 

Maintenance’’ (BLM. 2003). 

On the basis of the conservation 

benefits afforded the lynx from the 

measures in the approved Spokane 

District Resource Management Plan 

Maintenance and the definition of 

critical habitat contained in section 

3(5)(A) of the Act, we have not included 

those lands that are within the 

boundaries of the BLM’s Spokane 

District Resource Management Plan in 

this proposed designation of critical 

habitat for the lynx. The BLM already 

manages this area, and features there on, 

consistent with lynx conservation; 

therefore, special management or 

protection pursuant to 3(5)(A) is not 

required. 

In summary, we find that including 

these lands addressed in management 

plans protect essential lynx features and 

habitat within their boundaries and 

provide appropriate management to 

provide for the conservation of lynx and 

features essential to its conservation 

over the life of the amendments, 

revisions or modifications. The 

management plans have been finalized 

and incorporate the provisions of the 

LCAS, which, as described above 

provides the best, scientifically-based 

conservation measures for lynx known 

at this time. Federal land and resource 

management plans provide the 

overarching direction under which 

Federal lands are managed until future 

plan revisions or plan amendments 

supercede the current plans. The 

Flathead Indian Reservation’s Forest 

Management Plan guides forest 

management on the Reservation lands 

(CSKT 2000). The conservation 

measures in the LCAS are intended to 

conserve lynx and to reduce or 

eliminate adverse effects from the 

spectrum of management activities on 

Federal lands (or other lands where the 

conservation measures are applied); at 

this time, there is no other scientificallybased land management guidance 

available for lynx. Not including areas 

in the proposed designation that are 

already being managed for lynx 

conservation encourages land managers 

to proactively institute lynx 

conservation measures and reduces 

administrative effort and costs 

associated with engaging in 

consultations for critical habitat 

pursuant to section 7 of the Act. 

Maps included with this proposal 

illustrate lands essential to the 

conservation of the lynx and that may 

require special management 

considerations or protection and 

delineated as proposed critical habitat. 

More detailed maps show lands 

determined to be essential to the 

conservation of the species, which are 

color coded to clearly show those lands 

proposed and those not included in this 

proposal, are available from the 

Montana Ecological Services Office (see 

ADDRESSES section) or from the Internet 

at http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/ 

species/mammals/lynx/. 

National Forest Service Lands Within 

Idaho, Montana, and Washington 

Seven National Forests are currently 

covered by the May 2005 Canada Lynx 

Conservation Agreement are in the 

process of revising or amending their 

LRMPs to provide measures for lynx 

conservation under the LCAS. It is 

anticipated that all of these plans will 

be complete prior to promulgation of the 

final critical habitat designation. As a 

result, all Federal lands within the 

seven National Forests have 

conservation measures or protection for 

lynx and habitat features essential to the 

conservation of the lynx. Therefore, 

Federal lands within these seven 

National Forests do not meet the 

definition of critical habitat pursuant to 

section 3(5)(A) of the Act and thus we 

are proposing that those areas not be 

included in the final critical habitat 

designation The specific National 

Forests are presented in Table 3. 

TABLE 3.—NATIONAL FORESTS COVERED BY THE CANADA LYNX CONSERVATION AGREEMENT

Critical Habitat Unit 

North Cascades ........................................................................................ Okanogan—Wenatchee National Forest. 

Northern Rocky Mountains ....................................................................... Flathead National Forest. 

Helena National Forest. 

Idaho Panhandle National Forests. 

Kootenai National Forest. 

Lewis and Clark National Forest. 

Lolo National Forest. 

Minnesota ................................................................................................. None. 

68310 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3.—NATIONAL FORESTS COVERED BY THE CANADA LYNX CONSERVATION AGREEMENT—Continued 

Critical Habitat Unit 

Maine ........................................................................................................ None. 

Application of Exclusions Under 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act 

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

critical habitat shall be designated, and 

revised, on the basis of the best 

available scientific data after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, 

impact on national security, and any 

other relevant impact of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. An 

area may be excluded from critical 

habitat if it is determined that the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying a particular area 

as critical habitat, unless the failure to 

designate such area as critical habitat 

will result in the extinction of the 

species. 

Pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act, 

we must consider relevant impacts in 

addition to economic ones. We have 

determined that no lands being 

proposed as critical habitat for the lynx 

are owned or managed by the 

Department of Defense, and there are 

currently no Habitat Conservation Plans 

(HCPs) for the lynx in the areas we are 

proposing as critical habitat. We 

anticipate no impact to national 

security, partnerships, or HCPs from 

this critical habitat designation. 

In a previous section of this rule, we 

described how lands that had 

management plans containing adequate 

management and protection measures 

for lynx and features essential to its 

conservation were not included in the 

proposed critical habitat designation. 

Several managed areas included in this 

proposal have habitat with features 

essential to the conservation of the lynx, 

but are in the process of amending or 

revising their management plans to 

incorporate the LCAS or similar 

management. These lands could include 

State lands, Bureau of Land 

Management lands and National Parks. 

We may consider areas for exclusion 

from the final designation of critical 

habitat, based upon further analysis and 

public comment, if, prior to the final 

critical habitat designation, these lands 

are covered by final management plans 

that incorporate conservation measures 

for the lynx (i.e., the LCAS (Ruediger et 

al. 2000) or comparable). 

Additionally, we are evaluating the 

adequacy of existing management plans 

to conserve lynx on lands designated as 

wilderness areas or National Parks. 

Generally, designated wilderness areas 

are managed to protect their wilderness 

character and motorized equipment is 

prohibited. Under the The National Park 

Service Organic Act of 1916, as 

amended, the mission of the National 

Park Service is to conserve the scenery 

and the natural and historic objects and 

the wildlife therein and to provide for 

the enjoyment of the same in such 

manner and by which means as will 

leave them unimpaired for the 

enjoyment of future generations. The 

specific wilderness areas and National 

Parks under evaluation are presented in 

Table 4. 

TABLE 4.—WILDERNESS AREAS OR NATIONAL PARKS FOR WHICH MANAGEMENT PLANS WILL BE EVALUATED TO

DETERMINE THEIR ADEQUACY FOR CONSERVING LYNX

Critical Habitat Unit Wilderness Area or National Park 

Maine ........................................................................................................ None. 

Minnesota ................................................................................................. Voyageurs National Park. 

Northern Rocky Mountains ....................................................................... Glacier National Park. 

Hoodoo Mountain Wilderness Study Area. 

Wales Creek Wildernesses Study Area. 

North Cascades ........................................................................................ Glacier Peak Wilderness. 

North Cascades National Park. 

Pasayten Wilderness. 

Stephen P. Mather Wilderness. 

Relationship of Critical Habitat to 

Tribal Lands 

In accordance with Secretarial Order 

3206, ‘‘American Indian Tribal Rights, 

Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, 

and the Endangered Species Act’’ (June 

5, 1997); the President’s memorandum 

of April 29, 1994, ‘‘Government-toGovernment Relations with Native 

American Tribal Governments’’ (59 FR 

22951); Executive Order 13175 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments;’’ and the 

relevant provision of the Departmental 

Manual of the Department of the Interior 

(512 DM 2), we believe that fish, 

wildlife, and other natural resources on 

tribal lands are better managed under 

tribal authorities, policies, and programs 

than through Federal regulation 

wherever possible and practicable. Such 

designation is often viewed by tribes as 

an unwanted intrusion into tribal self 

governance, thus compromising the 

government-to-government relationship 

essential to achieving our mutual goals 

of managing for healthy ecosystems 

upon which the viability of threatened 

and endangered species populations 

depend. We believe that conservation of 

lynx can be achieved off of tribal lands 

within the critical habitat units or with 

the cooperation of Tribes. 

The amount of tribal lands in the 

Maine and Minnesota units are 

relatively small (approximately 86 and 

74 mi2, respectively [223 and 192 km2]) 

(Table 5). There are no tribal lands in 

the North Cascades unit. Therefore, the 

tribal lands in Maine and Minnesota are 

being considered for removal from final 

designation as critical habitat pursuant 

to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The Service 

requests comments from Tribes 

regarding critical habitat that is being 

proposed on their lands. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68311 

TABLE 5.—TRIBAL LANDS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR REMOVAL FROM FINAL DESIGNATION AS CRITICAL HABITAT

Critical Habitat Unit Tribal Entity 

Maine ........................................................................................................ Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians. 

Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians. 

Passamaquoddy Tribe. 

Penobscot Indian Nation. 

Minnesota ................................................................................................. Grand Portage Indian Reservation. 

Vermillion Lake Indian Reservation. 

Northern Rocky Mountains ....................................................................... None. 

North Cascades ........................................................................................ None. 

Economic Analysis 

An analysis of the potential economic 

impacts of proposing critical habitat for 

the lynx is being prepared. We will 

announce the availability of the draft 

economic analysis as soon as it is 

completed, at which time we will seek 

public review and comment. At that 

time, copies of the draft economic 

analysis will be available for 

downloading from the Internet at 

http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/ 

mammals/lynx/ or by contacting the 

Montana Field Office directly (see 

ADDRESSES section). 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our joint policy 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek 

the expert opinions of at least three 

appropriate and independent specialists 

regarding this proposed rule. The 

purpose of such review is to ensure that 

our critical habitat designation is based 

on scientifically sound data, 

assumptions, and analyses. We will 

send these peer reviewers copies of this 

proposed rule immediately following 

publication in the Federal Register. We 

will invite these peer reviewers to 

comment, during the public comment 

period, on the specific assumptions and 

conclusions regarding the proposed 

designation of critical habitat. 

We will consider all comments and 

information received during the 

comment period on this proposed rule 

during preparation of a final 

rulemaking. Accordingly, the final 

decision may differ from this proposal. 

Public Hearings 

We have scheduled public hearings 

on this proposal. Dates, times, and 

locations of those hearings are listed in 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, 

above. 

Clarity of the Rule 

Executive Order 12866 requires each 

agency to write regulations and notices 

that are easy to understand. We invite 

your comments on how to make this 

proposed rule easier to understand, 

including answers to questions such as 

the following—(1) Are the requirements 

in the proposed rule clearly stated? (2) 

Does the proposed rule contain 

technical jargon that interferes with the 

clarity? (3) Does the format of the 

proposed rule (grouping and order of 

the sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing, and so forth) aid or 

reduce its clarity? (4) Is the description 

of the notice in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of the preamble 

helpful in understanding the proposed 

rule? (5) What else could we do to make 

this proposed rule easier to understand? 

Send a copy of any comments on how 

we could make this proposed rule easier 

to understand to—Office of Regulatory 

Affairs, Department of the Interior, 

Room 7229, 1849 C Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20240. You may e-mail 

your comments to Exsec@ios.doi.gov. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12866, this document is a significant 

rule in that it may raise novel legal and 

policy issues, but it is not anticipated to 

have an annual effect on the economy 

of $100 million or more or affect the 

economy in a material way. Due to the 

tight timeline for publication in the 

Federal Register, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has not 

formally reviewed this rule. We are 

preparing a draft economic analysis of 

this proposed action, which will be 

available for public comment, to 

determine the economic consequences 

of designating the specific area as 

critical habitat. This economic analysis 

also will be used to determine 

compliance with Executive Order 

12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act, Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act, and Executive Order 

12630 ‘‘Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights.’’

Further, Executive Order 12866 

directs Federal Agencies promulgating 

regulations to evaluate regulatory 

alternatives (Office of Management and 

Budget, Circular A–4, September 17, 

2003). Pursuant to Circular A–4, once it 

has been determined that the Federal 

regulatory action is appropriate, then 

the agency will need to consider 

alternative regulatory approaches. Since 

the determination of critical habitat is a 

statutory requirement pursuant to the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 

we must then evaluate alternative 

regulatory approaches, where feasible, 

when promulgating a designation of 

critical habitat. 

In developing our designations of 

critical habitat, we consider economic 

impacts, impacts to national security, 

and other relevant impacts pursuant to 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on the 

discretion allowable under this 

provision, we may exclude any 

particular area from the designation of 

critical habitat providing that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying the area as critical 

habitat and that such exclusion would 

not result in the extinction of the 

species. As such, we believe that the 

evaluation of the inclusion or exclusion 

of particular areas, or combination 

thereof, in a designation constitutes our 

regulatory alternative analysis. 

Within the specific areas identified in 

this proposal, the types of Federal 

actions or authorized activities that we 

have identified as potential concerns are 

listed in the SECTION 7 

CONSULTATION section above. The 

availability of the draft economic 

analysis will be announced in the 

Federal Register and in local 

newspapers so that it is available for 

public review and comments. When it is 

prepared, the draft economic analysis 

will be available from the Internet at 

http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/ 

mammals/lynx/ or by contacting the 

Montana Ecological Services Office 

directly (see ADDRESSES section). 

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

et seq.) 

Our assessment of economic effect 

will be completed prior to final 

rulemaking based upon review of the 

draft economic analysis prepared 

68312 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act 

and Executive Order 12866. This 

analysis is for the purposes of 

compliance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and does not reflect our 

position on the type of economic 

analysis required by New Mexico Cattle 

Growers Assn. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service 248 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2001). 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 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 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) to 

require Federal agencies to provide a 

statement of the factual basis for 

certifying that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

At this time, the Service lacks the 

available economic information 

necessary to provide an adequate factual 

basis for the required RFA finding. 

Therefore, the RFA finding is deferred 

until completion of the draft economic 

analysis prepared pursuant to section 

4(b)(2) of the Act and Executive Order 

12866. This draft economic analysis will 

provide the required factual basis for the 

RFA finding. Upon completion of the 

draft economic analysis, the Service will 

publish a notice of availability of the 

draft economic analysis of the proposed 

designation and reopen the public 

comment period for the proposed 

designation for an additional 60 days. 

The Service will include with the notice 

of availability, as appropriate, an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis or a 

certification that the rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

accompanied by the factual basis for 

that determination. The Service has 

concluded that deferring the RFA 

finding until completion of the draft 

economic analysis is necessary to meet 

the purposes and requirements of the 

RFA. Deferring the RFA finding in this 

manner will ensure that the Service 

makes a sufficiently informed 

determination based on adequate 

economic information and provides the 

necessary opportunity for public 

comment. 

Executive Order 13211 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

an Executive Order (Number 13211) on 

regulations that significantly affect 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

Executive Order 13211 requires agencies 

to prepare Statements of Energy Effects 

when undertaking certain actions. This 

proposed rule to designate critical 

habitat for the lynx is considered a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866 as it may raise 

novel legal and policy issues. However, 

this designation is not expected to 

significantly affect energy supplies, 

distribution, or use. Therefore, this 

action is not a significant energy action 

and no Statement of Energy Effects is 

required. We will, however, further 

evaluate this issue as we conduct our 

economic analysis and, as appropriate, 

review and revise this assessment as 

warranted. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501), 

the Service makes the following 

findings: 

(a) This rule will 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, 

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 

mandate’’ includes 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; AFDC 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 do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. While nonFederal 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 on to State 

governments. 

(b) We do not believe that this rule 

will significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments, because towns and 

developed areas are excluded from 

designation. As such, we do not believe 

that a Small Government Agency Plan is 

not required. We will, however, further 

evaluate this issue as we conduct our 

economic analysis and revise this 

assessment if appropriate. 

Federalism 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132, the rule does not have significant 

Federalism effects. A Federalism 

assessment is not required. In keeping 

with Department of the Interior policy, 

we requested information from, and 

coordinated development of, this 

proposed critical habitat designation 

with appropriate State resource agencies 

in Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, 

Washington, and Wyoming. We believe 

that the designation of critical habitat 

for the lynx will have little incremental 

impact on State and local governments 

and their activities. The designation 

may have some benefit to these 

governments in that the areas important 

to the conservation of the species are 

more clearly defined, and the primary 

constituent element of the habitat 

essential to the survival and 

conservation of the species is 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68313 

specifically identified. While making 

this definition and identification does 

not alter where and what federally 

sponsored activities may occur, it may 

assist these local governments in longrange planning (rather than waiting for 

case-by-case section 7 consultations to 

occur). 

Civil Justice Reform 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12988, the Office of the Solicitor has 

determined that the rule does not 

unduly burden the judicial system and 

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. This proposed rule uses standard 

property descriptions and identifies the 

primary constituent element within the 

designated areas to assist the public in 

understanding the habitat needs of the 

lynx. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This rule does not contain any new 

collections of information that require 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. This rule will not 

impose recordkeeping or reporting 

requirements on State or local 

governments, individuals, businesses, or 

organizations. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

It is our position that, outside the 

Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 

prepare environmental analyses as 

defined by the NEPA in connection with 

designating critical habitat under the 

Act of 1973, as amended. We published 

a notice outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

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

assertion was upheld in the courts of the 

Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. 

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

1995), cert. denied 116 S. Ct. 698 (1996). 

However, when the range of the species 

includes States within the Tenth 

Circuit, such as that of the lynx, 

pursuant to the Tenth Circuit ruling in 

Catron County Board of Commissioners 

v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 75 

F.3d 1429 (10th Cir. 1996), we will 

undertake a NEPA analysis for critical 

habitat designation and notify the 

public of the availability of the draft 

environmental assessment for this 

proposal. 

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), Executive 

Order 13175 ‘‘Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments,’’ and the Department of 

the Interior Manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. Tribal 

lands in the Maine and Minnesota units 

are included in this proposed 

designation; however, these tribal lands 

are being considered for removal from 

final designation as critical habitat. The 

Service requested information from 

Tribes for this proposed rule and has 

made potentially affected Tribes aware 

of this proposed rule. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rulemaking is available on the 

Web site http://mountainprairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/lynx/ 

or upon request from the Field 

Supervisor, Montana Field Office (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Author(s) 

The primary author of this package is 

the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

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

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

2. In § 17.11(h), revise the entry for 

‘‘Lynx, Canada’’ under ‘‘MAMMALS’’ to 

read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened 

Status When listed Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

MAMMALS

* * * * * * * 

Lynx, Canada .......... Lynx canadensis ..... U.S.A. (AK, CO, ID, 

ME, MI, MN, MT, 

NH, NY, OR, PA, 

UT, VT, WA, WI, 

WY), Canada, 

circumboreal.

CO, ID, ME, MI, 

MN, MT, NH, NY, 

OR, UT, VT, WA, 

WI, WY.

T 692 17.95(a) 17.40(k) 

* * * * * * * 

3. In § 17.95(a), add critical habitat for 

‘‘Canada lynx’’ in the same alphabetical 

order as this species occurs in § 17.11(h) 

to read as follows: 

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. 

(a) Mammals. 

* * * * * 

Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

on the maps below for the following 

States and counties: 

(i) Idaho: Boundary County; 

(ii) Maine: Aroostook, Franklin, 

Penobscot, Piscataquis and Somerset 

counties; 

(iii) Minnesota: Cook, Koochiching, 

Lake, and St. Louis counties; 

(iv) Montana: Flathead, Glacier, 

Granite, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Lincoln, 

Missoula, Pondera, Powell and Teton 

counties; and 

(v) Washington: Chelan and Okanogan 

counties. 

68314 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

(2) Within these areas, the primary 

constituent elements for the Canada 

lynx are boreal forest landscapes 

supporting a mosaic of differing 

successional forest stages and 

containing: 

(i) Presence of snowshoe hares and 

their preferred habitat conditions, 

which includes dense understories of 

young trees or shrubs tall enough to 

protrude above the snow; and 

(ii) Winter snow conditions that are 

generally deep and fluffy for extended 

periods of time; and 

(iii) Sites for denning having 

abundant coarse woody debris, such as 

downed trees and root wads. 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

waterbodies, including lakes, reservoirs 

or rivers, or human-made structures 

existing on the effective date of this 

rule, such as buildings, airports, paved 

and gravel roadbeds, active railroad 

beds and the land on which such 

structures are located. Critical habitat 

does not include Federal lands within 

the Okanogam-Wenatchee, Flathead, 

Helena, Idaho Panhandle, Kootenai, 

Lewis and Clark, and Lolo National 

Forests. Critical habitat does not include 

the following towns: 

(i) Idaho: None. 

(ii) Maine: Allagash, Ashland, Attean 

(historical), Attean Landing, Back 

Settlement, Batesville, Blackstone, 

Blackwater, Blair, Boat Landing Camp, 

Bradbury, Brassua, Buffalo, Burnt 

Landing, Burnt Mill, Chapman, 

Chesuncook, Clayton Lake, Daaquam, 

Deadmans Corner, Dennistown, Dickey, 

Dudley, Dyerville, Eagle Lake, Estcourt, 

Frenchville, Grassy Landing, Greenlaw 

Crossing, Grindstone, Griswold, 

Hawkins, Hay Brook, High Landing, 

Hillman, Holeb, Howe Brook, Huson 

Landing, Jackman, Jackman Mill 

(historical), Jones Mill, Jones Mill, 

Keough, Knowles Corner, Kokadjo, La 

Croix Depot, Lac Frontiere, Lake Parlin 

(historical), Little Canada, Long Pond, 

Lowelltown, Mackamp, Masardis, 

McCarty, McKeen Crossing, McNally, 

Moose River, Moosehead, Moosehorn 

Crossing, Morey Brow, New City, Nixon, 

North East Carry, Ogontz, Old City, 

Oxbow, Perkins, Pine Knoll, Plaisted, 

Plourde Mill, Poplar Ripps, Portage, 

Pride, Quimby, Rand Landing, 

Rockwood, Round Mountain, Russell 

Crossing, Saint Francis, Saint John, 

Sheridan, Shorey, Skerry, Skinner, 

Smyrna Center, Soldier Pond, Somerset 

Junction, Squa Pan, Stephensons 

Landing, Tarratine, The Crossing, 

Walker, Three Streams, Wallagrass, 

Weeksboro, Wheelock, Wheelock Mill, 

Winterville. 

(iii) Minnesota: Alger, Allen, Angora, 

Arnold, Aurora, Babbitt, Baptism 

Crossing, Bartlett, Beaver Bay, Beaver 

Crossing, Belgrade, Bell Harbor, 

Biwabik, Brimson, Breda, Britt, 

Burntside, Burntside Lake, Buyck, 

Canyon, Castle Danger, Chippewa City, 

Clappers, Clifton, Cook, Cotton, Covill, 

Cramer, Crane Lake, Croftville, Cusson, 

Darby Junction, Duluth, Duluth Heights, 

Eagles Nest, East Beaver Bay, Ely, 

Embarrass, Fairbanks, Falls Junction, 

Finland, Forest Center, Forsman, Four 

Corners, Fredenberg, French River, 

Gappas Landing Campground, Genoa, 

Gheen, Gheen Corner, Gilbert, Glendale, 

Grand Portage, Grand Marais, 

Greenwood Junction, Haley, Happy 

Wanderer, Highland, Hornby, Hovland, 

Hunters Park, Idington, Illgen City, 

Isabella, Island View, Jameson, Jay See 

Landing, Jordan, Kabetogama, Kelly 

Landing, Kettle Falls, Knife River, 

Lakewood, Larsmont, Lauren, Lax Lake, 

Leander, Lester Park, Little Marais, 

Little Marais Postoffice, London, 

Makinen, Lutsen, Manitou Junction, 

Maple, Maple Hill, Markham, Martin 

Landing, McComber, McNair, Melrude, 

Midway, Murphy City, Murray, Norshor 

Junction, Orr, Palmers, Palo, Peyla, 

Pigeon River, Pineville, Prairie Portage, 

Ranier, Red Rock, Reno, Robinson, 

Rollins, Rothman, Salo Corner, Sawbill 

Landing, Schroeder, Scott Junction, 

Section Thirty, Sha-Sha Resort, Shaw, 

Silver Bay, Silver Creek, Silver Rapids, 

Skibo, Soudan, South International 

Falls, Sparta, Spring Lodge Resort and 

Marina, Stewart, Taconite Harbor, Taft, 

Thunderbird Resort, Tofte, Toimi, 

Tower, Tower Junction, Two Harbors, 

Wahlsten, Wakemup, Waldo, Wales, 

Wheeler Landing, White Iron, 

Whiteface, Whyte, Winter, Winton, 

Woodland, York. 

(iv) Montana: Avon, Elliston, 

Garrison, Helmville, Lincoln, Ovando, 

Seeley Lake, Summit, Woodworth. 

(v) Washington: None. 

(4) Note: Index map for lynx critical 

habitat follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68315 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


EP09NO05.023</GPH>
68316 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

(5) Unit 1: Maine Unit; Aroostook, 

Franklin, Penobscot, Piscataquis, and 

Somerset Counties, Maine. 

(i) Coordinate projection: UTM, 

NAD83, Zone 19, Meters. Coordinate 

definition: (easting, northing). Starting 

at Maine/Canada Border (SW corner of 

Merrill Strip Twp.) (371910, 5028021), 

follow township boundary east to SE 

corner of Skinner Twp. (383434, 

5029673). Follow township boundary 

SE to SW corner of T5 R6 Twp. (383438, 

5029673). Follow township boundaries 

NE to boundary of Moosehead Lake 

(450963, 5036788). Follow Moosehead 

Lake boundary to intersection with 

Beaver Cove Twp. (452704, 5040915). 

Follow township boundary to 

Moosehead Lake boundary (453125, 

5040999). Follow Moosehead Lake 

boundary to township boundary 

(453705, 5041123). Follow township 

boundary to NW corner of Bowdoin 

College Grant West Twp. (460415, 

5042546). Follow township boundary to 

SW corner of township (462537, 

5032002). Follow township boundaries 

to intersection with State Highway 11 in 

Long A Twp. (506181, 5040542). Follow 

State Highway 11 NE to intersection 

with T4 Indian Purchase Twp. boundary 

(515204, 5052175). Follow township 

boundary NW to SW corner of T1 R8 

Twp. (513460, 5059043). Follow 

township boundary NE to intersection 

with Grindstone Twp. boundary 

(523967, 5061550). Follow township 

boundary south and east to intersection 

with State Highway 11 (533826, 

5057404). Follow State Highway 11 

north to intersection with Soldiertown 

Twp. boundary (533178, 5067644). 

Follow township boundary east to SE 

corner of township (534261,5067639), 

then follow township boundaries north 

to SE corner of T6 R7 Twp. (533735, 

5108030). Follow township boundaries 

east to intersection with U.S. Highway 

2 (563731, 5108104). Follow U.S. 

Highway 2 to intersection with New 

Limerick Twp. boundary (584664, 

5109885). Follow township boundaries 

north to intersection with U.S. Highway 

1 (583834, 5153895). Follow U.S. 

Highway 1 NW to intersection with 

Westfield Twp. boundary (579218, 

5160782). Follow township boundary 

west to intersection with Chapman 

Twp. boundary (572903, 5160530). 

Follow township boundary north to NE 

corner of township (572577, 5168198). 

Follow township boundaries west to 

intersection with Ashland Twp. 

boundary (553502, 5167377). Follow 

township boundaries north to SW 

corner of Westmanland Twp. (553279, 

5197228). Follow township boundary 

east to SE corner of township (562523, 

5197586). Follow township boundaries 

north to intersection with State 

Highway 161 (562361, 5209395). Follow 

State Highway 161 NE to New Canada 

Twp. boundary (536315, 5227346). 

Follow township boundaries west to 

NW corner of Wallagrass Twp. (522883, 

5227037). Follow township boundaries 

north to Maine/Canada border (522876, 

5231986). Follow Maine/Canada border 

to beginning. 

(ii) Note: Map 1 of Unit 1 (Maine) 

follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68317 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


EP09NO05.024</GPH>
68318 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

(6) Unit 2: Minnesota Unit; Cook, 

Koochiching, Lake, and St. Louis 

Counties, Minnesota. 

(i) Unit 2 is divided into seven 

subunits to facilitate description. In 

addition, because the boundaries of 

several subunits are defined in part by 

the Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) of 

Superior National Forest, and those 

subunits are very complex, in some 

cases we approximated those 

boundaries using public land survey 

lines for ease in description and public 

utility except where the LAUs already 

followed recognizable features. 

(ii) Subunit 1. Beginning where the 

United States and Canadian boundaries 

intersect with the west side of Section 

31, Township 68 North, Range 16 West 

in Sand Point Lake, then proceeding 

along the west side of said section to 

landfall along said lake; thence westerly 

along the shoreline of Sand Point Lake 

to where it becomes the east shore of 

King Williams Narrows in Section 1, 

Township 67 North, Range 17 West; 

thence southerly along King Williams 

Narrows to a point defined by UTM 

coordinates 539818, 5350111 ( NAD 

1983, Zone 15 North); thence westerly 

to first landfall in Section 12, Township 

67 North, Range 17 West; thence 

proceeding westerly along the shore of 

Crane Lake to a point defined by UTM 

coordinates 536693, 5350743 ( NAD 

1983, Zone 15 North); from said point 

westerly to the southwest corner of 

Section 3, Township 67 North, Range 17 

West; thence along the west boundary of 

said section to the southeast corner of 

Section 33, Township 68 North, Range 

17 West; thence along the south 

boundary of said section and Section 32, 

Township 68 North, Range 17 West to 

the shore of Johnson Lake in Section 31, 

Township 68 North, Range 17 West; 

thence northwesterly along the shore of 

Johnson Lake to where it meets the 

Spring Lake drainage in Section 23, 

Township 68 North, Range 18 West; 

thence northwesterly along said 

drainage to the shoreline of Spring Lake; 

thence along the shoreline of Spring 

Lake to its intersection with the east 

boundary of Section 15, Township 68 

North, Range 18 West; thence north 

along the east boundary of said section 

to the southeast corner of Section 10, 

Township 68 North, Range 18 West; 

thence west along the south boundary of 

said section and of Sections 7, 8, and 9, 

Township 68 North, Range 18 West to 

the southeast corner of Section 12, 

Township 68 North, Range 19 West; 

thence along the east boundaries of 

Sections 13, 24, 25, and 36, Township 

68 North, Range 19 West and Sections 

1 and 13, Township 67 North, Range 19 

West to the southeast corner of Section 

13, Township 67 North, Range 19 West; 

thence along the south boundaries of 

Sections 2 and 3, Township 67 North, 

Range 19 West; thence proceeding along 

the east, south, and west boundaries of 

Section 9, Township 67 North, Range 19 

West; thence along the south and west 

boundaries of Section 5, Township 67 

North, Range 19 West; thence along the 

north boundary of Section 6, Township 

67 North, Range 19 West, and Sections 

1–6, Township 67 North, Range 20 West 

to the intersection of the north boundary 

of Section 6, T67 North, Range 20 West 

and United States Highway 53; thence 

northerly along United States Highway 

53 to the United States and Canadian 

boundaries; thence easterly along the 

Canadian Border to the point of 

beginning in Sand Point Lake. 

(iii) Subunit 2. Beginning at the 

northeast corner of Section 35, 

Township 67 North, Range 19 West, 

proceeding south along the east 

boundary of said Section and of 

Sections 2, 11, 14, 23, 26, and Section 

35, Township 66 North, Range 19 West 

to the southeast corner of Section 35, 

Township 66 North, Range 19 West; 

thence along the south boundary of said 

Section of Sections 34, 33, 32, and 31, 

Township 66 North, Range 19 West to 

the southeast corner of Section 36, 

Township 66 North, Range 20 West; 

thence south along the east boundaries 

of Sections 1, 12, and 13, Township 65 

North, Range 20 West to the point at 

which the east boundary of Section 13, 

Township 65 North, Range 20 West 

intersects with United States Highway 

53; thence northwesterly along United 

States Highway 53 to its intersection 

with the north boundary of Section 5, 

Township 66 North, Range 20 West; 

thence east along the north boundary of 

said Section and of Sections 4, 3, 2, 1, 

Township 66 North, Range 20 West and 

of Sections 6 and 5, Township 66 North, 

Range 10 West to the northeast corner 

of Section 5, Township 66 North, Range 

19 West; thence south along the east 

boundary of said Section to the 

northeast corner of Section 8, Township 

66 North, Range 19, West; thence east 

along the north boundary of Section 9, 

Township 66 North, Range 19 West; 

thence north along the east boundary of 

Section 3, Township 66 North, Range 19 

West; thence east along the north 

boundary of said Section; thence along 

the east and north boundaries of Section 

35, Township 67 North, Range 19 West 

to the point of beginning at the 

northeast corner of said Section. 

(iv) Subunit 3. Beginning at the 

northeast corner of Section 15, 

Township 63 North, Range 12 West 

proceeding south along the east 

boundary of said Section; thence 

proceeding along the north boundaries 

of Sections 23 and 24, Township 63 

North, Range 12 West and Section 19, 

Township 63 North, Range 11 West; 

thence south along the east boundary of 

said Section; thence east along the north 

boundary of Section 29, Township 63, 

Range 11 West and south along the east 

boundary of said Section and of Section 

32, Township 63, Range 11 West; thence 

along the south boundary of said 

Section and of Section 31, Township 63 

North, Range 11 West; thence south 

along the east boundary of Section 1, 

Township 62 North, Range 12 West; 

thence west along the south boundary of 

said Section; thence south along the east 

boundary of Section 11, Township 62 

North, Range 12 West; thence along the 

south boundary of said Section and of 

Section 10 of said Township; thence 

proceeding north along the west 

boundary of said Section; thence west 

along the south boundaries of Sections 

4, 5, and 6, Township 62 North, Range 

12 West and of Sections 1 and 2, 

Township 62 North, Range 13 West; 

thence north along west boundary of 

Section 2, Township 62 North, Range 13 

West; thence along the south boundary 

of Section 34, Township 63 North, 

Range 13 West; thence north along the 

west boundary of said Section and of 

Sections 27 and 22 of said Township; 

thence along the north boundaries of 

Sections 22 and 23, Township 63 North, 

Range 13 West; thence north along the 

west boundary of Section 13, Township 

63 North, Range 13 West; thence along 

the north boundaries of said Section and 

of Sections 18, 17, 16, and 15, Township 

63 North, Range 12 West point of 

beginning at the northeast corner of 

section 15 of said Township. 

(v) Subunit 4. Sections 29 and 31, 

Township 60 North, Range 12 West and 

Section 36, Township 60 North, Range 

13 West. 

(vi) Subunit 5. Sections 7, 18, 19, 

Township 59 North, Range 13 West and 

Sections 24–26, Township 59 North, 

Range 14 West. 

(vii) Subunit 6. Section 18, Township 

58 North, Range 17 West. 

(viii) Subunit 7. Beginning at the 

northeast corner of Section 15, 

Township 65 North, Range 17 West 

proceeding south along the east 

boundary of said Section and of Section 

22 of said Township; thence along the 

north boundary of Section 26,Township 

65 North, Range 17 West and along the 

east boundary of said Section and of 

Section 35 of said Township; thence 

along the north boundary of Section 2, 

Township 64 North, Range 17 West; 

thence south along the east boundary of 

said Section and of Section 11 of said 

Township; thence along the north 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68319 

boundary of Section 13, Township 64 

North, Range 17 West; thence south 

along the east boundaries of said 

Section and of Sections 24, 25, and 35 

of said Township and of Sections 1 and 

12 of Township 63 North, Range 17 

West; thence east along the north 

boundary of Section 18, Township 63 

North, Range 16 West; thence south 

along the east boundary of said Section; 

thence along the north boundaries of 

Section 20 and 21, Township 63 North, 

Range 16 West; thence along the east 

boundary of Section 27, Township 63 

North, Range 16 West and along the 

north boundary of Section 27, Township 

63 North, Range 16 West; thence along 

the west, north and east boundaries of 

Section 23,Township 63 North, Range 

16 West; thence along the north 

boundaries of Sections 25 and 30 of said 

Township; thence along the east 

boundary of Section 30 of said 

Township; thence along the north 

boundaries of Sections 32–36, 

Township 63 North, Range 15 West and 

of Sections 31–35, Township 63 North, 

thence along the east boundary of 

Section 35, Township 63 North, Range 

14 West and eastward along the north 

boundaries of Section 1, Township 62 

North, Range 14 West and of Sections 6, 

5, and 4,Township 62 North Range 13 

West; thence south along the east 

boundaries of Sections 4, 9, 16, 21, 28, 

and 33, Township 62 North, Range 13 

West and of Sections 4, 9, 16, and 21, 

Township 61 North, Range 13 West; 

thence along the north boundary of 

Section 27, Township 61 North, Range 

13 West; thence along the east boundary 

of said Section; thence along the north 

boundaries of Sections 35 and 36, 

Township 61 North, Range 13 West; 

thence along the east boundary of 

Section 36, Township 61 North, Range 

13 West; thence along the north 

boundary of Sections 6 and 5, Township 

60 North, Range 12 West; thence along 

the east boundaries of Sections 5 and 8, 

Township 60 North, Range 12 West; 

thence along the south boundaries of 

Sections 8 and 7, Township 60 North, 

Range 12 West; thence along the east 

boundary of Section 13, Township 60 

North thence along the south boundary 

of Section 13, 14, and 15, Township 60 

North, Range 13 West; thence along the 

east boundary of Section 21, Township 

60 North, Range 13 West; thence along 

the east boundary of Section 29, 

Township 60 North, Range 13 West; 

thence along the south boundaries of 

Sections 29 and 30, Township 60 North, 

Range 13 West and of Section 25, 

Township 60 North, Range 14 West; 

thence along the east boundary of 

Section 35, Township 60 North, Range 

14 West; thence along the south 

boundary of said Section, proceeding 

north along the west boundary of said 

Section: thence along the southern 

boundaries of Sections 27, 28, and 29, 

Township 60 North, Range 14 West; 

thence along the east boundaries of 

Section 31 of said Township and of 

Sections 6 and 7, Township 59 North, 

Range 14 West; thence along the south 

boundary of Section 7 of said Township; 

thence along the east boundary of 

Section 13, Township 59 North, Range 

15 West; thence along the south 

boundaries of Sections 13, 14, 15, and 

16 of said Township; thence along the 

east boundaries of Sections 20, 29, and 

32, Township 59 North, Range 15 West; 

thence along the north boundary of 

Section 4, Township 58 North, Range 15 

West; thence along the east boundary of 

said Section; thence along the north 

boundary of Section 10 of said 

Township and then along the east 

boundary of said Section; thence along 

the north boundaries of Sections 14 and 

13, Township 58 North, Township 15 

West, and of Sections 18, 17, 16, and 15, 

Township 58 North, Range 14 West; 

Township hence south along the east 

boundary of Section 15 of said 

Township and then along the south 

boundary of said Section; thence south 

along the east boundary of Section 21, 

Township 58 North, Range 14 West; 

thence along the east boundary of 

Section 36, Township 58 North, Range 

15 West of Township 57 North, Range 

15 West, and of Township 56 North, 

Range 15 West; thence along the north 

boundaries of Township 55 North, 

Range 14 West; Township 55 North, 

Range 13 West; Township 55 North, 

Range 12 West; Township 55 North, 

Range 11 West; Township 55 North, 

Range 10 West; Township 55 North, 

Range 9 West; thence north along t he 

west boundary of Township 56 North, 

Range 8 West; thence along the north 

boundary of Section 1 and 2, Township 

56 North, Range 9 West; thence along 

the east boundaries of Sections 3, 4, and 

5, Township 56 North, Range 9 West; 

thence along the west boundary of 

Section 5 of said Township; thence 

along the north boundary of said 

Section; thence along the east 

boundaries of Sections 32 and 29, 

Township 57 North, Range 9 West; 

thence along the south boundary of 

Section 20 of said Township; thence 

along the east and then the north 

boundaries of said Section; thence along 

the east boundary of Section 17, 

Township 57 North, Range 9 West; 

thence along the north boundary of said 

Section; thence along the west boundary 

of Section 8 of said Township; thence 

along the south boundaries of Section 6 

of said Township and of Sections 1 and 

2, Township 57 North, Range 10 West; 

thence along the west boundaries of 

Section 2 of said Township and of 

Sections 35 and 26, Township 58 North, 

Range 10 West; thence along the north 

boundary of Section 26 of said 

Township, along the west boundary of 

Section 24 of said Township and then 

along the north boundary of said 

Section; thence along the west boundary 

of Section 18, Township 58 North, 

Range 9 West; thence along the north 

boundary of said Section; thence along 

the west boundary of Section 8 of said 

Township; thence along the north 

boundary of Sections 8, 9, and 10 of said 

Township; thence along the east 

boundary of Section 10, Township 58 

North, Range 9 West; thence along the 

north boundary of Sections 14 and 13, 

Township 58 North, Range 9 West and 

of Sections 18, 17, and 16, Township 58 

North, Range 8 West; thence along the 

west boundary of Sections 10 and 3, 

Township 58 North, Range 8 West; 

thence along the north boundary of 

Sections 3, 2, and 1, Township 58 

North, Range 8 West and of Township 

58 North, Range 7 West and of 

Township 58 North, Range 6 West and 

of Sections 6, 5, and 4, Township 58 

North, Range 5 West; thence along the 

west boundary of Section 34, Township 

59 North, Range 5 West; thence along 

the north boundary of said Section; 

thence along the west boundary of 

Section 26 of said Township; thence 

along the north boundary of said 

Section; thence, along the west 

boundaries of Sections 24, 13, and 12 of 

said Township; thence along the north 

boundary of section 12, Township 59 

North, Range 5 West and of Section 7, 

Township 59 North, Range 4 West; 

thence along the west boundary of 

Section 5, Township 59 North, Range 4 

West; hence along the north and east 

boundaries of said Section; thence along 

the north boundary of Section 4, 

Township 59 North, Range 4 West; 

Township hence along the west 

boundary of Section 34, Township 60 

North, Range 4 West; Township hence 

along the north boundary of said 

Section; thence along the west, north, 

and east boundary of Section 26, 

Township 60 North, Range 4 West; 

thence along the north boundary of 

Section 36, Township 60 North, Range 

4 West and of Section 31, Township 60 

North, Range 3 West; Township hence 

along the west boundaries of Sections 

29 and 20 of said Township; thence 

along the north boundaries of Sections 

20 and 21 of said Township; thence 

along the west boundaries of Sections 

68320 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

15 and 10 of said Township; thence 

along the north boundaries of Sections 

10 and 11 of said Township; thence 

along the west boundary of Section 1 of 

said Township; thence along the north 

boundary of said Section and of 

Sections 6 and 5, Township 60 North, 

Range 2 West; Township hence along 

the west and north boundaries of 

Section 33, Township 61 North, Range 

2 West; thence along the west and north 

boundaries of Section 27 of said 

Township; thence along the west and 

north boundaries of Section 23 of said 

Township; thence along the west, north, 

and east boundaries of Section 13 of 

said Township; thence along the north 

boundaries of Sections 19, 20, and 21, 

Township 61 North, Range 1 West; 

thence along the west and north 

boundaries of Section 15 of said 

Township; thence along the west and 

north boundaries of Section 11 of said 

Township and of Sections 12, 7, 8, and 

9, Township 61 North, Range 1 East; 

thence along the west and north 

boundaries of Section 3 of said 

Township and along the north boundary 

of Section 2 of said Township; thence 

along the west and north boundary of 

Section 36, Township 62 North, Range 

1 East and along the north boundary of 

Section 31, Township 62 North, Range 

2 East; thence along the west boundary 

of Section 29, T62 North, Range 2 East; 

thence along the north boundary of said 

Section and of Sections 28 and 27 of 

said Township; thence along the west 

and north boundary of Section 23 of 

said Township; thence along the west 

and north boundaries of Section 13, 

Township 62 North, Range 2 East and of 

Section 18, Township 62 North, Range 

3 East thence along the west boundaries 

of Sections 8 and 5, Township 62 North, 

Range 3 East; thence along the south 

boundary of Section 31, Township 63 

North, Range 3 East; thence along the 

west boundaries of Sections 31, 30, 19, 

18, 7, and 6, Township 63 North, Range 

3 East, and of Section 31, Township 64 

North, Range 3 East; thence along the 

north boundaries of Sections 31, 32, and 

33 of said Township; thence along the 

west, south, and east boundaries of 

Section 34 of said Township; thence 

along the west boundaries of Section 26, 

23, 14, and 11, Township 64 North, 

Range 3 East; thence along the north 

boundaries of Sections 11 and 12, 

Township 64 North, Range 3 East to 

where the United States and Canadian 

boundaries intersect; thence 

southeasterly along the United States 

boundary to where it meets the mouth 

of the Pigeon River at Pigeon Bay along 

the intersection of Sections 28 and 29, 

Township 64 North, Range 7 East; 

thence easterly along and around Pigeon 

Point; thence westerly along the 

shoreline of Lake Superior to the mouth 

of the Lester River; thence northerly 

along said river to the east boundary of 

Section 5, Township 50 North, Range 13 

West; thence northward along the east 

boundary of said Section; thence along 

the north boundaries of Sections 5 and 

6 of said Township and of Sections 1, 

2, and 3, Township 50 North, Range 14 

West; thence along the west boundaries 

of Sections 3 and 10 of said Township; 

thence along the south boundaries of 

Sections 9, 8, and 7 of said Township 

and of Section 12, Township 50 North, 

Range 15 West to its intersection with 

U.S. Highway 53 to its intersection with 

the north boundary of Section 20, 

Township 58 North, Range 17 West; 

thence eastward along the north 

boundaries of Sections 20, 21, and 22, 

Township 58 North, Range 17 West; 

thence along the west boundaries of 

Sections 14, 11, and 2, Township 58 

North, Range 17 West and of Section 35, 

Township 59 North, Range 17 West; 

thence along the north boundary of said 

Section; thence along the west and 

north boundaries of Section 25 of said 

Township; thence along the west 

boundaries of Sections 19 and 18, 

Township 59 North, Range 16 West; 

thence along the south boundaries of 

Sections 12 and 11, Township 59 North, 

Range 17 West; thence along the east 

and south boundaries of Section 15 of 

said Township; thence along the east 

boundary of Section 21 of said 

Township; thence along the south 

boundaries of Sections 21, 20, and 19 of 

said Township to the intersection of the 

latter Section’s south boundary with 

U.S. Highway 53; thence northerly along 

U.S. Highway 53 to its intersection with 

the west boundary of Section 17, 

Township 59 North, Range 17 West; 

thence northward along the west 

boundaries of Sections 17, 8, and 5 of 

said Township to the south boundary of 

Section 31, Township 60 North, Range 

17 West; thence along the south 

boundary of said Section to the 

southwest corner of Section 32 of said 

Township; thence along the north 

boundary of Section 29 of said 

Township; thence along the west 

boundaries of Sections 21 and 16 of said 

Township; thence along the north 

boundaries of Sections 16, 15, 14, and 

13 of said Township; thence along the 

west boundaries of Township 60 North, 

Range 16 West and of Township 61 

North, Range 16 West; thence along the 

south boundary of Township 62 North, 

Range 17 West; thence along the east 

and south boundaries of Section 1, 

Township 61 North, Range 18 West; 

thence along the south boundaries of 

Sections 2 and 3 of said Township; 

thence along the east boundaries of 

Sections 9, 16, and 21 of said Township; 

thence along the south boundary of 

Section 21 of said Township to its 

intersection with U.S. Highway 53; 

thence northerly along U.S. Highway 53 

to its intersection with the west 

boundary of S18, Township 65 North, 

Range 19 West; thence southward along 

said boundary; thence along the south 

boundary of said Section; thence along 

the west boundary of Section 17, 

Township 65 North, Range 19 West; 

thence along the north boundaries of 

Sections 17, 16, 15, and 14 of said 

Township; thence along the east 

boundary of Section 14 of said 

Township; thence along the north 

boundaries of Section 24 of said 

Township and of Sections 19, 20, and 

21, Township 65 North, Range 18 West; 

thence along the west boundary of 

Section 22 of said Township; thence 

along the north boundaries of Sections 

22, 23, and 24 of said Township; thence 

along the east boundary of said 

Township; thence along the north 

boundaries of Sections 18, 17, 16, and 

15, Township 65 North, Range 17 West, 

to the point of beginning at the 

northeast corner of Section 15, 

Township 65 North, Range 17 West. 

(ix) Within the subunits described in 

(6)(ii) to (6)(xiii) above, the following 

areas are not included in the critical 

habitat designation: Township 58 North, 

Range 16 West, Sections 3, 8, 9, 10, 16, 

and 17; and Township 58 North, Range 

17 West, Sections 16, 24, 25, and 26. 

(x) Note: Map 2 of Unit 2 (Minnesota) 

follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68321 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


EP09NO05.025</GPH>
68322 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

(7) Unit 3: Northern Rocky Mountains 

Unit; Boundary County, Idaho; 

Flathead, Glacier, Granite, Lake, Lewis 

and Clark, Lincoln, Missoula, Pondera, 

Powell and Teton counties, Montana. 

(i) Coordinate Projection: UTM, 

NAD83, Zone 12, Meters. Coordinate 

Definition: (easting, northing). Unit 3 is 

divided into 18 subunits to facilitate 

description. 

(ii) Subunit 1. Starting at the 

intersection of the Idaho/Canada border 

and 4000 feet elevation contour 

(122032, 5440460), follow the 4000 feet 

elevation contour to intersection with 

Montana/Canada border (151617, 

5438492). Follow Montana/Canada 

border west to intersection with 4000 

feet elevation contour (147739, 

5438749). Follow 4000 feet elevation 

contour to intersection with Montana/ 

Canada border (147356, 5438775). 

Follow Idaho/Montana/Canada border 

west to beginning. This area is found 

within the following USGS 1:24000 

Quads; Eastport, Canuck Peak, 

Northwest Peak, Garver Mountain, 

Bonnet Top, Yaak, Clark Mountain, 

Mount Baldy, Line Point, Meadow 

Creek, Curley Creek, and Newton 

Mountain. 

(iii) Subunit 2. Starting at the 

intersection of the Montana/Canada 

border and 4000 feet elevation contour 

(152307, 5438447), follow the 4000 feet 

elevation contour to intersection with 

Montana/Canada border (157205, 

5438130). Follow Montana/Canada 

border west to beginning. This area is 

found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quads; Garver Mountain and 

Bonnet Top. 

(iv) Subunit 3. Starting at coordinate 

(158408, 5437023), follow 4000 feet 

elevation contour to beginning. This 

area is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; Bonnet Top. 

(v) Subunit 4. Starting at coordinate 

(160775, 5430791), follow 4000 feet 

elevation contour to beginning. This 

area is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quads; Bonnet Top and Mount 

Henry. 

(vi) Subunit 5. Starting at coordinate 

(161176, 5427344), follow 4000 feet 

elevation contour to beginning. This 

area is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quads; Bonnet Top, Mount 

Henry, Yaak, and Lost Horse Mountain. 

(vii) Subunit 6. Starting at the 

intersection of the Montana/Canada 

border and 4000 feet elevation contour 

(163418, 5437730), follow the 4000 feet 

elevation contour to intersection with 

Montana/Canada border (186741, 

5436254). Follow Montana/Canada 

border west to beginning. This area is 

found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quads; Mount Henry, Robinson 

Mountain, Red Mountain, Webb 

Mountain, Boulder Lakes, Lost Horse 

Mountain, Yaak, Clark Mountain, 

Mount Baldy, Sylvanite, Flatiron 

Mountain, Pink Mountain, Parsnip 

Mountain, Inch Mountain, Volcour, 

Ural, Banfield Mountain, Gold Hill, 

Turner Mountain, Alexander Mountain, 

and Vermiculite Mountain. 

(viii) Subunit 7. Starting at coordinate 

(143538, 5402032), follow 4000 feet 

elevation contour to beginning. This 

area is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quads; Sylvanite, Flatiron 

Mountain, Turner Mountain, Pulpit 

Mountain, Kilbrennan Lake, Kootenai 

Falls, and Scenery Mountain. 

(ix) Subunit 8. Starting at coordinate 

(154367, 5393646), follow 4000 feet 

elevation contour to beginning. This 

area is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quads; Turner Mountain, Gold 

Hill, Libby, and Scenery Mountain. 

(x) Subunit 9. Starting at coordinate 

(174032, 5379043), follow 4000 feet 

elevation contour to beginning. This 

area is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quads; Vermiculite Mountain 

and Alexander Mountain. 

(xi) Subunit 10. Starting at coordinate 

(199737, 5417559), follow 4000 feet 

elevation contour to beginning. This 

area is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quads; Webb Mountain, 

Beartrap Mountain, Eureka South, Inch 

Mountain, McGuire Mountain, Pinkham 

Mountain, Edna Mountain, Volcour, 

Davis Mountain, Skillet Mountain, 

Alexander Mountain, Cripple Horse 

Mountain, Warland Peak, Bowen Lake, 

Tony Peak, Richards Mountain, Wolf 

Prairie, and Fisher Mountain. 

(xii) Subunit 11. Starting at coordinate 

(217651, 5399051), follow 4000 feet 

elevation contour to beginning. This 

area is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quads; Stryker, Skillet 

Mountain, Sunday Mountain, Radnor, 

Bowen Lake, Dunsire Point, Johnson 

Peak, Tally Lake, Wolf Prairie, Horse 

Hill, Sylvia Lake, Ashley Mountain, 

Lost Creek Divide, Rhodes, Deer Creek, 

Lynch Lake, Dahl Lake, Pleasant Valley 

Mountain, Lone Lake, Blue Grass Ridge, 

Thompson Lakes, Meadow Peak, 

McGregor Peak, Marion, Haskill 

Mountain, and Kila. 

(xiii) Subunit 12. Starting at the 

intersection of the Montana/Canada 

border and 4000 feet elevation contour 

(205956, 5435192), follow the 4000 feet 

elevation contour to intersection with 

Montana/Canada border (245279, 

5433300). Follow Montana/Canada 

border west to beginning. This area is 

found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quads; Eureka North, Ksanka 

Peak, Stahl Peak, Tuchuck Mountain, 

Mount Hefty, Trailcreek, Polebridge, 

Whale Buttes, Red Meadow Lake, 

Mount Thompson-Seton, Mount 

Marston, Fortine, Stryker, Bull Lake, 

Upper Whitefish Lake, Moose Peak, 

Cyclone Lake, Demers Ridge, 

Huckleberry Mountain, Skookoleel 

Creek, Werner Peak, Olney, Beaver 

Lake, Whitefish, and Columbia Falls 

North. 

(xiv) Subunit 13. Starting at 

coordinate (263061, 5395697), follow 

4000 feet elevation contour to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quads; Demers 

Ridge and Huckleberry Mountain. 

(xv) Subunit 14. Starting at coordinate 

(269763, 5390173), follow 4000 feet 

elevation contour to beginning. This 

area is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quads; McGee Meadow, 

Huckleberry Mountain, and Hungry 

Horse. 

(xvi) Subunit 15. Starting at 

coordinate (268105, 5372525), follow 

4000 feet elevation contour to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quads; 

Columbia Falls North and Hungry 

Horse. 

(xvii) Subunit 16. Starting at the 

intersection of the Montana/Canada 

border and 4000 feet elevation contour 

(247220, 5433213), follow the 4000 feet 

elevation contour to intersection with 

tribal land boundary (275116, 5307842). 

Follow tribal land boundary to 

intersection with 4000 feet elevation 

contour (266686, 5214358). Follow 4000 

feet elevation contour to intersection 

with tribal land boundary (266018, 

5213465). Follow tribal land boundary 

to intersection with 4000 feet elevation 

contour (265946, 5213282). Follow 4000 

feet elevation contour to intersection 

with BLM boundary (296279, 5202322). 

Follow BLM boundary to intersection 

with 4000 feet elevation contour 

(296556, 5202312). Follow 4000 feet 

elevation contour to intersection with 

BLM boundary (297281, 5202285). 

Follow BLM boundary to intersection 

with 4000 feet elevation contour 

(297438, 5202279). Follow 4000 feet 

elevation contour to intersection with 

BLM boundary (297573, 5202794). 

Follow BLM boundary to intersection 

with 4000 feet elevation contour 

(303183, 5206072). Follow 4000 feet 

elevation contour to intersection with 

BLM boundary (303606, 5206062). 

Follow BLM boundary to intersection 

with 4000 feet elevation contour 

(306985, 5204735). Follow 4000 feet 

elevation contour to intersection with 

BLM boundary (325030, 5210736). 

Follow BLM boundary to intersection 

with 4000 feet elevation contour 

(326639, 5211303). Follow 4000 feet 

elevation contour to intersection with 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68323 

BLM boundary (323872, 5207394). 

Follow BLM boundary to intersection 

with 4000 feet elevation contour 

(321664, 5205489). Follow 4000 feet 

elevation contour to intersection with 

BLM boundary (305659, 5202137). 

Follow BLM boundary to intersection 

with 4000 feet elevation contour 

(303278, 5201236). Follow 4000 feet 

elevation contour to intersection with 

BLM boundary (302649, 5201258). 

Follow BLM boundary to intersection 

with 4000 feet elevation contour 

(300781, 5201073). Follow 4000 feet 

elevation contour to intersection with 

BLM boundary (300776, 5200954). 

Follow BLM boundary to intersection 

with 4000 feet elevation contour 

(299764, 5198147). Follow 4000 feet 

elevation contour to intersection with 

BLM boundary (292484, 5197608). 

Follow BLM boundary to intersection 

with 4000 feet elevation contour 

(291094, 5197651). Follow 4000 feet 

elevation contour to intersection with 

BLM boundary (295674, 5184534). 

Follow BLM boundary to intersection 

with 4000 feet elevation contour 

(295759, 5184449). Follow 4000 feet 

elevation contour to intersection with 

BLM boundary (296187, 5184021). 

Follow BLM boundary to intersection 

with 4000 feet elevation contour 

(295513, 5183975). Follow 4000 feet 

elevation contour to intersection with 

BLM boundary (294232, 5179074). 

Follow BLM boundary to intersection 

with 4000 feet elevation contour 

(294376, 5178665). Follow 4000 feet 

elevation contour to intersection with 

BLM boundary (294474, 5178641). 

Follow BLM boundary to intersection 

with 4000 feet elevation contour 

(295353, 5178635). Follow 4000 feet 

elevation contour to intersection with 

BLM boundary (320899, 5178236). 

Follow BLM boundary to intersection 

with 4000 feet elevation contour 

(321121, 5177835). Follow 4000 feet 

elevation contour to intersection with 

BLM boundary (324899, 5176961). 

Follow BLM boundary to intersection 

with 4000 feet elevation contour 

(325898, 5176527). Follow 4000 feet 

elevation contour to intersection with 

BLM boundary (329303, 5174047). 

Follow BLM boundary to intersection 

with 4000 feet elevation contour 

(329924, 5174403). Follow 4000 feet 

elevation contour to intersection with 

Interstate Highway 90 (338356, 

5167811). Follow Interstate Highway 90 

to intersection with USFS boundary 

(402512, 5159444). Follow USFS 

boundary to NPS boundary (334101, 

5364611). Follow NPS boundary to 

intersection with Montana/Canada 

border (309104, 5430544). Follow 

Montana/Canada border west to 

intersection with 4000 feet elevation 

contour (247562, 5433194). Follow 4000 

feet elevation contour to intersection 

with Montana/Canada border (247373, 

5433204). Follow Montana/Canada 

border west to beginning. This area is 

found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quads; Trailcreek, Kintla Lake, 

Kintla Peak, Mount Carter, Porcupine 

Ridge, Mount Cleveland, Gable 

Mountain, Chief Mountain, Babb, Lake 

Sherburne, Many Glacier, Ahern Pass, 

Mount Geduhn, Vulture Peak, Quartz 

Ridge, Polebridge, Demers Ridge, Camas 

Ridge West, Camas Ridge East, Mount 

Cannon, Logan Pass, Rising Sun, Saint 

Mary, Kiowa, Cut Bank Pass, Mount 

Stimson, Mount Jackson, Lake 

McDonald East, Lake McDonald West, 

McGee Meadow, West Glacier, Nyack, 

Stanton Lake, Mount Saint Nicholas, 

Mount Rockwell, Squaw Mountain, East 

Glacier Park, Mitten Lake, Half Dome 

Crag, Hyde Creek, Summit, Blacktail, 

Essex, Pinnacle, Mount Grant, Nyack 

SW, Doris Mountain, Columbia Falls 

South, Hash Mountain, Jewel Basin, 

Pioneer Ridge, Felix Ridge, Nimrod, 

Mount Bradley, Red Plum Mountain, 

Crescent Cliff, Morningstar Mountain, 

Swift Reservoir, Fish Lake, Volcano 

Reef, Walling Reef, Gateway Pass, 

Gooseberry Peak, Gable Peaks, Capitol 

Mountain, Horseshoe Peak, Circus Peak, 

Quintonkon, Big Hawk Mountain, Crater 

Lake, Woods Bay, Yew Creek, Swan 

Lake, Connor Creek, Tin Creek, Spotted 

Bear Mountain, Whitcomb Peak, 

Trilobite Peak, Pentagon Mountain, 

Porphyry Reef, Mount Wright, Cave 

Mountain, Ear Mountain, Our Lake, 

Gates Park, Three Sisters, Bungalow 

Mountain, Cathedral Peak, Meadow 

Creek, String Creek, Thunderbolt 

Mountain, Cilly Creek, Porcupine Creek, 

Cedar Lake, Salmon Prairie, Swan Peak, 

Sunburst Lake, Marmot Mountain, 

Pagoda Mountain, Amphitheatre 

Mountain, Slategoat Mountain, Glenn 

Creek, Arsenic Mountain, Castle Reef, 

Sawtooth Ridge, Patricks Basin, Pretty 

Prairie, Prairie Reef, Haystack 

Mountain, Big Salmon Lake East, Big 

Salmon Lake West, Holland Peak, 

Condon, Peck Lake, Piper-Crow Pass, 

Mount Harding, Hemlock Lake, Cygnet 

Lake, Holland Lake Shaw Creek, Una 

Mountain, Pilot Lake, Trap Mountain, 

Benchmark, Wood Lake, Double Falls, 

Bean Lake, Steamboat Mountain, Jakie 

Creek, Scapegoat Mountain, Flint 

Mountain, Danaher Mountain, Hahn 

Creek Pass, Crimson Peak, Morrell Lake, 

Lake Inez, Lake Marshall, Gray Wolf 

Lake, Saint Marys Lake, Upper Jocko 

Lake, Seeley Lake West, Seeley Lake 

East, Morrell Mountain, Dunham Point, 

Spread Mountain, Lake Mountain, 

Olson Peak, Heart Lake, Caribou Peak, 

Blowout Mountain, Rogers Pass, Cadotte 

Creek, Silver King Mountain, Stonewall 

Mountain, Arrastra Mountain, Coopers 

Lake, Ovando Mountain, Ovando, 

Woodworth, Salmon Lake, Belmont 

Point, Gold Creek Peak, Wapiti Lake, 

Stuart Peak, Evaro, Northwest Missoula, 

Northeast Missoula, Blue Point, 

Sunflower Mountain, Potomac, 

Greenough, Bata Mountain, 

Chamberlain Mountain, Browns Lake, 

Marcum Mountain, Moose Creek, 

Lincoln, Swede Gulch, Stemple Pass 

Wilborn, Granite Butte, Nevada 

Mountain, Finn, Nevada Lake, 

Helmville, Chimney Lakes, Wild Horse 

Parks, Elevation Mountain, Union Peak, 

Mineral Ridge, Clinton, Bonner, Iris 

Point, Ravenna, Medicine Tree Hill, 

Bearmouth, Drummond, Limestone 

Ridge, Bailey Mountain, Windy Rock, 

Gravely Mountain, Ophir Creek, 

Esmeralda Hill, Greenhorn Mountain, 

Austin, Black Mountain, MacDonald 

Pass, Elliston, Avon, Luke Mountain, 

Garrison, Griffin Creek, and Dunkleberg 

Creek. This entire area is proposed 

critical habitat except for the following 

lands: Starting at the coordinate 

(319039, 5226995), follow BLM 

boundary to beginning. This area is 

found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quads; Seeley Lake East and 

Morrell Mountain. Starting at coordinate 

(320624, 5225739), follow BLM 

boundary to beginning. This area is 

found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; Morrell Mountain. 

Starting at coordinate (296383, 

5186663), follow BLM boundary to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Clinton. 

Starting at coordinate (296609, 

5185893), follow BLM boundary to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Clinton. 

Starting at coordinate (296530, 

5186657), follow BLM boundary to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Clinton. 

(Within this area, land which is 

designated as proposed critical habitat 

starts at coordinate (297038, 5186474) 

and follows BLM boundary to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Clinton) 

Starting at coordinate (305789, 

5186382), follow BLM boundary to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Mineral 

Ridge. Starting at coordinate (305659, 

5182733), follow BLM boundary to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Mineral 

Ridge. Starting at coordinate (315723, 

5179630), follow BLM boundary to 

68324 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quad; 

Medicine Tree Hill. Starting at 

coordinate (316123, 5178792), follow 

BLM boundary to beginning. This area 

is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; Medicine Tree Hill. 

Starting at coordinate (314479, 

5183663), follow BLM boundary to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Union 

Peak. Starting at coordinate (317052, 

5184417), follow BLM boundary to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Union 

Peak. Starting at coordinate (320811, 

5183108), follow BLM boundary to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quad; 

Elevation Mountain. Starting at 

coordinate (319192, 5191218), follow 

BLM boundary to beginning. This area 

is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; Elevation Mountain. 

Starting at coordinate (321667, 

5192351), follow BLM boundary to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quad; 

Elevation Mountain. Starting at 

coordinate (320585, 5179899), follow 

BLM boundary to beginning. This area 

is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; Bearmouth. Starting at 

coordinate (318603, 5182370), follow 

BLM boundary to beginning. This area 

is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quads; Bearmouth, Elevation 

Mountain, and Union Peak. Starting at 

coordinate (326606, 5187107), follow 

BLM boundary to beginning. This area 

is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; Wild Horse Parks. 

Starting at coordinate (329738, 

5184069), follow BLM boundary to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Wild 

Horse Parks. Starting at coordinate 

(331398, 5179218), follow BLM 

boundary to beginning. This area is 

found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; Drummond. Starting at 

coordinate (334581, 5178310), follow 

BLM boundary to beginning. This area 

is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; Drummond. Starting at 

coordinate (332927, 5176344), follow 

BLM boundary to beginning. This area 

is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; Drummond. Starting at 

coordinate (332167, 5175562), follow 

BLM boundary to beginning. This area 

is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; Drummond. Starting at 

coordinate (331277, 5182437), follow 

BLM boundary to beginning. This area 

is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quads; Drummond, Bearmouth, 

Elevation Mountain, and Wild Horse 

Parks. Starting at coordinate (318247, 

5190866), follow BLM boundary to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Union 

Peak. Starting at coordinate (337347, 

5195158), follow BLM boundary to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quad; 

Chamberlain Mountain. Starting at 

coordinate (327133, 5187734), follow 

BLM boundary to beginning. This area 

is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; Elevation Mountain. 

Starting at coordinate (327463, 

5187624), follow BLM boundary to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quad; 

Elevation Mountain. Starting at 

coordinate (327832, 5187474), follow 

BLM boundary to beginning. This area 

is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; Elevation Mountain. 

Starting at coordinate (326314, 

5203648), follow BLM boundary to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quads; Browns 

Lake, Chamberlain Mountain, Bata 

Mountain, Union Peak, Elevation 

Mountain, Wild Horse Parks, and 

Chimney Lakes. {Within this area, land 

which is designated as proposed critical 

habitat starts at coordinate (329381, 

5188913) and follows BLM boundary to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quads; 

Elevation Mountain, and Wild Horse 

Parks. Starting at coordinate (319172, 

5190028), follow BLM boundary to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quads; 

Elevation Mountain and Union Peak. 

Starting at coordinate (322033, 

5190748), follow BLM boundary to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quad; 

Elevation Mountain. Starting at 

coordinate (321061, 5189103), follow 

BLM boundary to beginning. This area 

is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; Elevation Mountain. 

Starting at coordinate (320496, 

5188957), follow BLM boundary to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quad; 

Elevation Mountain. Starting at 

coordinate (320558, 5188537), follow 

BLM boundary to beginning. This area 

is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; Elevation Mountain. 

Starting at coordinate (321011, 

5188258), follow BLM boundary to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quad; 

Elevation Mountain. Starting at 

coordinate (322810, 5187242), follow 

BLM boundary to beginning. This area 

is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; Elevation Mountain. 

Starting at coordinate (322387, 

5186742), follow BLM boundary to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quad; 

Elevation Mountain. Starting at 

coordinate (324560, 5187643), follow 

BLM boundary to beginning. This area 

is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; Elevation Mountain. 

Starting at coordinate (325099, 

5186866), follow BLM boundary to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quad; 

Elevation Mountain. Starting at 

coordinate (325438, 5186581), follow 

BLM boundary to beginning. This area 

is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; Elevation Mountain. 

Starting at coordinate (323452, 

5187427), follow BLM boundary to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quad; 

Elevation Mountain.} Starting at 

coordinate (345715, 5188825), follow 

BLM boundary to beginning. This area 

is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; Chimney Lakes. Starting 

at coordinate (344109, 5204620), follow 

BLM boundary to beginning. This area 

is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; Browns Lake. Starting at 

coordinate (344914, 5204270), follow 

BLM boundary to beginning. This area 

is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; Browns Lake. Starting at 

coordinate (344118, 5204036), follow 

BLM boundary to beginning. This area 

is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; Browns Lake. Starting at 

coordinate (357144, 5190945), follow 

BLM boundary to beginning. This area 

is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; Nevada Lake. Starting at 

coordinate (355428, 5207566), follow 

BLM boundary to beginning. This area 

is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quads; Coopers Lake, Marcum 

Mountain, and Moose Creek. {Within 

this area, lands which are designated as 

proposed critical habitat start at 

coordinate (350866, 5201350) and 

follows BLM boundary to beginning. 

This area is found within the following 

USGS 1:24000 Quad; Marcum 

Mountain. Starting at coordinate 

(355141, 5201112), follow BLM 

boundary to beginning. This area is 

found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; Marcum Mountain.} 

Starting at coordinate (353703, 

5200749), follow BLM boundary to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Marcum 

Mountain. Starting at coordinate 

(355960, 5194323), follow BLM 

boundary to beginning. This area is 

found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; Marcum Mountain. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68325 

Starting at coordinate (356137, 

5193615), follow BLM boundary to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quads; 

Marcum Mountain and Helmville. 

Starting at coordinate (357144, 

5190945), follow BLM boundary to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Nevada 

Lake. Starting at coordinate (364695, 

5185182), follow BLM boundary to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Nevada 

Lake. Starting at coordinate (353935, 

5184938), follow BLM boundary to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quads; Nevada 

Lake, Helmville, Bailey Mountain, 

Windy Rock, and Gravely Mountain. 

{Within this area, lands which are 

designated as proposed critical habitat 

start at coordinate (361661, 5175019) 

and follows BLM boundary to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Windy 

Rock. Starting at coordinate (360888, 

5173433), follow BLM boundary to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Windy 

Rock. Starting at coordinate (363227, 

5173358), follow BLM boundary to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Windy 

Rock. Starting at coordinate (361203, 

5170807), follow BLM boundary to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Windy 

Rock.} Starting at coordinate (366405, 

5170924), follow BLM boundary to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Gravely 

Mountain. Starting at coordinate 

(360010, 5167874), follow BLM 

boundary to beginning. This area is 

found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; Windy Rock. Starting at 

coordinate (359982, 5166653), follow 

BLM boundary to beginning. This area 

is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; Windy Rock. Starting at 

coordinate (358776, 5166710), follow 

BLM boundary to beginning. This area 

is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; Windy Rock. Starting at 

coordinate (371430, 5186097), follow 

BLM boundary to beginning. This area 

is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; Finn. Starting at 

coordinate (370787, 5185789), follow 

BLM boundary to beginning. This area 

is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; Finn. Starting at 

coordinate (372795, 5182611), follow 

BLM boundary to beginning. This area 

is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; Finn. Starting at 

coordinate (375336, 5182119), follow 

BLM boundary to beginning. This area 

is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quads; Finn and Nevada 

Mountain. Starting at coordinate 

(382582, 5172875), follow BLM 

boundary to beginning. This area is 

found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quads; Ophir Creek and 

Esmeralda Hill. {Within this area, land 

which is designated as proposed critical 

habitat starts at coordinate (384870, 

5170249) and follows BLM boundary to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quads; Ophir 

Creek and Esmeralda Hill.} Starting at 

coordinate (381775, 5171386), follow 

BLM boundary to beginning. This area 

is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; Ophir Creek. Starting at 

coordinate (383679, 5167260), follow 

BLM boundary to beginning. This area 

is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; Ophir Creek. Starting at 

coordinate (382059, 5164928), follow 

BLM boundary to beginning. This area 

is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quads; Ophir Creek and Avon. 

Starting at coordinate (380763, 

5163056), follow BLM boundary to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Avon. 

Starting at coordinate (396769, 

5161893), follow BLM boundary to 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quad; 

MacDonald Pass. Starting at coordinate 

(397969, 5162113), follow BLM 

boundary to beginning. This area is 

found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; MacDonald Pass. Starting 

at coordinate (396918, 5161353), follow 

BLM boundary to beginning. This area 

is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; MacDonald Pass. 

(xviii) Subunit 17. Starting at the 

intersection of the BLM boundary and 

the 4000 feet elevation contour (326229, 

5210916), follow BLM boundary to 

intersection with 4000 feet elevation 

contour (326529, 5211101). Follow 4000 

feet elevation contour to beginning. This 

area is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; Woodworth. 

(xix) Subunit 18. Starting at the 

intersection of the BLM boundary and 

the 4000 feet elevation contour (299404, 

5198161), follow 4000 feet elevation 

contour to intersection with BLM 

boundary (299645, 5198151). Follow 

BLM boundary to beginning. This area 

is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; Sunflower Mountain. 

(xx) Note: Map 3 of Unit 3 (Northern 

Rockies) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

68326 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


EP09NO05.027</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68327 

(8) Unit 4: North Cascades Unit; 

Chelan and Okanogan counties, 

Washington. 

(i) Coordinate Projection: UTM, 

NAD83, Zone 11, Meters. Coordinate 

Definition: (easting, northing). Unit 4 is 

divided into two subunits to facilitate 

description. 

(ii) Subunit 1. Starting at the 

Washington/Canada border (Whatcom/ 

Okanogan Counties boundary—

‘‘Cascade Crest’’) (218319, 5434639), 

follow the ‘‘Cascade Crest’’ south to 

coordinate (200268, 5369981). Go south 

approximately 250 meters (200241, 

5369733) to watercourse (headwaters—

Flat Creek). Follow watercourse (Flat 

Creek) to intersection with 4000 feet 

elevation contour (201629, 5366872) 

(Cascade Pass Quad—USGS 1:24000). 

Follow 4000 feet elevation contour to 

BLM boundary (270630, 5316493). 

Follow BLM boundary east to (270674, 

5316490). Follow BLM boundary south 

to intersection with 4000 feet elevation 

contour (270651, 5315908). Follow 4000 

feet elevation contour to BLM boundary 

(293481, 5382799). Follow BLM 

boundary north and then east to 

intersection with 4000 feet elevation 

contour (294577, 5384829). Follow 4000 

feet elevation contour to intersection 

with BLM boundary (301353, 5421464). 

Follow BLM boundary to intersection 

with Washington/Canada border 

(298454, 5431123). Follow Washington/ 

Canada border west to intersection with 

4000 feet elevation contour (240301, 

5433596). Follow 4000 feet elevation 

contour to intersection with 

Washington/Canada border (239526, 

5433632). Follow Washington/Canada 

border to beginning. This area is found 

within the following USGS 1:24000 

Quads; Skagit Peak, Castle Peak, Frosty 

Creek, Ashnola Mountain, Ashnola 

Pass, Remmel Mountain, Bauerman 

Ridge, Horseshoe Basin, Hurley Peak, 

Nighthawk, Tatoosh Buttes, Shull 

Mountain, Pasayten Peak, Mount Lago, 

Mount Barney, Coleman Peak, Corral 

Butte, Duncan Ridge, Loomis, Lost Peak, 

Billy Goat Mountain, Azurite Peak, Slate 

Peak, Robinson Mountain, McLeod 

Mountain, Sweetgrass Butte, Doe 

Mountain, Spur Peak, Tiffany Mountain, 

Coxit Mountain, Blue Goat Mountain, 

Forbidden Peak, Mount Logan, Mount 

Arriva, Washington Pass, Silver Star 

Mountain, Mazama, Lewis Butte, 

Pearrygin Peak, Old Baldy, Conconully 

West, Rendevous Mountain, Conconully 

East McGregor Mountain, McAlester 

Mountain, Gilbert, Midnight Mountain, 

Thompson Ridge, Loup Loup Summit, 

Buck Mountain, Cascade Pass, Goode 

Mountain, Blue Buck Mountain, 

Stehekin, Sun Mountain, Oval Peak, 

Hoodoo Peak, Twisp West, Thrapp 

Mountain, Chiliwist Valley, Lucerne, 

Prince Creek, Martin Peak, Hungry 

Mountain, Big Goat Mountain, South 

Navarre Peak, Oss Peak, Cooper 

Mountain, Pateros, Manson, Cooper 

Ridge, and Azwell. This entire area is 

designated proposed critical habitat 

except for the following land: Starting at 

coordinate (292364, 5384506), follow 

BLM boundary to beginning. This area 

is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; Conconully West. 

(iii) Subunit 2. Starting at the 

intersection of the 4000 feet elevation 

contour and BLM boundary (293662, 

5382670), follow 4000 feet elevation 

contour to intersection with BLM 

boundary (294496, 5383222). Follow 

BLM boundary to beginning. This area 

is found within the following USGS 

1:24000 Quad; Conconully West. 

(iv) Note: Map 4 of Unit 4 (North 

Cascades) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

68328 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 

* * * * * 

Dated: November 1, 2005. 

Craig Manson, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks. 

[FR Doc. 05–22193 Filed 11–8–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


EP09NO05.026</GPH>