10860 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS–R6–ES–2008–0026] 

92210–1117–0000-B4] 

RIN 1018–AV78 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for 

the Contiguous United States Distinct 

Population Segment of the Canada 

Lynx (Lynx canadensis) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

revise designated critical habitat for the 

contiguous United States distinct 

population segment of the Canada lynx 

(Lynx canadensis) (lynx) under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). In the contiguous 

United States, the lynx generally 

inhabits cold, moist boreal forests. 

Approximately 42,753 square miles 

(mi2) (110,727 square kilometers (km2)) 

fall within the boundaries of the 

proposed revised critical habitat 

designation. The proposed revised 

designation would add an additional 

40,913 mi2 (105,959 km2) to the existing 

critical habitat designation of 1,841 mi2

(4,768 km2). The proposed revised 

critical habitat is located in Boundary 

County, Idaho; Aroostook, Franklin, 

Penobscot, Piscataquis, and Somerset 

Counties in Maine; Cook, Koochiching, 

Lake, and St. Louis Counties in 

Minnesota; Flathead, Glacier, Granite, 

Lake, Lewis and Clark, Lincoln, 

Missoula, Pondera, Powell, Teton, 

Gallatin, Park, Sweetgrass, Stillwater, 

and Carbon Counties in Montana; 

Chelan and Okanogan Counties in 

Washington; and Park, Teton, Fremont, 

Sublette, and Lincoln Counties in 

Wyoming. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

April 28, 2008. We must receive 

requests for public hearings, in writing, 

at the address shown in the ADDRESSES

section by April 14, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: [FWS–R6– 

ES–2008–0026]; Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will not accept e-mail or faxed 

comments. We will post all comments 

on http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Public Comments section below 

for more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Wilson, Field Supervisor, 

Montana Ecological Services Office, 585 

Shepard Way, Helena, MT, 59601; 

telephone 406–449–5225. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposal will be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

suggestions on this proposed rule. We 

particularly seek comments concerning: 

(1) The reasons why we should or 

should not designate specific habitat as 

‘‘critical habitat’’ under section 4 of the 

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

(2) Specific information on: 

• The amount and distribution of 

lynx habitat, 

• What areas occupied at the time of 

listing and that contain features 

essential for the conservation of the 

species we should include in the 

designation and why that might be so, 

and 

• What areas not occupied at the time 

of listing are essential to the 

conservation of the species and why 

that might be so. 

(3) Comments or information that may 

assist us with identifying or clarifying 

the primary constituent element. 

(4) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the areas 

proposed as critical habitat and their 

possible impacts on proposed revised 

critical habitat. 

(5) Whether Tribal lands in the 

Northern Rockies, Maine, and 

Minnesota units need to be included as 

critical habitat pursuant to Secretarial 

Order Number 3206. 

(6) Whether lands the Southern Rocky 

Mountains contain the physical and 

biological features that are essential for 

the conservation of the species and the 

basis for why that might be so 

(7) Whether lands in any unoccupied 

areas, such as the ‘‘Kettle Range’’ in 

Ferry County, Washington, are essential 

to the conservation of lynx and the basis 

for why that might be so. 

(8) How the proposed boundaries of 

the revised critical habitat could be 

refined to more closely circumscribe the 

boreal forest landscapes occupied by 

lynx. Refined maps that accurately 

depict the specific vegetation types on 

all land ownerships are not readily 

available. We are especially interested 

in this information for the Greater 

Yellowstone Area unit. 

(9) Whether our proposed revised 

critical habitat for the lynx should be 

altered in any way to account for 

climate change. 

(10) Whether the proposed revised 

critical habitat designation for the lynx 

should include private lands, or 

whether the proposed Federal lands are 

sufficient to conserve lynx. 

(11) Whether U.S. Forest Service 

(USFS) lands that occur in the wildlandurban-interface (WUI) should be 

excluded from critical habitat under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act so that fuelsreduction projects designed to protect 

human life and property from wildfire 

would not be impeded in any way in 

these areas. 

(12) Whether the Greater Yellowstone 

Area is essential to the conservation of 

lynx. Lynx in this proposed unit occur 

at lower densities than in other 

proposed units, and the population is 

not connected to Canada, which is an 

important source of lynx in the United 

States. 

(13) Any foreseeable economic, 

national security, or other potential 

impacts resulting from the proposed 

designation and, in particular, any 

impacts on small entities, and the 

benefits of including or excluding areas 

that exhibit these impacts. 

(14) Whether we could improve or 

modify our approach to designating 

critical habitat in any way to provide for 

greater public participation and 

understanding, or to better 

accommodate public concerns and 

comments. 

The size of the individual Indian 

reservation lands in the Northern 

Rockies, 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 proposal without 

including Tribal lands (see 

‘‘Relationship of Critical Habitat to 

Tribal Lands’’ below). 

The southern Rocky Mountains in 

Colorado, Utah, and southern Wyoming 

are disjunct from other lynx habitats in 

the United States and Canada. The 

nearest lynx population occurs in the 

Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA), which 

is a small, low density population also 

disjunct from other lynx populations 

and is unlikely to regularly supply 

dispersing lynx to the Southern Rockies. 

Native lynx were functionally extirpated 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 10861 

from their historic range in Colorado 

and southern Wyoming by the time the 

lynx was listed as a threatened species 

under the Act 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 an 

experimental population 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 revised critical habitat in 

the Southern Rockies because of the 

current uncertainty that a self-sustaining 

lynx population will become 

established. 

The Kettle Range in Washington 

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 nor has there been evidence 

of reproducing lynx in the Kettle Range 

in the past two decades (Koehler 2008). 

Fuels-reduction projects in the WUI 

may degrade lynx habitat by reducing 

its ability to support snowshoe hares. 

For this reason, if WUI areas were 

designated as revised critical habitat, 

fuels-reduction projects may be 

impaired or delayed as a result of 

requirements under section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act, which could lead to reduced 

effectiveness of the fuels-reduction, and 

increased risk to human life and 

property. Mapped WUI areas can be 

viewed on the Internet at: ftp:// 

ftp2.fs.fed.us/incoming/r1/FWS/ 

wui_1mile_buffer_oct06.pdf. 

In addition to public comments 

received on this proposed rule, between 

the proposed and final rules, the Service 

will analyze the following for its 

relevance in revising critical habitat for 

lynx: (1) Comments received in 

response to our initiation of a 5-year 

review for lynx; (2) a new study 

addressing effects of snowmobile trails 

on coyote movements within lynx home 

ranges (Kolbe et al. 2007, pp. 1409–

1418); (3) a study on lynx prey selection 

(Squires and Ruggiero 2007, pp. 310–

315); (4) new reports we have received 

on the numbers and distribution of lynx 

in some locations; (5) a newly released 

study on the effects of climate change 

on snowpack in western mountains and 

how that may affect lynx, snowshoe 

hares, and their habitats (Gonzalez et al. 

2007); and (6) additional new studies 

(e.g., Knowles et al. 2006 and Danby and 

Hick 2007) that may provide insight on 

changes to lynx habitat. If necessary and 

appropriate, revisions to this proposed 

rule will be made to address this 

information. We will also be revising 

the economic analysis and 

environmental assessment prepared for 

the previous designation and providing 

drafts of the new economic analysis and 

environmental assessment to the public 

before finalizing this proposal. 

On the basis of public comment, 

during the development of the revised 

final rule we may find, among other 

things, that areas proposed are not 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, are appropriate for exclusion 

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are 

not appropriate for exclusion. In all of 

these cases, this information will be 

incorporated into the revised final 

designation. Further, we may find as a 

result of public comments that areas not 

proposed should also be designated as 

critical habitat. Final management plans 

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. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. We will not accept 

comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an 

address not listed in the ADDRESSES

section. We will not accept anonymous 

comments; your comment must include 

your first and last name, city, State, 

country, and postal (zip) code. Finally, 

we will not consider hand-delivered 

comments that we do not receive, or 

mailed comments that are not 

postmarked, by the date specified in the 

DATES section. 

We will post your entire comment—

including your personal identifying 

information—on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. If you provide 

personal identifying information in 

addition to the required items specified 

in the previous paragraph, such as your 

street address, phone number, or e-mail 

address, you may request at the top of 

your document that we withhold this 

information from public review. 

However, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this revised proposed 

rule, will be available for public 

inspection on http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Montana Ecological Services 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). Maps of the proposed revised 

critical habitat are also available on the 

Internet at http://mountain-prairie.

fws.gov/species/mammals/lynx/. 

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 30 to 35 inches (in) 

(75 to 90 centimeters (cm)) long and 

weighing 18 to 23 pounds (8 to 10.5 

kilograms) (Quinn and Parker 1987, 

Table 1). They have large, 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, p. 744; 

Quinn and Parker 1987, pp. 684–685; 

Aubry et al. 2000, pp. 375–378). Lynx 

and snowshoe hares are strongly 

associated with what is broadly 

described as boreal forest (Bittner and 

Rongstad 1982, p. 154; McCord and 

Cardoza 1982, p. 743; Quinn and Parker 

1987, p. 684; Agee 2000, p. 39; Aubry 

et al. 2000, pp. 378–382; Hodges 2000a, 

pp. 136–140 and 2000b, pp. 183–191; 

McKelvey et al. 2000b, pp. 211–232). 

The predominant vegetation of boreal 

forest is conifer trees, primarily species 

of spruce (Picea spp.) and fir (Abies 

spp.) (Elliot-Fisk 1988, pp. 34–35, 37–

42). In the contiguous United States, the 

boreal forest types transition to 

deciduous temperate forest in the 

Northeast and Great Lakes and to 

subalpine forest in the west (Agee 2000, 

pp. 40–41). Lynx habitat can generally 

be described as moist boreal forests that 

have cold, snowy winters and a 

snowshoe hare prey base (Quinn and 

Parker 1987, p. 684–685; Agee 2000, pp. 

39–47; Aubry et al. 2000, pp. 373–375; 

Buskirk et al. 2000b, pp. 397–405; 

Ruggiero et al. 2000, pp. 445–447). In 

mountainous areas, the boreal forests 

that lynx use are characterized by 

scattered moist forest types with high 

hare densities in a matrix of other 

habitats (e.g., hardwoods, dry forest, 

non-forest) with low hare densities. In 

these areas, lynx incorporate the matrix 

habitat (non-boreal forest habitat 

elements) into their home ranges and 

use it for traveling between patches of 

boreal forest that support high hare 

densities where most foraging occurs. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
10862 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Snow conditions also determine the 

distribution of lynx (Ruggiero et al. 

2000, pp. 445–449). Lynx are 

morphologically and physiologically 

adapted for hunting snowshoe hares and 

surviving in areas that have cold winters 

with deep, fluffy snow for extended 

periods. These adaptations provide lynx 

a competitive advantage over potential 

competitors, such as bobcats (Lynx 

rufus) or coyotes (Canis latrans) 

(McCord and Cardoza 1982, p. 748; 

Buskirk et al. 2000a, pp. 86–95; 

Ruediger et al. 2000, p. 1–11; Ruggiero 

et al. 2000, pp. 445, 450). Bobcats and 

coyotes have a higher foot load (more 

weight per surface area of foot), which 

causes them to sink into the snow more 

than lynx. Therefore, bobcats and 

coyotes cannot efficiently hunt in fluffy 

or deep snow and are at a competitive 

disadvantage to lynx. Long-term snow 

conditions presumably limit the winter 

distribution of potential lynx 

competitors such as bobcats (McCord 

and Cardoza 1982, p. 748) or coyotes. 

Lynx Habitat Requirements 

Because of the patchiness and 

temporal nature of high quality 

snowshoe hare habitat, lynx populations 

require large boreal forest landscapes to 

ensure that sufficient high quality 

snowshoe hare habitat is available and 

to ensure that lynx may move freely 

among patches of suitable habitat and 

among subpopulations of lynx. 

Populations that are composed of a 

number of discrete subpopulations, 

connected by dispersal, are called 

metapopulations (McKelvey et al. 

2000c, p. 25). Individual lynx maintain 

large home ranges (reported as generally 

ranging between 12 to 83 mi2 (31 to 216 

km2)) (Koehler 1990, p. 847; Aubry et al. 

2000, pp. 382–386; Squires and Laurion 

2000, pp. 342–347; Squires et al. 2004b, 

pp. 13–16, Table 6; Vashon et al. 2005a, 

pp. 7–11). The size of lynx home ranges 

varies depending on abundance of prey, 

the animal’s gender and age, the season, 

and the density of lynx populations 

(Koehler 1990, p. 849; Poole 1994, pp. 

612–616; Slough and Mowat 1996, pp. 

951, 956; Aubry et al. 2000, pp. 382–

386; Mowat et al. 2000, pp. 276–280; 

Vashon et al. 2005a, pp. 9–10). 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, pp. 

123–128; Buehler and Keith 1982, pp. 

24, 28; Koehler 1990, p. 849; Koehler 

and Aubry 1994, p. 84). Additionally, 

the presence of more snowshoe hare 

predators and competitors at southern 

latitudes may inhibit the potential for 

high-density hare populations (Wolff 

1980, p. 128). As a result, lynx generally 

occur at relatively low densities in the 

contiguous United States compared to 

the high lynx densities that occur in the 

northern boreal forest of Canada (Aubry 

et al. 2000, pp. 375, 393–394) or the 

densities of species such as the bobcat, 

which is a habitat and prey generalist. 

Lynx are highly mobile and generally 

move long distances (greater than 60 mi 

(100 km)) (Aubry et al. 2000, pp. 386–

387; Mowat et al. 2000, pp. 290–294). 

Lynx disperse primarily when 

snowshoe hare populations decline 

(Ward and Krebs 1985, pp. 2821–2823; 

O’Donoghue et al. 1997, pp. 156, 159; 

Poole 1997, pp. 499–503). Subadult lynx 

disperse even when prey is abundant 

(Poole 1997, pp. 502–503), presumably 

to establish new home ranges. Lynx also 

make exploratory movements outside 

their home ranges (Aubry et al. 2000, p. 

386; Squires et al. 2001, pp. 18–26). 

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, pp. 47–

48; Agee 2000, pp. 47–69). As a result, 

lynx habitat within the boreal forest 

landscape is typically patchy because 

the boreal forest contains stands of 

differing ages and conditions, some of 

which are suitable as lynx foraging or 

denning habitat (or will become suitable 

in the future due to forest succession) 

and some of which serve as travel routes 

for lynx moving between foraging and 

denning habitat (McKelvey et al. 2000a, 

pp. 427–434; Hoving et al. 2004, pp. 

290–292). 

Snowshoe hares comprise a majority 

of the lynx diet (Nellis et al. 1972, pp. 

323–325; Brand et al. 1976, pp. 422–

425; Koehler 1990, p. 848; Apps 2000, 

pp. 358–359, 363; Aubry et al. 2000, pp. 

375–378; Mowat et al. 2000, pp. 267–

268; von Kienast 2003, pp. 37–38; 

Squires et al. 2004b, p. 15, Table 8). 

When snowshoe hare populations are 

low, female lynx produce few or no 

kittens that survive to independence 

(Nellis et al. 1972, pp. 326–328; Brand 

et al. 1976, pp. 420, 427; Brand and 

Keith 1979, pp. 837–838, 847; Poole 

1994, pp. 612–616; Slough and Mowat 

1996, pp. 953–958; O’Donoghue et al. 

1997, pp. 158–159; Aubry et al. 2000, 

pp. 388–389; Mowat et al. 2000, pp. 

285–287). Lynx prey opportunistically 

on other small mammals and birds, 

particularly during lows in snowshoe 

hare populations, but alternate prey 

species may not sufficiently compensate 

for low availability of snowshoe hares, 

resulting in reduced lynx populations 

(Brand et al. 1976, pp. 422–425; Brand 

and Keith 1979, pp. 833–834; Koehler 

1990, pp. 848–849; Mowat et al. 2000, 

pp. 267–268). 

In northern Canada, lynx populations 

fluctuate in response to the cycling of 

snowshoe hare populations (Hodges 

2000a, pp. 118–123; Mowat et al. 2000, 

pp. 270–272). Although snowshoe hare 

populations in the northern portion of 

their range show strong, regular 

population cycles, these fluctuations are 

generally much less pronounced in the 

southern portion of their range in the 

contiguous United States (Hodges 

2000b, pp. 165–173). 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 reproduction are closely 

tied to snowshoe hare availability, 

snowshoe hare habitat is a component 

of lynx habitat. Lynx generally 

concentrate their foraging and hunting 

activities in areas where snowshoe hare 

populations are high (Koehler et al. 

1979, p. 442; Ward and Krebs 1985, pp. 

2821–2823; Murray et al. 1994, p. 1450; 

O’Donoghue et al. 1997, pp. 155, 159–

160 and 1998, pp. 178–181). Snowshoe 

hares are most abundant in forests with 

dense understories that provide forage, 

cover to escape from predators, and 

protection during extreme weather 

(Wolfe et al. 1982, pp. 665–669; Litvaitis 

et al. 1985, pp. 869–872; Hodges 2000a, 

pp. 136–140 and 2000b, pp. 183–195). 

Generally, hare densities are higher in 

regenerating, earlier successional forest 

stages because they have greater 

understory structure than mature forests 

(Buehler and Keith 1982, p. 24; Wolfe et 

al. 1982, pp. 665–669; Koehler 1990, pp. 

847–848; Hodges 2000b, pp. 183–195; 

Homyack 2003, p. 63, 141; Griffin 2004, 

pp. 84–88). However, snowshoe hares 

can be abundant in mature forests with 

dense understories (Griffin 2004, pp. 

53–54). 

Within the boreal forest, lynx den 

sites are located where coarse woody 

debris, such as downed logs and 

windfalls, provides security and thermal 

cover for lynx kittens (McCord and 

Cardoza 1982, pp. 743–744; Koehler 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 10863 

1990, pp. 847–849; Slough 1999, p. 607; 

Squires and Laurion 2000, pp. 346–347; 

Organ 2001). The amount of structure 

(e.g., downed, large, woody debris) 

appears to be more important than the 

age of the forest stand for lynx denning 

habitat (Mowat et al. 2000, pp. 10–11). 

Future of Lynx Habitat 

In 2003, we determined that climate 

change was not a threat to lynx because 

the best available science we had at that 

time (Hoving 2001) was too uncertain in 

nature (68 FR 40083). Since that time, 

new information on regional climate 

changes and potential effects to lynx 

habitat has been developed (e.g., 

Gonzalez et al. 2007, entire; Knowles et 

al. 2006, pp. 4545–4559; Danby and 

Hick 2007, pp. 358–359) that suggests 

that climate change may be an issue of 

concern for the future conservation of 

lynx. This information, combined with 

the information in Hoving 2001, still 

needs to be evaluated further to 

determine how climate change might 

affect lynx and lynx habitat. We are 

evaluating this information in the 5-year 

review we are conducting for lynx. 

At this time, we find it appropriate to 

propose revised critical habitat in areas 

that are occupied and currently contain 

the physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the lynx. 

Revisions to the critical habitat 

designation may be necessary in the 

future to accommodate shifts in the 

occupied range of the lynx. To the 

extent lynx distribution and habitat is 

likely to shift upward in elevation 

within its currently occupied range as 

the temperatures increase (Gonzalez et 

al. 2007, pp. 7, 13–14,19), the proposed 

revised critical habitat units include the 

highest-elevation habitats that lynx 

would be able to use in that event. 

Previous Federal Actions 

For more information on previous 

Federal actions concerning the lynx, 

refer to the final listing rule published 

in the Federal Register on March 24, 

2000 (65 FR 16052), the clarification of 

findings published in the Federal 

Register on July 3, 2003 (68 FR 40076), 

and the final rule designating critical 

habitat for lynx published in the 

Federal Register on November 9, 2006 

(71 FR 66007). On July 20, 2007, the 

Service announced that we would 

review the November 9, 2006 final rule 

after questions were raised about the 

integrity of scientific information used 

and whether the decision made was 

consistent with the appropriate legal 

standards. Based on our review of the 

previous final critical habitat 

designation, we have determined that it 

is necessary to revise critical habitat, 

and this rule proposes those revisions. 

On January 15, 2008, the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Columbia issued 

an order stating the Service’s deadlines 

for a proposed rule for revised critical 

habitat by February 15, 2008, and a final 

rule for revised critical habitat by 

February 15, 2009. 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as: 

(1) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by a species, 

at the time it is listed in accordance 

with the Act, on which are found those 

physical or biological features 

(a) Essential to the conservation of the 

species and 

(b) That may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 

(2) Specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by a species 

at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means the use of 

all methods and procedures that are 

necessary to bring any endangered 

species or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

under the Act are no longer necessary. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

prohibition against Federal agencies 

carrying out, funding, or authorizing 

activities that result in the destruction 

or adverse modification of critical 

habitat. Section 7 of the Act requires 

consultation on Federal actions that 

may affect 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 the 

government or public to access private 

lands. Such designation does not 

require implementation of restoration, 

recovery, or enhancement measures by 

the landowner. Where the landowner 

seeks or requests Federal agency 

funding or authorization of an activity 

that may affect a listed species or 

critical habitat, the consultation 

requirements of section 7 would apply. 

Nonetheless, even in the event a project 

with a Federal nexus may result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat, the landowner’s 

obligation is not to restore or recover the 

species, but to implement reasonable 

and prudent alternatives to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. 

For inclusion in a critical habitat 

designation, habitat within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it was listed must 

contain physical and biological features 

that are essential to the conservation of 

the species. Consistent with this 

requirement, the Service identifies, to 

the extent known using the best 

scientific data available, habitat areas on 

which are found the physical and 

biological features essential, as defined 

at 50 CFR 424.12(b), and identifies the 

quantity and spatial arrangement of 

such areas to ensure that the areas 

designated as critical habitat are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. Occupied habitat that contains 

the physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species meets the definition of critical 

habitat only if those features may 

require special management 

considerations or protection. 

Under the Act, we can designate 

unoccupied areas as critical habitat only 

when we determine that the best 

available scientific data demonstrate 

that the designation of that area is 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available. Further, our Policy on 

Information Standards Under the 

Endangered Species Act (published in 

the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 

FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act 

(section 515 of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

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

5658)), and our associated Information 

Quality Guidelines provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that our decisions 

are based on the best scientific data 

available. These documents require our 

biologists, to the extent consistent with 

the Act and with the use of the best 

scientific data available, to use primary 

and original sources of information as 

the basis for recommendations to 

designate critical habitat. 

When we are determining which areas 

should be proposed as critical habitat, 

our primary source of information is 

generally the information developed 

during the listing process for the 

species. Additional information sources 

may 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
10864 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

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 we 

may eventually determine, based on 

scientific data not now available to the 

Service, are necessary for the recovery 

of the species. For these reasons, a 

critical habitat designation does not 

signal that habitat outside the 

designated area is unimportant or may 

not be required for recovery of the 

species. 

Areas that support populations, but 

are outside the critical habitat 

designation, may continue to be subject 

to conservation actions we implement 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act. They 

are also subject to the regulatory 

protections afforded by the section 

7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as determined 

on the basis of the best available 

scientific information at the time of the 

agency 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 available information at 

the time of designation will not control 

the direction and substance of future 

recovery plans, habitat conservation 

plans (HCPs), section 7 consultation, or 

other species conservation planning 

efforts if new information calls for a 

different outcome. 

Methods 

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

Act, we use the best scientific data 

available to determine areas occupied at 

the time of listing that contain the 

features essential to the conservation of 

the lynx. We have reviewed the 

approach to the conservation of the lynx 

provided in its recovery outline (Service 

2005, entire) and information from 

State, Federal, and Tribal agencies, and 

from academia and private 

organizations that have collected 

scientific data on lynx. The Service also 

obtained information about critical 

habitat for lynx in 2005 and 2006 during 

development of rules for lynx critical 

habitat. The Service also initiated a 5- 

year review for the lynx on April 18, 

2007 (72 FR 19549). Information 

gathered for that purpose will be used 

in completing our final designation. 

We have used information we 

reviewed for the prior designation of 

critical habitat, including data in reports 

submitted by researchers holding 

recovery permits under section 

10(a)(1)(A) of the Act, research 

published in peer-reviewed articles and 

presented in academic theses, agency 

reports, unpublished data, and various 

Geographic Information System (GIS) 

data layers (e.g., land cover type 

information, land ownership 

information, snow depth information, 

topographic information, locations of 

lynx obtained from radio- or Global 

Positioning System (GPS) collars, and 

locations of lynx confirmed via 

deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) analysis or 

other verified records). 

Primary Constituent Elements 

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

of the Act and the regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(b), in determining which areas 

occupied at the time of listing to 

propose as critical habitat, we consider 

the physical and biological features that 

are essential to the conservation of the 

species to be the primary constituent 

elements (PCEs) laid out in the 

appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement for conservation of the 

species. In general, PCEs include, but 

are not limited to: 

(1) Space for individual and 

population growth and for normal 

behavior; 

(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or 

other nutritional or physiological 

requirements; 

(3) Cover or shelter; 

(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or 

rearing (or development) of offspring; 

and 

(5) Habitats that are protected from 

disturbance or are representative of the 

historic, geographical, and ecological 

distributions of a species. 

When considering the designation of 

critical habitat, we must focus on the 

principal biological or physical 

constituent elements within the defined 

area that are essential to the 

conservation of the species. As 

previously stated, we consider the 

physical and biological features that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species to be the primary constituent 

elements (PCEs) laid out in the 

appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement for conservation of the 

species. As such, we derive the PCEs 

required for lynx from its biological 

needs. The area proposed for 

designation as revised critical habitat 

provides boreal forest habitat for 

breeding, non-breeding, and dispersing 

lynx in metapopulations across their 

range in the contiguous United States. 

We are not proposing any areas solely 

because they provide habitat for 

dispersing animals because the areas we 

are proposing serve a variety of 

functions that include acting as a source 

of dispersing animals and providing 

habitat that serves as travel corridors to 

facilitate dispersal and exploratory 

movements. The primary constituent 

elements and therefore the resulting 

physical and biological features 

essential for the conservation of the 

species were determined from studies of 

lynx and snowshoe hare ecology. 

Space for Individual and Population 

Growth and Normal Behavior—Boreal 

Forest Landscapes 

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, pp. 

378–380; McKelvey et al. 2000b, pp. 

242–253; Hoving et al. 2005, p. 749). 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, pp. 47–

73; Ruediger et al. 2000, pp. 1–3, 2–2, 

2–6, 7–3). At the stand-level scale, 

quality, quantity, and juxtaposition of 

habitats influence home range size, 

productivity, and survival (Aubry et al. 

2000, pp. 380–390; Vashon et al. 2005a, 

pp. 9–11). At the substand scale, spatial 

distribution, abundance of prey, and 

microclimate influence movements, 

hunting behavior, and den and resting 

site locations. 

All of the components of the physical 

and biological features of proposed 

revised critical habitat for lynx are 

found within large landscapes in what 

is broadly described as the boreal forest 

or cold temperate forest (Frelich and 

Reich 1995, p. 325; Agee 2000, pp. 43–

46). The primary constituent element is 

broadly described as the boreal forest 

landscape. In the contiguous United 

States, the boreal forest is more 

transitional than the true boreal forest of 

northern Canada and Alaska (Agee 

2000, pp. 43–46). 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, 

pp. 43–46). 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, 

pp. 40–41). 

At a regional scale, lynx habitat exists 

in areas that generally support deep 

snow throughout the winter and boreal 

forest vegetation types (see below for 

more detail). In eastern North America, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 10865 

lynx distribution is strongly associated 

with areas of deep snowfall (greater than 

105 in (268 cm) of mean annual 

snowfall) and 40 mi2 (100 km2) 

landscapes with a high proportion of 

regenerating forest (Hoving 2001, pp. 75, 

143). 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 (Hoving et al. 2004, p. 291). 

Boreal forests used by lynx are cool, 

moist, and dominated by conifer tree 

species, primarily spruce and fir (Agee 

2000, pp. 40–46; Aubry et al. 2000, pp. 

378–383; Ruediger et al. 2000, pp. 4–3, 

4–8, 4–11, 4–25, 4–26, 4–29, 4–30). 

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, pp. 426, 434). Periodic vegetation 

disturbances stimulate development of 

dense understory or early successional 

habitat for snowshoe hares (Ruediger et 

al. 2000, pp. 1–3, 1–4, 7–4, 7–5). In 

Maine, lynx were positively associated 

with landscapes clearcut 15 to 25 years 

previously (Hoving et al. 2004, p. 291). 

The overall quality of the boreal forest 

landscape matrix and the juxtaposition 

of stands in suitable condition within 

that landscape is important for both 

lynx and snowshoe hares in that it 

influences connectivity or movements 

between suitable stands, availability of 

food and cover, and spatial structuring 

of populations or subpopulations 

(Hodges 2000b, pp. 181–195; McKelvey 

et al. 2000a, pp. 431–432; Walker 2005, 

p. 79). For example, lynx foraging 

habitat must be near denning habitat to 

allow females to adequately provide for 

dependent kittens, especially when the 

kittens are relatively immobile. In northcentral 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, p. 79). Similarly, in 

northwest Montana, connectivity of 

dense patches within the forest matrix 

benefited snowshoe hares (Ausband and 

Baty 2005, p. 209). In mountainous 

areas, lynx appear to prefer flatter slopes 

(Apps 2000, p. 361; McKelvey et al. 

2000d, p. 333; von Kienast 2003, p. 21, 

Table 2; Maletzke 2004, pp. 17–18). 

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, pp. 382–385; Mowat et al. 

2000, pp. 276–280). Generally, females 

with kittens have the smallest home 

ranges while males have the largest 

home ranges (Moen et al. 2004, p. 11). 

Reported home range size varies from 12 

mi2 (31 km2) for females and 26 mi2 (68 

km2) for males in Maine (Vashon et al. 

2005a, p. 7), 8 mi2 (21 km2) for females 

and 119 mi2 (307 km2) for males in 

Minnesota (Moen et al. 2005, p. 12), and 

34 mi2 (88 km2) for females and 83 mi2

(216 km2) for males in northwest 

Montana (Squires et al. 2004b, pp. 15–

16). 

The dynamic nature of boreal forest 

landscapes means that lynx home 

ranges will incorporate a variety of 

forest stands that are in different stages 

of succession and have differing 

potential to produce prey. In addition, 

due to the naturally marginal nature of 

lynx habitat within the DPS, the moist 

boreal forest types that snowshoe hares 

prefer often occur in patches dissected 

or surrounded by matrix habitat. Lynx 

use the matrix habitat primarily as 

travel routes between foraging areas and 

denning areas. Although they are not 

dependent on the specific vegetative 

condition of these habitats (i.e., they are 

not sensitive to forest management 

practices), the importance of these areas 

as travel routes makes them necessary 

habitat components for lynx. 

Forest Type Associations 

Maine 

Lynx are more likely to occur in 40 

mi2 (100 km2) landscapes with 

regenerating forest, and less likely to 

occur in landscapes with recent clearcut 

or partial harvest, (Hoving et al. 2004, 

pp. 291–292). Lynx in Maine select 

softwood (spruce and fir) dominated, 

regenerating stands (Vashon et al. 

2005a, p. 8). 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, p. 63; Fuller and 

Harrison 2005, pp. 716, 719; Vashon et 

al. 2005a, pp. 10–11). 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 year-old), 

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 (Pinus strobus) 

mixed with aspen (Populus spp.), paper 

birch (Betula papyrifera), spruce, 

balsam fir (Abies balsamifera), and jack 

pine (Pinus banksiana) (Minnesota 

Department of Natural Resources 

[Minnesota DNR] 2003, p. 2). 

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 (Picea mariana), 

paper birch, quaking aspen (Populus 

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, p. 243 and 

2000d, p. 321; von Kienast 2003, p. 28, 

Table 2; Maletzke 2004, p. 17). In this 

area, lynx selected Engelman spruce 

(Picea engelmanii)-subalpine fir (Abies 

lasiocarpa) forest cover types in winter 

(von Kienast 2003, p. 28; Maletzke 2004, 

pp. 16–17). Lodgepole pine (Pinus 

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, 

pp. 847–848; McKelvey et al. 2000d, pp. 

332–335). 

Northern Rockies 

In the Northern Rocky Mountains, the 

majority of lynx occurrences are 

associated with the Rocky Mountain 

Conifer Forest vegetative class (Kuchler 

1964, p. 5; McKelvey et al. 2000b, p. 

246) and occur above 1,250 m (4,101 ft) 

elevation (Aubry et al. 2000, pp. 378–

380; McKelvey et al. 2000b, pp. 243–

245). The dominant vegetation that 

constitutes lynx habitat in these areas is 

subalpine fir, Engelman spruce, and 

lodgepole pine (Aubry et al. 2000, p. 

379; Ruediger et al. 2000, pp. 4–8—4–

10). As in the Cascades, lodgepole pine 

is an earlier successional stage of 

subalpine fir and Engelman spruce 

climax forest cover types. 

Greater Yellowstone Area 

Lynx habitat in the GYA is similar to 

the Northern Rockies in that lynx 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
10866 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

occurrences are generally associated 

with the Rocky Mountain Conifer Forest 

vegetative class. The primary areas of 

lynx occurrence in this unit occur 

between 7,382 and 9,843 ft (2,250 and 

3,000 m) elevation (Aubry et al. 2000, p. 

379; McKelvey et al. 2000b, Figure 

8.18). However, lynx are not limited to 

these elevation zones. The dominant 

vegetation that constitutes lynx habitat 

in these areas is subalpine fir, Engelman 

spruce, and lodgepole pine (Aubry et al. 

2000, pp. 378–382; Ruediger et al. 2000, 

pp. 1–2, 1–3; Murphy et al. 2004, pp. 9–

11). Lodgepole pine is an earlier 

successional stage of subalpine fir and 

Engelman spruce cover types. The 

vegetation characteristics in the GYA 

that support snowshoe hare populations 

(and form the basis for lynx 

populations) are typically found in a 

widely scattered mosaic of matrix 

habitat types (Murphy et al. 2005, p. 8–

11; Hodges and Mills 2005, p. 6; Agee 

2000, p. 48). In the GYA, lynx exploit 

hare populations in disjunct patches of 

mesic boreal forest that support 

relatively dense understories (Hodges 

and Mills 2005, pp. 4–6). In most cases, 

lynx home ranges in the GYA will by 

necessity incorporate habitat that is not 

typically considered lynx foraging 

habitat, and is used primarily for travel. 

Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, Or 

Other Nutritional Or Physiological 

Requirements 

a. Snowshoe Hares (Food) 

Snowshoe hare density is the most 

important factor explaining the 

persistence of lynx populations (Steury 

and Murray 2004, p. 136). 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, pp. 446–

447) suggested that at least 0.2 hares per 

acre (0.5 hares per hectare) may be 

necessary. Steury and Murray (2004, p. 

137) modeled lynx and snowshoe hare 

populations and predicted that a 

minimum of 0.4 to 0.7 hares per acre 

(1.1 to 1.8 hares per hectare) 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 or 

denning habitat (Agee 2000, pp. 62–72; 

Buskirk et al. 2000b, pp. 403–408). For 

example, a boreal forest stand where 

there has been recent disturbance, such 

as fire or timber harvest, that has 

resulted in little or no understory 

structure is unsuitable as snowhoe hare 

habitat for lynx foraging. That stand 

may regenerate into suitable snowshoe 

hare (lynx foraging) habitat within 10 to 

25 years, depending on local conditions 

(Ruediger et al. 2000, pp. 1–3, 1–4, 2–

2—2–5). However, forest management 

techniques that thin the understory may 

render the habitat unsuitable for hares 

and, thus, for lynx (Ruediger et al. 2000, 

pp. 2–4—3–2; Hoving et al. 2004, pp. 

291–292). 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, pp. 181–183). Snowshoe 

hare density is correlated to understory 

cover between approximately 3 to 10 ft 

(1 to 3 m) above the ground or snow 

level (Hodges 2000b, p. 184, Table 7.5). 

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, p. 184). In Maine, the 

snowshoe hare densities were highest in 

the stands supporting high conifer stem 

densities (Homyack et al. 2004, p. 195; 

Robinson 2006, p. 69). In northcentral 

Washington, snowshoe hare density was 

highest in 20-year-old lodgepole pine 

stands where the average density of 

trees and shrubs was 6,415 stems per 

acre (ac) (15,840 stems/hectare (ha)) 

(Koehler 1990, p. 848). Generally, earlier 

successional forest stages support a 

greater density of horizontal understory 

and more abundant snowshoe hares 

(Buehler and Keith 1982, p. 24; Wolfe et 

al. 1982, pp. 668–669; Koehler 1990, pp. 

847–848; Hodges 2000b, pp. 184–191; 

Griffin 2004, pp. 84–88); however, 

sometimes mature stands also can have 

adequate dense understory to support 

abundant snowshoe hares (Griffin 2004, 

p. 88). In Montana, lynx favor multistory stands, often in older age classes, 

where tree boughs touch the snow 

surface but where stem density is low 

(Squires 2006, p. 4). 

In Maine, the highest snowshoe hare 

densities were found in regenerating 

softwood (spruce and fir) and mixed 

wood stands (Fuller and Harrison 2005, 

pp. 716, 719; Robinson 2006, p. 69). 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, 

pp. 847–848). In montane and subalpine 

forests in northwest Montana, the 

highest snowshoe hare densities in 

summer were generally in younger 

stands with dense forest structure; in 

winter snowshoe hare densities were as 

high or higher in mature stands with 

dense understory forest structure 

(Griffin 2004, p. 53). Snowshoe hare 

studies are just underway in Minnesota 

(Moen et al. 2005, p. 18); therefore, 

results on habitat relationships are still 

preliminary. In the GYA, the highest 

snowshoe hare densities were found in 

a douglas fir site and a few regenerating 

lodgepole pine and lodgepole stands 

that had a lodgepole understory. Low 

hare densities were found in most 

regenerating lodgepole stands, most 

likely due to low stem densities (Hodges 

and Mills 2005, p. 6). Spruce-fir forests 

were the stand type most likely to 

support snowshoe hares; however, hare 

densities were never high at these sites. 

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 we are 

proposing as lynx revised 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’’

section 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, p. 

746, Table 5). 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, p. 75). 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 10867 

In the northeastern United States, 

lynx are most likely to occur in areas 

with a 10-year mean annual snowfall 

greater than 105 in (268 cm) (Hoving 

2001, p. 75). The Northern Superior 

Uplands section of Minnesota, which 

roughly corresponds to the area 

proposed as revised critical habitat in 

that State, receives more of its 

precipitation as snow than any section 

in the State, has the longest period of 

snow cover, and has the shortest 

growing season (Minnesota DNR 2003, 

p. 2). Mean annual snowfall from 1971 

to 2000 in this area was generally 

greater than 55 in (149 cm) (University 

of Minnesota 2005). 

Information on average snowfall or 

snow depths in mountainous areas such 

as the Cascades or northwest Montana is 

limited because few weather stations in 

these regions have measured snow fall 

or snow depth over time. Topography 

strongly influences local snow 

conditions. In the Cascades, at the 

Mazama station, average annual 

snowfall from 1948 to 1976 was 115 in 

(292 cm) (Western Regional Climate 

Center 2005). In Montana, at the Seeley 

Lake Ranger Station, average annual 

snowfall from 1948 to 2005 is 124 in 

(315 cm), while at the Troy station the 

average total snowfall from 1961 to 1994 

was 90 in (229 cm) (Western Regional 

Climate Center 2005). 

We considered the effect climate 

change could have on average snowfall 

or snow depths when we developed this 

proposed rule. We have information to 

indicate that up to two-thirds of the 

lynx range in the lower 48 States may 

become unsuitable by 2100 (Gonzalez et 

al. 2007, pp. 4, 7–8, 10, 13–14, 19). 

However, we have used current climate 

information in developing this rule 

because, until regional climate 

projections are more certain, we find it 

is appropriate to designate critical 

habitat for lynx where they currently 

exist. Projections for habitat loss go out 

over the next 100 years. If designated 

habitat becomes unsuitable for lynx in 

the future due to climate change, the 

Service will revise critical habitat to 

remove unsuitable habitat and add new 

suitable habitat in order to seek to 

facilitate the shift in lynx range that 

climate change may cause. Lynx 

distribution and habitat is likely to shift 

upward in elevation and northward in 

latitude as temperatures increase 

(Gonzalez et al. 2007, pp. 7, 13–14, 19). 

All proposed revised critical habitat 

units include the highest-elevation 

habitats that lynx would be able to use 

in the event that they move to higher 

elevations in response to climate 

change. Additionally, any northward 

shifts in range would likely move the 

species and its suitable habitat into 

Canada. Four of the five proposed 

revised critical habitat units use the 

United States/Canada border as their 

northern boundary. 

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or 

Rearing (or Development) of Offspring—

Denning Habitat 

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. 

Site characteristics were evaluated for 

26 lynx dens from 1999 to 2004 in 

northwest Maine. Dens were found in 

several stand types. Tip-up 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 16 ft 

(5 m) alone was the next best predictor 

of denning (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 16 

ft (5 m). 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, p. 

847). In this study, all den sites were 

located on north-northeast aspects 

(Koehler 1990, p. 847). In northwest 

Montana, areas around dens were a 

variety of ages but all contained 

abundant woody debris including 

downed logs, blowdowns, and 

rootwads, and dense understory cover 

(Squires et al. 2004b, Table 3). 

Information on den site characteristics 

in Minnesota has not yet been reported 

(Moen et al. 2005, p. 8). 

Primary Constituent Element for Lynx 

Within the geographical area we know 

to be occupied by the lynx, we must 

identify the primary constituent 

elements (PCEs) laid out in the quantity 

and spatial arrangement essential to the 

conservation of the species (i.e., 

essential physical and biological 

features) that may require special 

management considerations or 

protections. 

Based on the above needs and our 

current knowledge of the life history, 

biology, and ecology of the species, we 

have determined that the primary 

constituent element essential to the 

conservation of the lynx is: 

(1) Boreal forest landscapes 

supporting a mosaic of differing 

successional forest stages and 

containing: 

(a) Presence of snowshoe hares and 

their preferred habitat conditions, 

including dense understories of young 

trees or shrubs tall enough to protrude 

above the snow; 

(b) Winter snow conditions that are 

generally deep and fluffy for extended 

periods of time; 

(c) Sites for denning having abundant, 

coarse, woody debris, such as downed 

trees and root wads; and 

(d) Matrix habitat (e.g., hardwood 

forest, dry forest, non-forest, or other 

habitat types that do not support 

snowshoe hares) that occurs between 

patches of boreal forest in close 

juxtaposition (at the scale of a lynx 

home range) such that lynx are likely to 

travel through such habitat while 

accessing patches of boreal forest within 

a home range. The important aspect of 

matrix habitat for lynx is that these 

habitats retain the ability to allow 

unimpeded movement of lynx through 

them as lynx travel between patches of 

boreal forest. 

We designed the proposed revised 

critical habitat units to capture these 

elements of the PCE laid out in the 

quantity and spatial arrangement 

essential to the conservation of the 

species (i.e., essential physical and 

biological features). To do this, we 

mapped units across the geographic 

range of the species in the United States 

to protect populations in the event of 

catastrophic events that could impact a 

portion of the range. We designed each 

unit to be large enough to encompass 

the temporal and spatial changes in 

habitat and snowshoe hare populations 

to support interbreeding lynx 

populations or metapopulations over 

time. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protections 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the occupied areas 

contain the physical and biological 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species and that may 

require special management 

considerations or protections. 

The area proposed for designation as 

revised critical habitat will require some 

level of management to address the 

current and future threats to the lynx 

and to maintain the physical and 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
10868 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

biological features 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 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. 

Special management direction for 

lynx has been applied to public lands in 

much of the lynx DPS. The USFS, 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 

NPS, and the Service developed a Lynx 

Conservation Assessment and Strategy 

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

using the best available science at the 

time 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, or both, or to 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, 

and 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 nonnative and invasive 

plant species. 

The LCAS used the best available 

information at the time to ensure 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). The scale of an LAU 

approximates the size of area used by an 

individual lynx (25 to 50 mi2 (65 to 130 

km2)). 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 ac (2 ha), 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 

over-the-snow routes and snowmobile 

play areas by LAU. 

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 Service 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 

agreement was renewed on October 20, 

2006, and expires December 31, 2010, 

unless renewed. The BLM continues to 

adhere to their original agreement 

although it expired in December 2004. 

Lynx conservation depends on 

management that supports 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. At the time it was written, the 

LCAS provided the highest level of 

management or protection for lynx. The 

LCAS conservation measures address 

risk factors affecting lynx habitat and 

lynx productivity and were designed to 

be implemented at the scale necessary 

to conserve lynx. This level of 

management is appropriate for Federal 

lands, because they account for the 

majority of high-quality habitat in the 

United States and also because the 

inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms to 

conserve lynx on these lands at the time 

was the primary reason for listing the 

lynx as a threatened species under the 

Act. Furthermore, new information has 

come to light since the LCAS was 

written concerning that should be taken 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 10869 

into account by land managers. For 

instance, Kolbe et al. (2007) and 

Bunnell et al. (2006) published 

information on the effects of 

snowmobiling on lynx, and Squires et 

al. (2006) documented the importance 

of multilayered stands as snowshoe hare 

habitat. Further, ongoing research in 

Minnesota and Maine has also resulted 

in information helpful to forming our 

understanding of lynx and snowshoe 

hare (e.g., Moen et al. 2004; Hoving et 

al. 2005; Homyack et al. 2007; Fuller et 

al. 2007). In some regions of Wyoming, 

Washington and Maine, research 

continues. Thus, as new information 

becomes available, this information 

should be used in addition to that used 

in the LCAS. 

The Forest Service considered some 

of the new information discussed above 

when it proposed to revise 18 Forest 

Plans under a programmatic plan 

amendment called the Northern Rocky 

Mountain Lynx Amendment (NRLA) 

(Forest Service 2007). Because of the 

new information, some of the LCAS 

standards were changed to guidelines 

because the Service had determined that 

some risk factors were not negatively 

affecting the U.S. lynx DPS as a whole. 

Since publication of the LCAS, lynx 

studied in the United States have been 

shown to use a variety of sites and 

conditions for denning. Lynx denning 

sites are not believed to be a limiting 

factor in Montana and Maine study 

areas (Service 2007, pp. 48–49). Further, 

earlier assessments also concluded that 

in most geographic areas, denning 

habitat was not likely limiting to lynx, 

and existing forest plan direction would 

not result in adverse effects 

(Hickenbottom et al. 1999). Likewise, 

after evaluating Bunnell et al. (2006, 

entire) and Kolbe et al. (2007, entire), 

we determined that the best information 

available did not indicate that 

compacted snow routes increase 

competition from other species to levels 

that adversely impact lynx populations 

in the NRLA area (Service 2007, pp. 55). 

Finally, since the LCAS was written, 

new information revealed the 

importance of multi-storied stands for 

lynx (Squires et al. 2006). On the basis 

of this information, the Forest Service 

included a standard for conserving these 

multi-storied stands in the NRLA. This 

LCAS does not contain this standard. 

In addition to diverging from the 

standards in the LCAS because of new 

information, the NRLA also deviated 

from the LCAS by allowing additional 

fuels reduction projects in areas within 

the wildlands-urban-interface (WUI). In 

our analysis of this action, we 

determined that even with these 

exceptions, the management in the 

NRLA would provide for the recovery of 

lynx in these areas by addressing the 

major reason we listed the lynx in 2000: 

The lack of guidance for conservation of 

lynx in Federal land management plans. 

Consultation under section 7 of the Act 

was completed for the NRLA in 2007, 

and it is now official land management 

direction for the National Forests that 

adopted it. 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat 

To identify areas containing the 

physical and biological features that are 

essential to the conservation of the lynx, 

we considered the concepts introduced 

in the recovery outline for the species 

(Service 2005, entire) and the analysis 

provided above concerning occupancy, 

evidence of reproduction, and the 

primary constituent elements laid out in 

the quantity and spatial arrangement 

necessary for the conservation of the 

species. We have also reviewed 

information from State, Federal, and 

tribal agencies, and information from 

academia and private organizations that 

have collected scientific data on lynx. 

The focus of our strategy in 

considering lands for designation as 

revised critical habitat was 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. Individual lynx maintain 

large home ranges; the areas identified 

to have physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the lynx 

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. 

In proposing revised critical habitat 

for the lynx, we used the best scientific 

data available to evaluate areas that 

contained the PCEs in a spatial 

arrangement and quantity to provide the 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. In evaluating areas for 

proposal as revised critical habitat, we 

first determined the geographic area 

occupied by the species. We used 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 focused on records 

since 1995 to ensure that this 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 at the time of listing. Data 

that define the historic and current 

range of the lynx (e.g., McKelvey et al. 

2000b, pp. 207–232; Hoving et al. 2003, 

entire) 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 (64 FR 4483) and our clarification 

of findings (68 FR 40075). We base this 

conclusion on the fact that we do not 

have any information to suggest that 

lynx habitat has substantially contracted 

or expanded such that species’ range at 

the time of listing would have been 

different than the current observations. 

Clearly, lynx-related research in the 

contiguous United States substantially 

increased after we published the 1998 

proposal to list lynx, and this research 

provides additional information on 

which to base this proposed revised 

critical habitat designation. However, 

this is not a reflection of substantial 

changes to lynx habitat or the range of 

the lynx since 1995. 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 DNR 

2005 website; 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 revised 

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
10870 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

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, p. 209)—(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 (e.g., 

McKelvey et al. 2006, entire) 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. However, we made 

an exception and accepted snow track 

data from Maine because of the stringent 

protocols used in confirming tracks as 

lynx and the minimal number of species 

in the area with which lynx tracks could 

be misidentified (McCollough 2006, 

entire). 

The area occupied by the species was 

then overlaid with areas that contain 

boreal forest types. From this overlay we 

determined which areas contain the 

essential physical and biological 

features (i.e., the primary constituent 

element (PCE) laid out in the quantity 

and spatial arrangement essential to the 

conservation of the species) by 

examining recent lynx records, evidence 

of breeding lynx populations, and 

presence of the boreal forest type that is 

currently occupied by lynx in each 

particular area and that provides 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, p. 427, 2000c, p. 

33). Many of these populations in 

Canada are directly interconnected with 

United States’ populations, and are 

likely a source of emigration into the 

contiguous United States; lynx from the 

contiguous United States are known to 

move into Canada. 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 

for consideration as revised critical 

habitat. 

In the North Cascades and Northern 

Rockies, the physical and biological 

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, pp. 243–245; 

McAllister et al. 2000, entire). Thus, we 

limited the delineation of revised 

critical habitat to lands above this 

elevation. Additionally, in the North 

Cascades, physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the lynx, the majority of the lynx 

records, and evidence of reproduction 

occur east of the crest of the Cascade 

Mountains. Therefore, in the Cascades 

we used the 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 the physical 

and biological features essential to the 

lynx or are not important for snowshoe 

hares. Therefore, east of the Continental 

Divide in the Northern Rockies we used 

National Forest and National Park 

Service (NPS) park boundaries to 

circumscribe proposed revised 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 border with Canada. 

Delineating proposed revised lynx 

critical habitat boundaries in the Greater 

Yellowstone Area (GYA) was more 

challenging because it is a complex, 

high elevation ecosystem in which 

simply following elevation contours 

would be too broad in that they would 

encompass extensive areas of non-lynx 

habitat. Furthermore, the GYA has the 

least amount of available lynx-related 

research to assist us in delineating 

boundaries. Therefore, we drew the 

boundaries in the GYA around the 

majority of recent lynx records using a 

combination of National Forest 

boundaries and township lines to 

encompass the lynx habitat in this area. 

As discussed above, we are seeking 

information on whether lands within 

the GYA contain physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the lynx because the habitat appears to 

be of lesser quality, and lynx occur at 

lower densities than the populations 

found in other units. Although lynx 

currently occupy the GYA (Murphy et 

al. 2004, entire; J. Squires, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, unpubl. 

data; S. Gehman, Wildthings Unlimited, 

unpubl. data), their presence has been at 

a naturally lower level compared to the 

other areas we are proposing as revised 

critical habitat. In the clarification of 

findings published in the Federal 

Register on July 3, 2003 (68 FR 40076), 

we concluded that habitat in this area is 

less capable than other areas of 

supporting snowshoe hares because it is 

naturally patchy and contains drier 

forest types, and because the GYA is 

disjunct from likely source populations. 

Within Yellowstone National Park, few 

lynx were detected during recent 

surveys (Murphy et al. 2004, pp. 8–9) 

and hare densities were very low 

(Hodges and Mills 2005, pp. 5–6). 

Murphy et al. (2004, pp. 9–10) 

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, 

pp. 343–345; Squires et al. 2001, pp. 9–

10). On study sites on the western edge 

of the Yellowstone ecosystem in Idaho, 

the subalpine fir vegetation series that 

comprises lynx and snowshoe hare 

habitat was found only in naturally 

small, discontinuous patches (McDaniel 

and McKelvey 2004, pp. 15–18). In this 

study area, few stands supported 

snowshoe hare densities similar to areas 

known to support lynx (McKelvey and 

McDaniel 2001, pp. 11–18). 

If we determine, based on the best 

available scientific information and 

information obtained through public 

comments, that the GYA does not 

contain the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

lynx, we will not include it in the final 

rule. If we determine the area (or 

portions of it) does contain the features 

essential to the conservation of lynx, we 

intend to further refine the critical 

habitat boundary in the final rule based 

on improved mapping data and lynx 

occurrence data. Due to the fragmented 

mosaic nature of the GYA unit, it will 

by necessity contain patches of habitat 

that do not fit into the moist boreal 

forest types (e.g., dry douglas fir, nonforest, or other habitats that do not 

support snowshoe hares, hereafter 

‘‘matrix habitat’’) usually considered 

lynx habitat. The inclusion of matrix 

habitat in this and other units is 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 10871 

necessary due to the inclusion of these 

areas in lynx home ranges and their use 

as travel habitat as lynx move between 

foraging and denning areas within their 

home ranges. Matrix habitat is included 

because it is interwoven with moist 

boreal forest types and, therefore, is 

used by lynx to travel unimpeded 

between foraging and denning areas 

within their home ranges. The 

important aspect of matrix habitat for 

lynx is that movement through it is not 

impeded. 

We are also seeking information on 

whether the Kettle Range in northcentral Washington is an area essential 

to the conservation of the lynx in the 

contiguous United States. Trapping 

records from the 1960s and 1970s show 

that the lynx population that once 

inhabited this area underwent dramatic 

swings in abundance going from high 

levels of harvest to low levels several 

times over two decades (McKelvey 

1999, pp. 13–14). Since the 1970s, the 

area appears to have been unoccupied 

due to a lack of verifiable reports of 

lynx. Snow-tracking surveys conducted 

from 1992 to 1996 in the Kettle Range 

resulted in only two sets of tracks: one 

in 1991–1992 and one in 1995–1996. 

This indicates the lack of a reproducing 

population of lynx at that time. The 

Kettle Range currently has suitable lynx 

habitat (Koehler 2008) and the 

possibility that lynx occur does exist; 

however, the lack of verified 

occurrences since 1995 leads us to 

conclude that it is not likely to be 

occupied. 

We are not currently proposing any 

areas outside the geographical area 

presently occupied by the species 

because we have determined that 

occupied areas are sufficient for the 

conservation of the species because 

these areas adequately address the 

concepts of representation, resiliency, 

and redundancy necessary for 

conservation of a species (Shaffer and 

Stein 2000). Resiliency of a species 

allows the species to recover from 

periodic disturbance. Areas are resilient 

if they are relatively large and contain 

particularly high-quality habitat or if 

their location or characteristics make 

them less susceptible to certain threats 

than other portions of the range. 

Resiliency of a species allows the 

species to recover from periodic 

disturbance. A species will likely be 

more resilient if large populations exist 

in high-quality habitat that is 

distributed throughout the range of the 

species in such a way as to capture the 

environmental variability found within 

the range of the species. The proposed 

revised critical habitat addresses the 

concept of resiliency because the total 

area of the five units covers a large 

geographic area (42,753 mi2 (110,727 

km2)), and because it contains the 

highest quality habitat in the United 

States. Redundancy of populations may 

be needed to provide a margin of safety 

for the species to withstand catastrophic 

events. The idea is to conserve enough 

areas of the range such that random 

perturbations in the system act on only 

a few populations. The proposed 

revised critical habitat addresses the 

concept of redundancy because it 

includes five units distributed across a 

broad geographic area. Catastrophic 

events that could affect all five units are 

extremely improbable. Adequate 

representation insures that the species’

adaptive capabilities (often as indicated 

by genetic diversity) are conserved. 

Genetic representation is not an issue 

for lynx, because lynx across the range 

are similar and all share the same 

haplotypes (Rueness et al. 2003, p. 71). 

Thus, we have determined that the five 

units contained in this proposed revised 

critical habitat address the concept of 

representation. 

Lynx in the southern portion of their 

range exhibit metapopulation dynamics 

(i.e., populations exist as semi-isolated 

subpopulations connected to other 

subpopulations by migration) (Thiel 

1987, p. 94; McKelvey et al. 1999, p. 24). 

The southern extensions of the North 

American lynx population that extend 

into the contiguous United States occur 

in marginal and naturally fragmented 

habitats and are likely dependent on 

migration from the core portion of the 

metapopulation in the Canadian taiga 

for genetic and demographic enrichment 

(McCord and Cardoza 1982, p. 729; 

McKelvey 1999, p. 232). Occupied areas 

within the current distribution of lynx 

(except for the reintroduced Colorado 

population) are the areas that have been 

most consistently occupied by 

reproducing populations (McKelvey 

1999, pp. 211–232) and are the largest 

patches of suitable lynx habitat within 

the range of the DPS. Patches of lynx 

habitat outside of this occupied range 

are generally smaller and more isolated 

and have inconsistent records of lynx 

presence and reproduction, or no record 

at all (McKelvey 1999, pp. 211–232). 

Due to their high mobility, lynx may 

periodically occupy these areas; 

however, the lack of consistent 

occupation and reproduction means that 

these areas do not materially contribute 

to persistence of the DPS while the 

proposed areas clearly do. 

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, pp. 39–45; McKelvey et al. 2000b, 

pp. 211–232, 242–253; Hoving et al. 

2003, pp. 368–373). Within this broad 

distribution, the recovery outline 

(Service 2005, entire) 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 the sustainability of all core 

areas with the exception of the GYA is 

their connection with larger lynx 

populations in Canada. Each proposed 

revised critical habitat unit occurs 

within one of the areas identified as 

core in the recovery outline. 

Relationship to Recovery Outline 

We considered the lynx recovery 

outline (Service 2005) when developing 

this proposed revised critical habitat 

rule for lynx. However, the recovery 

outline and this proposed rule contain 

some differences. Recovery outlines are 

brief, internally-developed documents 

intended as preliminary strategies for 

the conservation of a listed species until 

a formal recovery plan is completed 

(Service 1989, entire; Service 1990, p. 6; 

National Marine Fisheries Service 2004, 

pp. 3.0–1 to 3.1–1). The lynx recovery 

outline was prepared by Service staff 

experienced in lynx conservation and 

recovery planning under the Act and 

two lynx experts from the USFS. The 

lynx recovery outline presented the 

understanding of historical and current 

lynx distribution, ecology, and 

population dynamics at the time it was 

written in 2005. 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 

primarily on lynx records over time and 

evidence of reproduction. Additionally, 

the outline describes preliminary 

recovery objectives and actions. 

The recovery outline and this 

proposed revised critical habitat rule 

used different standards and criteria. 

The recovery outline did not consider 

what areas contain the physical and 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
10872 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

biological features that are essential to 

the conservation of lynx; rather, the 

preparers concentrated on 

distinguishing between areas with past 

or present lynx populations and those 

with lynx occurrence records that were 

unlikely to support reproducing 

populations. In designating critical 

habitat, we are required to determine 

those areas that contain the physical 

and biological features essential to the 

conservation of lynx within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species. We have determined that areas 

that contain the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

lynx are those with verified records of 

lynx persistence into the present time 

and with verified evidence of 

reproduction. The areas identified as 

core in the recovery outline roughly 

coincide with the areas proposed as 

revised critical habitat with the 

following exceptions: (1) Mapping for 

the purposes of the recovery outline was 

done on a course scale without refined 

GIS layers, while the mapping done for 

the purposes of this proposed rule were 

more exact; and (2) further analysis 

shows that some areas considered core 

in the recovery outline (e.g., the Kettle 

Range and New Hampshire) do not meet 

the criteria for core because they do not 

have long-term evidence of 

reproduction or current occupancy (see 

discussion below). 

The recovery outline did not define 

which areas are essential to the 

conservation of lynx as is necessary for 

this revised proposed critical habitat 

designation. The criteria we used for 

determining areas essential to the 

conservation of lynx for this proposed 

revised critical habitat were more 

narrowly defined 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 

reproduction since 1995. We used 1995 

because of the Act’s definition at 

3(5)(A)(i) that occupied habitat include 

specific areas within the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

it is listed. We believe that the 

documented lynx observations since 

1995 best depict the range of the species 

both at the time it was listed (2000) and 

at the time of our clarification of 

findings (2003). Furthermore, the 

boundaries for the recovery areas were 

drawn on a gross scale compared to the 

proposed revised critical habitat 

boundaries. As a result, the proposed 

revised critical habitat units are subsets 

of five of the six areas preliminarily 

delineated as core in the lynx recovery 

outline. 

In this revision, we do not propose 

revised critical habitat in one area the 

recovery outline defined as core: the 

Kettle Range in north-central 

Washington. The Kettle Range 

historically supported lynx populations 

(Stinson 2001, pp. 13–14). 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 nor has it been for at least 

two decades (McKelvey 1999, p. 228; 

Koehler 2008, entire). Furthermore, it 

does not have recent (i.e., 20 years) 

evidence of reproduction. Thus, it does 

not meet the criteria for ‘‘core’’ outlined 

in the recovery outline (Service 2005, p. 

5). Snowtracking surveys conducted 

from 1992 to 1996 in the Kettle Range 

resulted in only two sets of tracks: one 

in 1991–1992 and one in 1995–1996 

(McKelvey 1999, p. 228), indicating that 

although lynx may have been able to 

reach the range, they were unable to 

establish a population there. The above 

described attributes of the Kettle Range 

indicate that while this area may be 

considered a core area in the recovery 

outline, its importance for lynx 

conservation is less than those areas that 

we consider essential for the 

conservation of lynx due to their 

historic and recent history of 

reproduction and population 

occupation. We have made the 

preliminary determination that the area 

is not essential for the conservation of 

lynx; therefore, we do not propose to 

include it as revised critical habitat. 

Likewise, the areas included in the 

recovery outline as core in western 

Maine and New Hampshire do not 

appear now to meet the criteria for core. 

No lynx were detected in New 

Hampshire and western Maine in the 

course of surveys done according to the 

standard lynx protocol for this region in 

2005 (for New Hampshire) and 2006–

2007 (in western Maine) (McCullough 

2008, entire). 

The recovery outline identified 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. Initial results of this 

reintroduction were encouraging, with 

documented rates of reproduction 

similar to other lynx populations in the 

DPS (Shenk 2007, pp. 12–13). However, 

subsequent monitoring indicates that 

rates of reproduction have fallen in 

recent years, with zero reproduction 

detected for 34 females with radio 

collars in 2007 (Shenk 2007, p. 13). 

Although it is still too early to 

determine whether the introduction will 

result in a self-sustaining 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 do not propose habitat in the 

Southern Rockies for revised 

designation because of the current 

uncertainty that a self-sustaining lynx 

population will become established. 

Determination of establishment will be 

based on the maintenance of a stable or 

naturally oscillating population 

structure composed of breeding 

individuals derived from wild mating 

and births (rather than introduced 

animals). A population that has 

demonstrated robustness to natural 

fluctuations due to oscillations in prey 

abundance is key to determining that 

they are established. 

Many areas within the contiguous 

United States contain varying levels of 

individual lynx records with no 

evidence of persistent, reproducing lynx 

populations. Our review of many years 

of occurrence records reveals lynx 

records in areas with unsuitable habitats 

or snow conditions. However, we do not 

consider these areas capable of 

supporting lynx populations because 

they do not have the habitat or snow 

conditions suitable for lynx or 

snowshoe hare. Lynx occurrence in 

these areas is due to the population 

dynamics of lynx and their dispersal 

abilities that lead to lynx attempting to 

colonize new areas with little ability to 

support lynx reproduction. That is why 

we rely on a combination of consistent, 

verifiable evidence of lynx presence and 

reproduction, along with habitat 

characteristics to delimit critical habitat. 

Reliance on occurrence records alone, 

without consideration of reproduction 

and habitat variables, would lead to 

designation of large areas that may 

occasionally hold dispersing lynx for a 

short time, but due to their marginal 

nature and lack of sufficient food 

supply, will not support lynx 

reproduction and so do not contribute to 

lynx conservation. It is unlikely that 

these areas support undocumented, 

persistent populations of lynx because 

the forest types, snow conditions, and 

snowshoe hare populations are absent 

or are of such marginal condition due to 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 10873 

natural fragmentation that their ability 

to support lynx is minimal. In many 

cases these areas also support 

populations of bobcats, a species that 

excludes lynx from areas with low snow 

accumulation and act as a general 

indicator of habitat that cannot support 

lynx. Most of the records in these areas 

are likely a result of wide-ranging 

dispersal events through less suitable 

habitats that are mostly disjunct from 

areas that contain persistent lynx 

populations. Our recovery outline 

defines these areas as secondary or 

peripheral (see Service 2005, p. 21 for 

a map of core, secondary, and 

peripheral areas), 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 revised critical habitat 

designation because they lack evidence 

of reproducing lynx populations and 

they lack large areas of contiguous 

habitat required to support populations. 

During natural lynx population 

fluctuations, these peripheral areas are 

likely to be the last areas to be colonized 

by excess lynx and the first to lose lynx 

as populations recede. We expect the 

areas in the proposed revised units to 

maintain lynx populations through 

natural population lows and serve as 

source populations for secondary areas 

as populations expand. We expect the 

areas in the proposed revised units will 

support lynx through cyclic population 

fluctuations, the most crucial time being 

the population lows. We consider the 

proposed revised units as the areas 

essential to provide for the long-term 

conservation of lynx across its 

contiguous United States range, as it is 

these areas that will serve as source 

populations for secondary areas as the 

populations expand. For this reason, we 

have determined the units in this 

proposed revision contain the physical 

and biological features essential to the 

conservation of lynx while other areas 

do not. 

We propose 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 contain the physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the lynx and that may 

require special management. The focus 

of our proposed critical habitat revision 

is on boreal forest landscapes of 

sufficient size to encompass the 

temporal and spatial changes in habitat 

and snowshoe hare populations 

necessary to support interbreeding lynx 

populations or metapopulations over 

time. Individual lynx maintain large 

home ranges; the areas proposed as 

revised 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 foraging 

habitat (e.g., patches containing 

abundant snowshoe hares), whose 

locations in the landscape shift through 

time. 

When determining proposed revised 

critical habitat boundaries within this 

proposed rule, we made every effort to 

avoid including water bodies (lakes, 

rivers, and streams) and developed areas 

such as buildings, paved areas, and 

other structures that lack the physical 

and biological features essential for the 

conservation of the lynx. The scale of 

the maps we prepared under the 

parameters for publication within the 

Code of Federal Regulations may not 

reflect the exclusion of such developed 

areas. Any such structures and the land 

under them inadvertently left inside 

critical habitat boundaries shown on the 

maps of this proposed rule have been 

excluded by text in the proposed rule 

and are not proposed for designation as 

revised critical habitat. Therefore, 

Federal actions involving these areas 

would not trigger consultation under 

section 7 of the Act with respect to 

critical habitat, unless the specific 

action would affect the primary 

constituent element. 

Proposed Revised Critical Habitat 

Designation 

We are proposing five units as revised 

critical habitat for the lynx. These areas 

occur in northern Maine, northeastern 

Minnesota, the Northern Rocky 

Mountains (northwestern Montana/ 

northeastern Idaho), the North Cascades 

(north-central Washington), and the 

GYA (southwestern Montana, 

northwestern Wyoming). The areas are 

distributed across the known occupied 

range of the lynx in the contiguous 

United States, and are essential to the 

conservation of the species. The critical 

habitat areas we describe below 

constitute our current best assessment of 

areas that meet the definition of critical 

habitat for lynx. To better understand 

the location of these proposed areas, 

please see the associated maps found 

within this proposed rule or examine 

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

species/mammals/lynx/. The five 

proposed revised critical habitat units 

are: (1) Northern Maine unit; (2) 

Northeastern Minnesota unit; (3) 

Northern Rocky Mountains unit 

(northwestern Montana/northeastern 

Idaho); (4) North Cascades unit (northcentral Washington); and (5) Greater 

Yellowstone Area (southwestern 

Montana, northwestern Wyoming). 

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

Critical habitat unit Miles 2 Kilometers 2

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

2. Northeastern Minnesota ...................................................................................................................................... 8,226 21,305 

3. Northern Rocky Mountains (ID/MT) .................................................................................................................... 11,304 29,276 

4. North Cascades (WA) ......................................................................................................................................... 2,000 5,180 

5. Greater Yellowstone Area (MT/WY) .................................................................................................................... 10,590 27,427 

Total .................................................................................................................................................................. 42,753 110,727 

TABLE 2.—CRITICAL HABITAT PROPOSED FOR THE CANADA LYNX BY LANDOWNERSHIP AND STATE (MI2/KM2) 

Federal State Private Tribal Other 

Idaho ...................................................... 50/131 1/3 0/0 0/0 0/0 

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

Minnesota .............................................. 4,279/11,082 1,099/2,848 1,548/4,008 72/187 1,149/2,976 

Montana ................................................. 11,182/28,960 372/964 1,985/5,140 347/898 72/188 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
10874 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2.—CRITICAL HABITAT PROPOSED FOR THE CANADA LYNX BY LANDOWNERSHIP AND STATE (MI2/KM2)—Continued 

Federal State Private Tribal Other 

Washington ............................................ 1,831/4,742 164/424 5/13 0/0 0.1/0.2 

Wyoming ................................................ 7,695/19,930 14/36 133/343 0/0 43/110 

Total ................................................ 25,050/64,879 2,408/6,237 13,412/34,737 505/1,308 1,299/3,364 

We present brief descriptions of each 

critical habitat unit below. 

Unit 1: Northern Maine [10,633 mi2

(27,539 km2)] 

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 is 

currently occupied by the species. Lynx 

in northwestern Maine have high 

productivity: 91 percent of available 

adult females (greater than 2 years) 

produced litters, and litters averaged 

2.83 kittens (Vashon et al. 2005b, pp. 4–

6). This area contains the physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the lynx as it is 

comprised of the primary constituent 

element and its components laid out in 

the appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement. 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 (68 FR 40075). 

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 (68 FR 40075). 

Unit 2: Northeastern Minnesota [8,226 

mi2 (21,305 km2)] 

Unit 2 is located in northeastern 

Minnesota in portions of Cook, 

Koochiching, Lake, and St. Louis 

Counties, and Superior National Forest. 

In 2003, when we last formally 

reviewed the status of the lynx, 

numerous verified records of lynx 

existed from northeastern Minnesota (68 

FR 40076, July 3, 2003). The area was 

occupied at the time of listing and is 

currently occupied by the species. 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, entire; 

Minnesota DNR 2005, entire; S. Loch, 

unpubl. data; Minnesota Department of 

Natural Resources, unpubl. data). This 

area contains the physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the lynx as it is 

comprised of the primary constituent 

element and its components laid out in 

the appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement. This area is essential to 

the conservation of lynx because it is 

the only area in the U.S. Great Lakes 

region for which we have evidence of 

recent lynx reproduction. It likely acts 

as a source or provides connectivity for 

more peripheral portions of the lynx’s 

range in the region. Timber harvest and 

management is a dominant land use (68 

FR 40075). 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 development are other habitatrelated threats to lynx (68 FR 40075). 

Specific sections of land 

encompassing a mining district in 

Minnesota known as the Iron Range are 

not included in this proposed revised 

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 seemed to correspond to areas 

that were mined or extensively 

disturbed by mining-related activities 

(e.g., service roads), based on aerial 

photos (National Agricultural Imagery 

Program 2003). Further inspection of the 

aerial photos indicate there are 

additional sections with extensive 

effects of mining, beyond that indicated 

by the GAP data, which is based on 10–

15-year-old satellite imagery. These 

disturbed areas are not proposed as 

revised lynx critical habitat. 

Unit 3: Northern Rocky Mountains 

[11,304 mi2 (29,276 km2)] 

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. 

It includes the Flathead Indian 

Reservation, National Forest lands, and 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

lands in the Garnet Resource Area. This 

area was occupied by lynx at the time 

of listing and is currently occupied by 

the species. Lynx are known to be 

widely distributed throughout this unit 

and breeding has been documented in 

multiple locations (Gehman et al. 2004, 

pp. 24–29; Squires et al. 2004a, pp. 7–

10 and 2004b, pp. 8–10). This area 

contains the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the lynx as it is comprised of the 

primary constituent element and its 

components laid out in the appropriate 

quantity and spatial arrangement. This 

area is essential to the conservation of 

lynx 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 for 

lynx and provides connectivity to other 

portions of the lynx’s range in the Rocky 

Mountains, particularly the Yellowstone 

area. Timber harvest and management is 

a dominant land use (68 FR 40075); 

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, fire 

suppression or fuels treatment, lack of 

an International conservation strategy 

for lynx, traffic, and development are 

other habitat-related threats to lynx (68 

FR 40075). 

Unit 4: North Cascades [2,000 mi2

(5,180 km2)] 

Unit 4 is located in north-central 

Washington in portions of Chelan and 

Okanogan Counties, and includes BLM 

lands in the Spokane District. This area 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 10875 

was occupied at the time lynx was listed 

and is currently occupied by the 

species. 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, p. 36; 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 contains 

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 

contains 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 this 

unit (E. Lofrothe, British Columbia 

Ministry of the Environment, unpubl. 

data). This area contains the physical 

and biological features essential to the 

conservation of the lynx as it contains 

the primary constituent element and its 

components laid out in the appropriate 

quantity and spatial arrangement. This 

area is essential to the conservation of 

lynx because it is the only area in the 

Cascades region of the lynx’s range that 

is known to support breeding lynx 

populations. Timber harvest and 

management is a dominant land use; 

therefore, special management is 

required depending on the silvicultural 

practices conducted. Timber 

management practices that provide for a 

density understory are beneficial for 

lynx and snowshoe hares. In this area, 

Federal land management plans have 

not been amended to incorporate lynx 

conservation. The lack of an 

International conservation strategy for 

lynx, traffic, and development are other 

habitat-related threats to lynx (68 FR 

40075). 

Unit 5: Greater Yellowstone Area 

[10,590 mi2 (27,427 km2)] 

Unit 5 is located in Yellowstone 

National Park and surrounding lands in 

southwestern Montana and 

northwestern Wyoming. Lands in this 

unit are found in Gallatin, Park, 

Sweetgrass, Stillwater, and Carbon 

Counties in Montana, and Park, Teton, 

Fremont, Sublette, and Lincoln Counties 

in Wyoming. This area was occupied by 

lynx at the time of listing and is 

currently occupied by the species. The 

area contains the physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the lynx as it contains 

the primary constituent element and its 

components laid out in the appropriate 

quantity and spatial arrangement. The 

GYA is naturally marginal lynx habitat 

with highly fragmented foraging habitat. 

For this reason lynx home ranges in this 

unit are likely to be larger and 

incorporate large areas of non-foraging 

matrix habitat. In this area, fire 

suppression or fuels treatment, lack of 

an International conservation strategy 

for lynx, traffic, and development are 

other habitat-related threats to lynx (68 

FR 40075). Therefore, special 

management is required depending on 

the fire suppression and fuels treatment 

practices conducted and the design of 

highway development projects. 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

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

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to ensure that actions they fund, 

authorize, or carry out are not likely to 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat. Decisions by the 5th and 9th 

Circuit Court of Appeals have 

invalidated our definition of 

‘‘destruction or adverse modification’’

(50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot 

Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) 

and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 

442F (5th Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely 

on this regulatory definition when 

analyzing whether an action is likely to 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat. Under the statutory provisions 

of the Act, we determine destruction or 

adverse modification on the basis of 

whether, with implementation of the 

proposed Federal action, the affected 

critical habitat would remain functional 

(or retain the current ability for the PCEs 

to be functionally established) to serve 

its intended conservation role for the 

species (Jones 2004, p. 3). 

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 

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) of the Act 

requires Federal agencies to ensure that 

activities they authorize, fund, or carry 

out are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the 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 in most cases. As a result of this 

consultation, we document compliance 

with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) 

through our issuance of: 

(1) A concurrence letter for Federal 

actions that may affect, but are not 

likely to adversely affect, listed species 

or critical habitat; or 

(2) A biological opinion for Federal 

actions that may affect, and are likely to 

adversely affect, listed species or critical 

habitat. 

An exception to the concurrence 

process referred to in (1) above occurs 

in consultations involving National Fire 

Plan projects. When we issue a 

biological opinion concluding that a 

project is likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of a listed species 

or destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat, we also provide reasonable and 

prudent alternatives to the project, if 

any are identifiable. We define 

‘‘Reasonable and prudent alternatives’’

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, 

• Can be implemented consistent 

with the scope of the Federal agency’s 

legal authority and jurisdiction, 

• Are economically and 

technologically feasible, and 

• Would, in the Director’s opinion, 

avoid jeopardizing the continued 

existence of the listed species or 

destroying or adversely modifying 

critical habitat. 

Reasonable and prudent alternatives 

can vary from slight project 

modifications to extensive redesign or 

relocation of the project. Costs 

associated with implementing a 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
10876 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

reasonable and prudent alternative are 

similarly variable. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is not likely to 

jeopardize a listed species or adversely 

modify critical habitat, but may result in 

incidental take of listed animals, we 

provide an incidental take statement 

that specifies the impact of such 

incidental taking on the species. We 

then define ‘‘Reasonable and Prudent 

Measures’’ considered necessary or 

appropriate to minimize the impact of 

such taking. Reasonable and prudent 

measures are binding measures the 

action agency must implement to 

receive an exemption to the prohibition 

against take contained in section 9 of 

the Act. These reasonable and prudent 

measures are implemented through 

specific ‘‘Terms and Conditions’’ that 

must be followed by the action agency 

or passed along by the action agency as 

binding conditions to an applicant. 

Reasonable and prudent measures, 

along with the terms and conditions that 

implement them, cannot alter the basic 

design, location, scope, duration, or 

timing of the action under consultation 

and may involve only minor changes 

(50 CFR 402.14). The Service may 

provide the action agency with 

additional conservation 

recommendations, which are advisory 

and not intended to carry binding legal 

force. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require 

Federal agencies to reinitiate 

consultation on previously reviewed 

actions in instances where we have 

listed a new species or subsequently 

designated critical habitat that may be 

affected and the Federal agency has 

retained discretionary involvement or 

control over the action (or the agency’s 

discretionary involvement or control is 

authorized by law). Consequently, 

Federal agencies may sometimes need to 

request reinitiation of consultation with 

us on actions for which formal 

consultation has been completed, if 

those actions with discretionary 

involvement or control may affect 

subsequently listed species or 

designated critical habitat. 

Federal activities that may affect lynx 

or its designated critical habitat require 

section 7 consultation under the Act. 

Activities on State, Tribal, local, or 

private lands requiring a Federal permit 

(such as a permit from the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers under section 404 of 

the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et 

seq.) or a permit from us under section 

10 of the Act) or an activity involving 

some other Federal action (such as 

funding from the Federal Highway 

Administration, Federal Aviation 

Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency) are 

subject to the section 7 consultation 

process. Federal actions not affecting 

listed species or critical habitat, and 

actions on State, Tribal, local, or private 

lands that are not federally funded, 

authorized, or permitted, do not require 

section 7 consultation. 

Application of the ‘‘Adverse 

Modification’’ Standard 

The key factor related to the adverse 

modification determination is whether, 

with implementation of the proposed 

Federal action, the affected critical 

habitat would continue to serve its 

intended conservation role for the 

species, or would retain its current 

ability for the primary constituent 

element(s) to be functionally 

established. Activities that may destroy 

or adversely modify critical habitat are 

those that alter the physical and 

biological features to an extent that 

appreciably reduces the conservation 

value of critical habitat for lynx. 

Generally, the conservation role of the 

proposed revised lynx critical habitat 

units is to support viable populations. 

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 that when carried out, 

funded, or authorized by a Federal 

agency, may adversely affect critical 

habitat and therefore should result in 

consultation for the lynx include, but 

are not limited to, the following: 

(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. Where 

moist boreal forest stands occur in a 

mosaic along with matrix habitat, the 

above described activities within the 

matrix habitat portions of the unit 

would not affect the physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the lynx. 

(2) Actions that would cause 

permanent loss or conversion of the 

boreal forest. Such activities could 

include, but are not limited to, 

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. Where 

moist boreal forest stands occur in a 

mosaic surrounded by matrix habitats, 

the above described activities within the 

matrix habitat portion of the unit would 

not affect the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the lynx. 

(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 proposed revised critical 

habitat units as lynx are highly mobile 

and frequently cross roads during 

dispersal, exploratory movements, or 

travel within their home ranges. 

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. 

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 .............................. 585 Shepard Way, Helena, Montana 59601 ............................................................................... (406) 449–5225 

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

Wyoming ............................. 5353 Yellowstone Road, Suite 308A, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009 ............................................ (307) 772–2374 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 10877 

Application of Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of 

the Act 

The National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108–

136) amended the Act to limit areas 

eligible for designation as critical 

habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) 

of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) 

now provides: ‘‘The Secretary shall not 

designate as critical habitat any lands or 

other geographical areas owned or 

controlled by the Department of 

Defense, or designated for its use, that 

are subject to an integrated natural 

resources management plan prepared 

under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 

U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines 

in writing that such plan provides a 

benefit to the species for which critical 

habitat is proposed for designation.’’

There are no Department of Defense 

lands with a completed Integrated 

Natural Resource Management Plan 

within the proposed revised critical 

habitat designation. 

Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act 

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

the Secretary must designate and revise 

critical habitat on the basis of the best 

available scientific data after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, 

national security impact, and any other 

relevant impact of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. The 

Secretary may exclude an area from 

critical habitat if he determines that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying such area as part 

of the critical habitat, unless he 

determines, based on the best scientific 

data available, that the failure to 

designate such area as critical habitat 

will result in the extinction of the 

species. The Secretary has broad 

discretion regarding which factor(s) to 

use and how much weight to give to any 

factor. 

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

must consider economic impacts. We 

also consider a number of factors in a 

section 4(b)(2) analysis. For example, 

we consider whether there are lands 

owned or managed by the Department of 

Defense (DOD) where a national security 

impact might exist. We also consider 

whether landowners having proposed 

critical habitat on their lands have 

developed any conservation plans for 

the area, or whether there are 

conservation partnerships that would be 

encouraged by designation of, or 

exclusion from, critical habitat. In 

addition, we look at any Tribal issues, 

and consider the government-togovernment relationship of the United 

States with tribal entities. We also 

consider any social or other impacts that 

might occur because of the designation. 

The National Environmental Policy Act 

(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) (NEPA) analysis 

we will conduct may also disclose other 

impacts we may consider in our section 

4(b)(2) analysis. 

We are conducting an updated 

economic analysis of the impacts of the 

proposed critical habitat designation, 

which will be available for public 

review and comment when it is 

complete. Based on public comment on 

that document, the proposed 

designation itself, and the information 

in the final economic analysis, the 

Secretary may exclude from critical 

habitat additional areas beyond those 

identified in this assessment under the 

provisions of section 4(b)(2) of the Act. 

This is also addressed in our 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.19. 

Relationship of Critical Habitat to 

Tribal Lands 

In accordance with the 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-to-Government 

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 goal 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 within the proposed 

revised units is relatively small: 86 mi2

(223 km2) in the Maine unit; 72 mi2 (187 

km2) in the Minnesota unit; and 347 mi2

(898 km2) in the Northern Rocky 

Mountains unit. No Tribal lands occur 

within the North Cascades and GYA 

units. We have requested comment with 

regard to the Tribal lands in the 

Northern Rocky Mountains, Maine, and 

Minnesota and whether the 

conservation of lynx can occur with 

designation of critical habitat on other 

lands. 

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 a Forest 

Management Plan that incorporates the 

provisions of the LCAS (CSKT 2000). 

The Tribes manage these lands in a way 

that is consistent with lynx 

conservation. 

TRIBAL LANDS UNDER CONSIDERATION

FOR EXCLUSION FROM FINAL DESIGNATION AS CRITICAL HABITAT

Critical habitat unit Reservation or tribe 

Maine ........................ Maliseet Tribe. 

Micmac Tribe. 

Passamaquoddy 

Tribe. 

Penobscot Tribe. 

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

Reservation. 

Vermillion Lake Indian Reservation. 

Northern Rocky 

Mountains.

Flathead Indian Reservation. 

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

Greater Yellowstone 

Area.

None. 

Economic Analysis 

We conducted an analysis of the 

potential economic impacts of 

proposing critical habitat for the lynx in 

2006 when we designated critical 

habitat. We will update that analysis 

with any new information that may be 

available in addition to considering the 

economic impacts on lands that are 

proposed in this revision but that were 

not previously proposed. 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 on the Internet 

at www.regulations.gov, on the Internet 

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

species/mammals/lynx/, or by 

contacting the Montana Ecological 

Services Office directly (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our joint policy 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we are 

obtaining the expert opinions of at least 

three appropriate independent 

specialists regarding this proposed rule. 

The purpose of peer review is to ensure 

that our proposed revised critical 

habitat designation is based on 

scientifically sound data, assumptions, 

and analyses. We have invited these 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
10878 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

peer reviewers to comment during this 

public comment period on our specific 

assumptions and conclusions in this 

proposed designation of revised critical 

habitat. 

Public Hearings 

The Act provides for one or more 

public hearings on this proposal, if we 

receive any requests for hearings. We 

must receive your request for a public 

hearing within 45 days after the date of 

this Federal Register publication. Send 

your request to an address listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. We will schedule 

public hearings on this proposal, if any 

are requested, and announce the dates, 

times, and places of those hearings, as 

well as how to obtain reasonable 

accommodations, in the Federal 

Register and local newspapers at least 

15 days before the first hearing. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O 

12866) 

This document is not a significant 

rule and the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this 

proposed rule under Executive Order 

12866. 

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

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996), whenever an agency must 

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 (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. SBREFA amended 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. 

Based on our 2005 proposed 

designation of critical habitat for lynx 

(70 FR 68294) and associated draft 

economic analysis, we conducted a 

preliminary evaluation of the effects to 

a substantial number of small entities by 

considering the number of small entities 

affected within particular types of 

economic activities (e.g., timber, 

recreation, public and conservation land 

management, transportation, and 

mining). We considered each industry 

or category individually. In estimating 

the numbers of small entities potentially 

affected, we also considered whether 

their activities have any Federal 

involvement. Some kinds of activities 

are unlikely to have any Federal 

involvement and so will not be affected 

by the designation of critical habitat. 

Designation of critical habitat only 

affects activities conducted, funded, 

permitted, or authorized by Federal 

agencies; other activities are not affected 

by the designation. 

If this revised proposed critical 

habitat designation is made final, 

Federal agencies must consult with us if 

their activities may affect designated 

critical habitat. Consultations to avoid 

the destruction or adverse modification 

of critical habitat would be incorporated 

into the existing consultation process. 

Private companies may also be subject 

to consultation or mitigation impacts. 

Several of the activities potentially 

affected by lynx conservation efforts 

within the study area (timber, 

recreation, grazing) involve small 

businesses. Given the rural nature of the 

proposed designation, most of the 

potentially affected businesses in the 

affected regions are small. 

Our draft economic analysis of the 

2005 proposed designation evaluated 

the potential economic effects on small 

business entities and small governments 

resulting from conservation actions 

related to the listing of this species and 

proposed designation of its critical 

habitat. We evaluated small business 

entities in the following categories: 

timber activities; residential and 

commercial development; recreation; 

public lands management and 

conservation planning; transportation, 

utilities, and municipal activities; and 

mining operations. Based on our 

analysis, impacts associated with small 

entities are anticipated to occur to 

timber activities, recreation, public 

lands management, conservation 

planning, transportation, and mining. 

Because no information was available 

regarding how residential and 

commercial development may be 

affected by lynx conservation, the 

analysis does not quantify specific 

impacts to residential and commercial 

development but rather provides the full 

option value for development within the 

study area. Thus, residential and 

commercial development impacts to 

small entities are not addressed in the 

SBREFA screening analysis. We are 

seeking comments from potentially 

affected small entities involved in 

timber activities, residential and 

commercial development, recreation, 

and mining. The following is a summary 

of the information contained in the draft 

economic analysis: 

(a) Timber Activities 

According to the draft economic 

analysis for the 2005 proposed critical 

habitat, impacts on timberlands have 

historically resulted from 

implementation of lynx management 

plans and project modifications. The 

majority of forecast impacts on timber 

relate to potential restrictions on precommercial thinning, with nearly half of 

these impacts occurring on private 

timberland in Maine. The economic 

analysis applied two scenarios to bound 

the impacts resulting from potential 

changes to timber activities. Under 

Scenario 2, the upper bound, timber 

impacts range from $15.6 million 

(discounted at 7 percent) to $33.3 

million (discounted at 3 percent) over 

20 years. When compared to forestryrelated earning across counties in the 

study area ($454 million in 2003), these 

potential losses are approximately 3 to 

7 percent of total forestry-related 

earnings. Total forecast impacts to 

timber activities range from $117 

million to $808 million over 20 years. 

Exhibits C–1 through C–4 of the 

economic analysis quantify the small 

timber companies that may be affected 

by the proposed rule. However, the draft 

economic analysis states that it is 

uncertain whether private timber 

companies will be affected by the 

designation of critical habitat. 

Government agencies, such as the U.S. 

Forest Service, are subject to critical 

habitat consultations. 

(b) Residential and Commercial 

Development 

Because specific information on how 

residential and commercial 

development projects would mitigate for 

impacts to lynx and its habitat is 

unknown, the draft economic analysis 

does not attempt to quantify the 

economic impacts of mitigating 

development activities. Instead, it 

presents the full value that may be 

derived from potential future 

development within the potential 

critical habitat. The total projected 

future development value of areas 

proposed for designation as critical 

habitat for the lynx is approximately 

$2.26 billion. Approximately 69.1 

percent ($1.56 billion) of this is the 

value of future development in 

Minnesota (Unit 2); 25.7 percent ($579 

million) of this is the value of future 

development in Maine (Unit 1), of 

which $1.57 million is proposed for 

exclusion; and 5.2 percent ($117 

million) of this is the value of future 

development in Montana. Lands 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 10879 

proposed for critical habitat in 

Washington are characterized by public 

lands managed for timber and 

recreation. As such, residential and 

commercial development is not 

considered to be a future land use, and 

the value of these lands for future 

development is considered to be 

negligible. Recognizing that 

approximately 80 percent of the 

projected value of potential future 

residential and commercial 

development within the area proposed 

as critical habitat consist of lands within 

Minnesota and recognizing the potential 

effects on landowners and development 

companies, we will consider this 

information pursuant to section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act during the development of 

the final designation. No North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) code 

exists for landowners, and the Small 

Business Administration does not 

provide a definition of a small 

landowner. However, recognizing that it 

is possible that some of the landowners 

may be small businesses, this analysis 

provides information concerning the 

number of landowners potentially 

affected: An upward estimate of 38 in 

Maine, 53 in Minnesota, and 110 in 

Montana. It is possible that a portion of 

these affected landowners could be 

small businesses in the residential or 

commercial land development industry 

or could be associated businesses, such 

as builders and developers. Actual 

conservation requirements undertaken 

by an individual landowner will depend 

on how much of a parcel lies within or 

affects proposed critical habitat. 

Individual single-family home 

development has not historically been 

subject to consultation or habitat 

conservation requirements for lynx, 

although consultation could be required 

if Federal permits from the Army Corps 

of Engineers, Environmental Protection 

Agency, or Federal Emergency 

Management Agency are required. For these reasons and because the 

scale of this revised proposed critical 

habitat is significantly different than the 

2005 proposed critical habitat, we are 

requesting comments from any 

potentially affected small businesses 

involved in residential and commercial 

development activities, about the 

impacts resulting from the proposed 

designation of critical habitat. How will 

small businesses, such as landowners, 

builders or developers be affected by 

this critical habitat designation? The 

economic analysis presents the full 

potential development value of 

impacted lands within the potential 

critical habitat as a baseline, but does 

not provide a cost estimate. How could 

this estimate be refined to demonstrate 

how small businesses in the residential 

and commercial development field will 

be affected by this critical habitat 

designation? What would you suggest as 

another measure of these costs? 

(c) Recreation 

Recreational activities that have the 

potential to affect the lynx and its 

habitat include over-the-snow trails for 

snowmobiling and cross-country skiing, 

accidental trapping or shooting, and 

recreation area expansions such as ski 

resorts, campgrounds, or snowmobile 

areas. Total forecast costs to all 

recreation activities in areas proposed 

for designation are $1.05 to $3.46 

million, or an annualized estimate of 

$57,600 to $178,000 (applying a 7 

percent discount rate) or $54,500 to 

$175,000 (applying a 3 percent discount 

rate). Impacts to recreation activity 

forecast in the draft analysis include 

welfare impacts to individual 

snowmobilers; however, the level of 

participation is not expected to change. 

As no decrease in the level of 

snowmobiling activity is forecast, 

impacts to small businesses that support 

the recreation sector are not anticipated. Because the scale of this revised 

proposed critical habitat is significantly 

different than the 2005 proposed critical 

habitat, we are requesting comments 

from any potentially affected small 

businesses in the involved in recreation 

activities, about the impacts resulting 

from the proposed designation of 

critical habitat. What are the estimated 

cost impacts of this proposed 

designation to your small business? 

(d) Public lands management and 

conservation planning 

The draft economic analysis for the 

2005 proposed critical habitat estimates 

that total post-designation costs of lynx 

conservation efforts associated with 

public and conservation lands 

management in areas proposed for 

designation to be approximately $12.8 

million over the next 20 years, or an 

annualized cost of $940,000 (present 

value applying a 7 percent discount 

rate) or $767,000 (applying a 3 percent 

discount rate). The majority of public 

lands are managed by Federal and State 

entities that do not qualify as small 

businesses. As such, designation of 

critical habitat for lynx is not 

anticipated to have a significant impact 

on a substantial number of small 

businesses involved in public lands 

management or conservation planning. 

(e) Transportation, Utilities, and 

Municipal Activities 

The draft economic analysis for the 

2005 proposed critical habitat estimates 

that total post-designation costs 

resulting from lynx conservation efforts 

associated with transportation, utilities, 

and municipal activities for areas 

proposed for designation will range 

from $34.9 million to $55.1 million over 

the next 20 years, or an annualized 

value of $1.9 to 2.9 million (present 

value applying a 7 percent discount 

rate) or $1.8 to $2.8 million (present 

value applying a 3 percent discount 

rate). Of the total post-designation costs, 

approximately 71 percent are attributed 

to transportation activities, and 29 

percent are attributed to utility and 

municipal activities. Impacts to 

transportation and municipal projects 

are expected to be borne by the Federal 

and State agencies undertaking lynxrelated modifications to these types of 

projects, including the Federal Highway 

Administration, the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, and State 

transportation departments. Since 

Federal and State entities do not qualify 

as small businesses, the designation of 

critical habitat for the lynx is not 

anticipated to have a significant impact 

on a substantial number of small 

businesses associated with 

transportation, utilities, and municipal 

activities. 

Impacts to dam projects, including 

costs of remote monitoring for lynx that 

could be required for relicensing of 

dams, could be borne by the companies 

that own the dams. In particular, 14 

dams in Minnesota and two in Maine 

are expected to consider lynx 

conservation at the time of relicensing. 

The economic analysis estimated costs 

of $13,000 to $18,000 to each of these 

16 dam projects in 2025. Based on these 

small costs, we do not anticipate that 

this would be a significant impact to 

dam operators. 

(f) Mining Operations 

The draft economic analysis for the 

2005 proposed critical habitat estimates 

total post-designation costs resulting 

from lynx conservation efforts 

associated with mining projects of 

approximately $430,000, or an 

annualized rate of $38,000 (present 

value applying a 7 percent discount 

rate) or $28,100 (present value applying 

a 3 percent discount rate). Unit 2 

(Minnesota) is the only area of potential 

critical habitat for which future surface 

mining expansion and development 

projects have been identified; 

specifically, three new or expanded 

mining projects are forecast to occur on 

leased lands of Superior National 

Forest. The greatest impact estimated is 

$375,000 or an annualized impact of 

$33,100 for the East Reserve Mine, 

which has a total value of $819 million, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
10880 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

which equates to less than a 1 percent 

annual impact to the mine relative to its 

total value. There is an uncertainty for 

realized impacts on the mining industry 

from lynx conservation activities. 

Because the scale of this revised 

proposed critical habitat is significantly 

different than the 2005 proposed critical 

habitat, we are requesting comments 

from any potentially affected small 

businesses involved in the mining 

industry, about the impacts resulting 

from the proposed designation of 

critical habitat. What are the estimated 

cost impacts of this proposed 

designation to your small business? 

We evaluated small business entities 

relative to the revised proposed 

designation of critical habitat for the 

lynx to determine potential effects to 

these business entities and the scale of 

any potential impact using, in part, the 

draft economic analysis for the 2005 

proposed critical habitat. Based on our 

analysis, there may be potential 

projected impacts associated with small 

entities in the areas of timber activities, 

recreation, public lands management, 

conservation planning, transportation, 

and mining. There is also a possibility 

of potential projected impacts to 

development activities. Due to the lack 

of information, the economic analysis 

for this critical habitat does not attempt 

to assign development impacts to 

specific small entities, rather leaving 

open the question of whether any small 

entities will be affected. We have 

outlined above potential projected 

future impacts to these entities resulting 

from conservation-related activities for 

the lynx, and asked potential affected 

small entities for input as to what the 

likely impacts will be for their industry 

sectors. We do, however, recognize that 

there may be disproportionate impact to 

certain sectors and geographic areas 

within lands proposed for designation. 

As such, we will more fully evaluate 

these potential impacts during the 

development of the final designation, 

and may, if appropriate, consider such 

lands for exclusion pursuant to section 

4(b)(2) of the Act. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

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

seq.), we make the following 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, or 

tribal governments, or the private sector, 

and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’

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

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

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or [T]ribal 

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) On the basis of the economic 

analysis for our previous designation of 

critical habitat for the lynx in 2006, we 

do not believe that this rule will 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments because small 

governments will be affected only to the 

extent that any programs having Federal 

funds, permits, or other authorized 

activities must ensure that their actions 

will not adversely affect the critical 

habitat. Therefore, we do not believe 

that a Small Government Agency Plan is 

required at this time. However, as we 

conduct our revised economic analysis, 

we will further evaluate this issue and 

revise this assessment if appropriate. 

Takings 

In accordance with E.O. 12630 

(Government Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Private 

Property Rights), we have analyzed the 

potential takings implications of 

designating revised critical habitat for 

the lynx in a takings implications 

assessment. The takings implications 

assessment concludes that this 

designation of critical habitat for the 

lynx does not pose significant takings 

implications for lands within or affected 

by the designation. 

Federalism 

In accordance with E.O. 13132, this 

proposed rule does not have significant 

Federalism effects. A Federalism 

assessment is not required. In keeping 

with Department of the Interior and 

Department of Commerce policy, we 

requested information from, and 

coordinated development of, our 

previous proposed critical habitat 

designation with appropriate State 

resource agencies in Idaho, Maine, 

Minnesota, Montana, Washington, and 

Wyoming. The information gathered in 

that coordination effort was used in this 

revised proposal. 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 of 

critical habitat in areas currently 

occupied by the lynx imposes no 

additional restrictions to those currently 

in place and, therefore, has little 

incremental impact on State and local 

governments and their activities. The 

designation may have some benefit to 

these governments because the areas 

that contain the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species are more clearly defined, 

and the PCE necessary to support the 

life processes of the species are 

specifically identified. This information 

does not alter where and what federally 

sponsored activities may occur. 

However, it may assist local 

governments in long-range planning 

(rather than having them wait for caseby-case consultations under section 7 of 

the Act to occur). 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 10881 

Civil Justice Reform 

In accordance with E.O. 12988, (Civil 

Justice Reform), the Office of the 

Solicitor has determined that the rule 

does not unduly burden the judicial 

system and that it meets the 

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

of the Order. We have proposed 

designating revised critical habitat in 

accordance with the provisions of the 

Act. This proposed rule uses standard 

property descriptions and identifies the 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species 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 of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). 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 

(NEPA) 

It is our position that, outside the 

jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the 

United States for the Tenth Circuit, we 

do not need to prepare environmental 

analyses as defined by NEPA (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.) 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 

position was upheld by the Circuit 

Court of the United States for the Ninth 

Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 

F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore. 1995), cert. 

denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996). However, 

when the range of the species includes 

States within the tenth circuit, such as 

that of the lynx, under 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 a NEPA 

document for this proposal. 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(a) Be logically organized; 

(b) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(c) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(d) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(e) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. To better help us revise the 

rule, your comments should be as 

specific as possible. For example, you 

should tell us the numbers of the 

sections or paragraphs that are unclearly 

written, which sections or sentences are 

too long, the sections where you feel 

lists or tables would be useful, etc. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, 

the Department of Interior’s manual at 

512 DM 2, and Secretarial Order 3206, 

we readily acknowledge our 

responsibility to communicate 

meaningfully with recognized Federal 

Tribes on a government-to-government 

basis. In accordance with Secretarial 

Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American 

Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal 

Trust Responsibilities, and the 

Endangered Species Act), we readily 

acknowledge our responsibilities to 

work directly with Tribes in developing 

programs for healthy ecosystems, to 

acknowledge that tribal lands are not 

subject to the same controls as Federal 

public lands, to remain sensitive to 

Indian culture, and to make information 

available to Tribes. Tribal lands in the 

Maine, Minnesota, and Northern Rocky 

Mountains units are included in this 

proposed designation; however, we are 

asking the public if Tribal lands need to 

be included as critical habitat in light of 

Secretarial Order 3206. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

an Executive Order (E.O. 13211; Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) on regulations that 

significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 

requires agencies to prepare Statements 

of Energy Effects when undertaking 

certain actions. While this proposed 

rule to revise critical habitat for the lynx 

is a significant regulatory action under 

E.O. 12866 in that it may raise novel 

legal and policy issues, we do not 

expect it to significantly affect energy 

supplies, distribution, or use based on 

the economic analysis we completed for 

the 2005 proposed lynx critical habitat 

rule. Therefore, this action is not a 

significant energy action, and no 

Statement of Energy Effects is required. 

However, we will further evaluate this 

issue as we conduct our economic 

analysis, and review and revise this 

assessment as warranted. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rulemaking is available online at 

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

mammals/lynx/ or upon request from 

the Field Supervisor, Montana 

Ecological Services Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Author(s) 

The primary author(s) of this package 

are staff from the Maine and Montana 

Ecological Services Offices. 

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 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 § 17.95(a), revise the entry for 

‘‘Canada lynx (Lynx Canadensis)’’ 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, Teton, 

Gallatin, Park, Sweetgrass, Stillwater, 

and Carbon Counties; 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
10882 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

(v) Washington: Chelan and Okanogan 

Counties; and 

(vi) Wyoming: Park, Teton, Fremont, 

Sublette, and Lincoln Counties. 

(2) Within these areas the primary 

constituent element for the Canada lynx 

is boreal forest landscapes supporting a 

mosaic of differing successional forest 

stages and containing: 

(i) Presence of snowshoe hares and 

their preferred habitat conditions, 

including dense understories of young 

trees or shrubs tall enough to protrude 

above the snow; 

(ii) Winter snow conditions that are 

generally deep and fluffy for extended 

periods of time; 

(iii) Sites for denning having 

abundant, coarse, woody debris, such as 

downed trees and root wads; and 

(iv) Matrix habitat (e.g., hardwood 

forest, dry forest, non-forest, or other 

habitat types that do not support 

snowshoe hares) that occurs between 

patches of boreal forest in close 

juxtaposition (at the scale of a lynx 

home range) such that lynx are likely to 

travel through such habitat while 

accessing patches of boreal forest within 

a home range. The important aspect of 

matrix habitat for lynx is that these 

habitats retain the ability to allow 

unimpeded movement of lynx through 

them as lynx travel between patches of 

boreal forest. 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

waterbodies (lakes, rivers, streams), or 

man-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 

the following towns or populated areas 

as they exist now: 

(i) Maine: Allagash, Ashland, 

Chapman, Dennistown, Dickey, Eagle 

Lake, Frenchville, Grindstone, Jackman, 

Kokadjo, Oxbow, Portage, Rockwood, 

Saint Francis, Saint John, Smyrna 

Center, Wallagrass, Winterville. 

(ii) Minnesota: Alger, Allen, Angora, 

Arnold, Aurora, Babbitt, Baptism 

Crossing, Bartlett, Beaver Bay, Beaver 

Crossing, Belgrade, Bell Harbor, 

Biwabik, Breda, Brimson, 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, Lutsen, 

Makinen, 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. 

(iii) Montana: Aldridge, Alpine, 

Avon, Beartown, Bison, Blacktail, 

Blossburg, Brock Creek, Calamity Janes 

Trailer Court, Cassidy Curve, Coloma, 

Contact, Cooke City, Copper Cliff, 

Corwin Springs, Coughlin, Crystal Ford, 

Crystal Point, Dodge Summit, Dutton, 

Electric, Elliston, False Summit, Finn, 

Forest Heights, Frontier Town, 

Gardiner, Garnet, Geary, George Norman 

Trailer Court, Helmville, Huckleberry 

Trailer Court, Independence, Jardine, 

Keiley, Kotke, Limestone, Lincoln, 

Mannix, McDonald, McGillvary, Meyers 

Creek, Mountain View, Ovando, 

Packers, Quigley, Reynolds City, Ricci 

Trailer Terraces, Rising Sun, Riverside, 

Rocky Mountain Trailer Park, Silver 

Gate, Singleshot, Siyeh Bend, Skyline, 

Snowslip, Sperry Chalets, Sphinx, 

Springtown, Stoner Place, Summit, 

Swiftcurrent, Three Forks, Top O’Deep, 

White City, Woodworth, Yreka. 

(iv) Wyoming: Afton, Bannock Ford, 

Bedford, Bondurant, Buffalo Ford, 

Canyon Junction, Canyon Village, Devils 

Den, DuNoir, Etna, Fossil Forest, 

Hoback, Hoback Junction, Jack Pine, 

Mammoth, Osmond Community, 

Pahaska Tepee, Sylvan Bay Summer 

Home Area, Thayne, Tower Junction, 

Turnerville, Yanceys. 

(4) Index map for lynx critical habitat 

follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 10883 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP28FE08.000</GPH>
10884 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

(5) Unit 1: Northern Maine; 

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) Map of Northern Maine Unit 

follows: 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 10885 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP28FE08.001</GPH>
10886 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

(6) Unit 2: Northeastern Minnesota; 

Cook, Koochiching, Lake, and St. Louis 

Counties. 

(i) Coordinate Projection: UTM, 

NAD83, Zone 15, Meters. Coordinate 

Definition: (easting, northing) 

(ii) Starting at the intersection 

(470383, 5383928) of the Minnesota/ 

Canada border and U.S. Highway 53, 

follow U.S. Highway 53 to the 

intersection (533455, 5265811) with the 

north boundary of T. 58N, R. 17W, 

Section 6. Follow the section line east 

to the NE corner of section 6 (534436, 

5265846). Follow the section line north 

to the NW corner of T. 59N, R. 17W, 

Section 29 (534449, 5269188). Follow 

the section line east to the NE corner of 

T. 59N R. 17W, Section 28 (537595, 

5269278). Follow the section line north 

to the NW corner of T. 59N, R. 17W, 

Section 22 (537612, 5270884). Follow 

the section east to the NE corner of 

section 22 (539244, 5270743). Follow 

the section line north to the NW corner 

of T. 59N, R. 17W, Section 14 (539166, 

5272477). Follow the section line east to 

the NE corner of T. 59N, R. 17W, 

Section 13 (542538, 5272377). Follow 

the section line south to the SE corner 

of T. 59N, R, 17W, Section 24 (542468, 

5269207). Follow the section line west 

to the SW corner of section 24 (540886, 

5269302). Follow the section line south 

to SE corner of T. 59N, R. 17W, Section 

26 (540871, 5267661). Follow the 

section line west to the SW corner of 

section 26 (539258, 5267619). Follow 

the section line south to the SE corner 

of T. 58N, R. 17W, Section 15 (539373, 

5261082). Follow the section line west 

to the intersection with U.S. Highway 

53 (535956, 5261013). Follow U.S. 

Highway 53 to the intersection with 

U.S. Interstate 35/State Highway 61 

(568056, 5180758). Follow U.S. 

Interstate 35/Highway 61 to coordinate 

568974, 5181862. Go approximately 178 

meters east to the shore of Lake Superior 

(569151, 5181874). Follow the shore of 

Lake Superior to the Minnesota/Canada 

border (761503, 5322824). Follow the 

Minnesota/Canada border to the 

beginning. This area is found within the 

following USGS 1:24000 Quads; Pine 

Mountain, Grand Marais, Kadunce 

River, Marr Island, Hovland, Mineral 

Center OE S, Good Harbor Bay OE E, 

Linden Grove, Cook, Sassas Creek, Lost 

Lake, Tower, Idington, Britt, Biwabik 

NE, Biwabik NW, Virginia, McKinley, 

Biwabik, Eveleth, Gilbert, Palo, Central 

Lakes, Makinen, Zim, Cotton, 

Whiteface, Canyon, Shaw, Twig, 

Independence, Adolph, Ranier OE N, 

Island View OE N, Cranberry Bay OE N, 

Soldier Point OE N, Ranier, Island View, 

Cranberry Bay, Soldier Point, Kempton 

Bay, Kettle Falls, International Falls, 

Kabetogama, Daley Bay, Ash River NE, 

Namakan Island, Hale Bay, Ericsburg, 

Ray, Redhorse Bay, Ash River SW, Ash 

River SE, Marion Lake, Johnson Lake, 

Crane Lake, Snow Bay, Ash Lake, Orr 

NE, Elephant Lake, Kabustasa Lake, 

Echo Lake, Lake Jeanette, Orr, Myrtle 

Lake, Buyck, Picket Lake, Astrid Lake, 

Gheen, Haley, Norwegian Bay, 

Vermilion Dam, Sioux Pine Island, 

Coleman Island, Iron Lake OE N, 

Takucmich Lake, Shell Lake, Lake 

Agnes, Iron Lake, Friday Bay, Jackfish 

Lake, Dutton Lake, Ester Lake, Munker 

Island, Conners Island, Bootleg Lake, 

Lapond Lake, Angleworm Lake, 

Fourtown Lake, Ensign Lake West, 

Ensign Lake East, Kekekabic Lake, 

Ogishkemuncie Lake, Gillis Lake, Long 

Island Lake, Gunflint Lake, South Lake, 

Hungry Jack Lake, Crocodile Lake, Pine 

Lake West, Pine Lake East, South Fowl 

Lake, The Cascades, Grand Portage OE 

N, Pigeon Point OE N, Basswood Lake 

West, Basswood Lake East, Pigeon Point 

OE NE, Ely, Farm Lake, Alice Lake, Lake 

Polly, Kelso Mountain, Cherokee Lake, 

Brule Lake, Eagle Mountain, Lima 

Mountain, Tom Lake, Farquhar Peak, 

Mineral Center, Grand Portage (digital), 

Pigeon Point (digital), Crab Lake, 

Northern Light Lake, Boulder Lake 

Reservoir, Thompson Lake, Barrs Lake, 

McCarthy Creek, Two Harbors, Castle 

Danger, Split Rock Point OE S, Arnold, 

French River, Knife River, Two Harbors 

OE S, Fredenberg, Duluth, Lakewood, 

Duluth Heights, Chad Lake, Lake Insula, 

Shagawa Lake, Ojibway Lake, 

Snowbank Lake, Soudan, Eagles Nest, 

Bear Island, Bogberry Lake, Quadga 

Lake, Isabella Lake, Perent Lake, 

Kawishiwi Lake, Beth Lake, Sawbill 

Camp, Tait Lake, Mark Lake, Devil 

Track Lake, Kangas Bay, Gabbro Lake, 

Embarrass, Babbitt, Slate Lake West, 

Slate Lake East, Mitawan Lake, Sawbill 

Landing, Silver Island Lake, Wilson 

Lake, Toohey Lake, Honeymoon 

Mountain, Lutsen, Isaac Lake, Babbitt 

NE, Deer Yard Lake, Good Harbor Bay 

(digital), Aurora, Allen, Babbitt SW, 

Babbitt SE, Greenwood Lake West, 

Greenwood Lake East, Isabella, Cabin 

Lake, Cramer, Schroeder, Lutsen OE S, 

Isabella Station, Tofte, Turpela Lake, 

Bird Lake, Skibo, Cloquet Lake, Doyle 

Lake, Little Marais OE E, Toimi, Mount 

Weber, Whyte, Finland, Little Marais 

(digital), Whiteface Reservoir, Harris 

Lake, Fairbanks, Brimson, Legler Lake, 

Silver Bay SW, Silver Bay, Illgen City, 

Kane Lake, Comstock Lake, Pequaywan 

Lake, King Lake, Split Rock Point, Split 

Rock Point NE, Boulder Lake Reservoir 

NE, Highland, Two Harbors NE. This 

entire area is designated proposed 

critical habitat expect for the following 

lands: T. 58N, R.17W, Sections 13, 24–

26; T. 58N, R. 16W, Sections 3, 8–

10,16,17; T. 58N, R 15W, Sections 1–

3,11,12; T. 58N R. 14W, Sections 3–10; 

T. 59N, R. 15W, Sections 21–28, 33–36; 

T. 59N, R. 14W, Sections 1–5, 8–23, 27–

34; T. 59N., R. 13W, Sections 5,6; T. 

60N, R. 14W, Sections 32–34, 36; T. 

60N, R. 13W, Sections 22–28, 31–35; T. 

60N, R.12W Sections 2, 3, 10, 15–20, 30; 

T. 61N, R. 12W, Sections 12, 35. These 

areas area found within the following 

USGS 1:24000 Quads; McKinley, 

Bawabik, Gilbert, Embarrass, Babbitt, 

IsaacLake, Babbitt NE, Aurora, Allen 

(iii) Map of Northeastern Minnesota 

unit follows: 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 10887 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP28FE08.002</GPH>
10888 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

(7) Unit 3: Northern Rocky 

Mountains; 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). (A) 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. 

(B) 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. (C) 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. (D) 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. (E) 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. 

(F) 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. 

(G) 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. 

(H) 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. 

(I) 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. 

(J) 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. 

(K) 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. 

(L) 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 ThompsonSeton, 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. 

(M) 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. 

(N) 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. 

(O) 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. 

(P) 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 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, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 10889 

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, Dunkleberg 

Creek, Saint Ignatius, Ravalli, Saddle 

Mountain, Arlee, Gold Creek, and 

Belmore Slough. 

(iii) Map of Northern Rocky 

Mountains unit follows: 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
10890 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP28FE08.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 10891 

(8) Unit 4: North Cascades; Chelan 

and Okanogan Counties, Washington. 

(i) Coordinate Projection: UTM, 

NAD83, Zone 11, Meters. Coordinate 

Definition: (easting, northing). 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 intersection with 

Washington/Canada border (298810, 

5431112). 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. 

(ii) Map of North Cascades unit 

follows: 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
10892 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP28FE08.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 10893 

(9) Unit 5: Greater Yellowstone Area; 

Gallatin, Park, Sweetgrass, Stillwater, 

and Carbon counties in Montana; Park, 

Teton, Fremont, Sublette, and Lincoln 

Counties, Wyoming. 

(i) Coordinate Projection: UTM, 

NAD83, Zone 12, Meters; Coordinate 

Definition: (easting, northing). Starting 

at the intersection (480972, 5041390) of 

U.S. Highway 191 and the north 

boundary of T. 4S, R. 4E, Section 4, 

follow U.S. Highway 191 to the 

intersection (4484464, 4989013) with 

Yellowstone National Park (NP) 

boundary. Follow the Yellowstone NP 

boundary to the intersection (492295, 

4945003) with U.S. Highway 20. Follow 

U.S. Highway 20 (Entrance Road) to the 

intersection (511252, 4943604) with 

Grand Loop Road. Follow Grand Loop 

Road to the intersection (524028, 

4952481) with Norris Canyon Road. 

Follow Norris Canyon Road to the 

intersection (539780, 4951312) with 

Grand Loop Road. Follow Grand Loop 

Road to the intersection (548580, 

4935153) with U.S. Highway 20. Follow 

U.S. Highway 20 to coordinate 557355, 

4928610. Go southeasterly 

approximately 62 meters (557295, 

4928602) to the shore of Yellowstone 

Lake. Follow the shore of Yellowstone 

Lake to coordinate 535146, 4915754. Go 

west approximately 960 meters to the 

intersection (534188, 4915753) with 

U.S. Highway 89/287. Follow U.S. 

Highway 89/287 to the intersection 

(526800, 4886642) with the Yellowstone 

NP boundary. Follow the Yellowstone 

NP boundary to the intersection 

(527033, 4886643) with the BridgerTeton National Forest (NF) boundary. 

Follow the Bridger-Teton NF boundary 

to the intersection (520702, 4802862) 

with U.S. Highway 26. Follow U.S. 

Highway 26 to the intersection (498488, 

4779960) with U.S. Highway 89. Follow 

U.S. Highway 89 to the intersection 

(505452, 4703698) with the east 

boundary of T. 29N, R. 118W, Section 

19. Follow the section line to the 

intersection (505447, 4699501) with the 

Bridger-Teton NF boundary. Follow the 

Bridger-Teton NF boundary to the NW 

corner (597743, 4754744) of T. 34N, R. 

108W, Section 7. Follow the section line 

to the SW corner (599399, 4754756) of 

T. 34N, R. 108W, Section 5. Follow the 

section line to the NW corner (599380, 

4756357) of section 5. Follow the 

section line to the SE corner (607400, 

4756477) of T. 35N, R. 108W Section 36. 

Follow the section line to the NW 

corner (607286, 4765982) of T. 35N, R. 

107W, Section 6. Follow the section line 

to the intersection (617268, 4766147) 

with USFS-Fitzpatrick Wilderness 

boundary. Follow the Fitzpatrick 

Wilderness boundary to the intersection 

(599238, 4811188) with the west 

boundary of T. 40N, R. 108W, 

Sectiom12. Follow the section line to 

the NW corner (599108, 4812285) 

section 12. Follow the section line to 

coordinate 601191, 4812390. Go north 

to the intersection (661183, 4812925) 

with the Fitzpatrick Wilderness 

boundary. Follow the Fitzpatrick 

Wilderness boundary to the intersection 

(609608, 4816305) with Shoshone NF 

boundary. Follow the Shoshone NF 

boundary to the SE corner (629592, 

4834753) of T. 43N, R. 105W, Section 

25. Follow the section line to the 

intersection (628768, 4860150) with the 

Fremont County, WY boundary. Follow 

the Fremont County boundary to 

coordinate 588156, 4866541. Go north 

approximately 20.6 KM/12.8 miles to 

coordinate 587881, 4887097. Follow a 

route which is approximately 9.2 km/5 

miles east of the Yellowstone NP 

boundary to the intersection (599376, 

4957892) with the south boundary of T. 

55N, R. 107W, Section 3. Follow the 

section line to the SE corner (623296 

4958237) of T. 55N, R. 105W, Section 1. 

Follow the section line to the NE corner 

(623068, 4969812) of T. 56N, R.105W, 

Section 1. Follow the section line to the 

SE corner (619728, 4969746) of T. 57N, 

R. 105W, Section 36. Follow the section 

line to the NW corner (619373, 4984494) 

of T. 58N, R. 104W, section 18 

(Montana/Wyoming border). Follow the 

state border to the SE corner (622659, 

4984617) of T. 9S, R. 18E, Section 36. 

Follow the section line to the 

intersection (622048, 5009101) with the 

Custer NF boundary. Follow the Custer 

NF boundary to the SE corner (593114, 

5028792) of T. 5S, R. 15E, Section 12. 

Follow the section line to the NE corner 

(592962, 5041683) of T 4S, R. 15E, 

Section 1. Follow the section line to the 

intersection (538520, 5041519) with the 

Custer NF boundary. Follow the Custer 

NF boundary to the SE corner (506528, 

5004163) of T. 7S, R6E, Section 25. 

Follow the section line to the 

intersection (506549, 5010565) with the 

Custer NF boundary. Follow the Custer 

NF boundary to the NW corner (514340, 

5041288) of T. 4S, R. 7E, Section 1. 

Follow the section line to the beginning. 

This area is found within the following 

USGS 1:24000 Quads; Alpine, Pine 

Creek, Bailey Lake, Ferry Peak, Clause 

Peak, Bondurant, Raspberry Ridge, 

Stewart Peak, Deer Creek, Noble Basin, 

Kismet Peak, Etna, Pickle Pass, Hoback 

Peak, Thayne West, Thayne East, Man 

Peak, Blind Bull Creek, Lookout 

Mountain, Prospect Peak, Merna, Park 

Creek, Triple Peak, Maki Creek, Grover, 

Rock Lake Peak, Red Top Mountain, 

Box Canyon Creek, Mount Schidler, Red 

Castle Creek, Afton, Smoot, Poison 

Meadows, Wyoming Peak, Springman 

Creek, Mount Wagner, Salt Flat, 

Porcupine Creek, Graham Peak, Mount 

Thompson, Pine Grove Ridge, Big Park, 

Coal Creek, Lake Mountain, Devils Hole 

Creek, Nugent Park, Pole Creek, 

Fontenelle Basin, Ousel Falls, Lone 

Indian Peak, Ramshorn Peak, Miner, 

Dome Mountain, Iron Mountain, 

Monitor Peak, Mineral Mountain, 

Mount Wallace, Sunshine Point, Big 

Horn Peak, Sportsman Lake, Electric 

Peak, Gardiner, Ash Mountain, 

Specimen Creek, Hummingbird Peak, 

Divide Lake, Joseph Peak, Quadrant 

Mountain, Mammoth, Blacktail Deer 

Creek, Tower Junction, Lamar Canyon, 

Three Rivers Peak, Mount Holmes, 

Obsidian Cliff, Cook Peak, Mount 

Washburn, Amethyst Mountain, Ruby 

Mountain, Gallatin Gateway, Beacon 

Point, Garnet Mountain, Gallatin Peak, 

Hidden Lake, Wheeler Mountain, Mount 

Ellis, Bald Knob, Brisbin, Livingston 

Peak, Mount Rae, Mount Blackmore, Big 

Draw, Dexter Point, Mount Cowen, West 

Boulder Plateau, Fridley Peak, The 

Sentinel, Lewis Creek, Dailey Lake, 

Emigrant, Knowles Peak, The Pyramid, 

The Needles, Richards Creek, West 

Yellowstone, Mount Jackson, Madison 

Junction, Norris Junction, Crystal Falls, 

Canyon Village, White Lake, Lake, Lake 

Butte, West Thumb, Dot Island, Frank 

Island, Lewis Falls, Mount Sheridan, 

Heart Lake, Alder Lake, Lewis Canyon, 

Mount Hancock, Crooked Creek, Snake 

Hot Springs, Gravel Peak, Flagg Ranch, 

Huckleberry Mountain, Bobcat Ridge, 

Two Ocean Lake, Whetstone Mountain, 

Hunter Mountain, Moran, Davis Hill, 

Rosies Ridge, Shadow Mountain, Mount 

Leidy, Green Mountain, Blue Miner 

Lake, Grizzly Lake, Gros Ventre 

Junction, Upper Slide Lake, Jackson, 

Darwin Peak, Cache Creek, Turquoise 

Lake, Crystal Peak, Munger Mountain, 

Camp Davis, Bull Creek, Granite Falls, 

Doubletop Peak, Joy Peak, Crater Lake, 

Younts Peak, Hardluck Mountain, 

Mount Burwell, Ferry Lake, Emerald 

Lake, Dundee Meadows, Shoshone Pass, 

Five Pockets, Snow Lake, Angle 

Mountain, Togwotee Pass, Wiggins 

Peak, Tripod Peak, Lava Mountain, 

Kisinger Lakes, Esmond Park, Ramshorn 

Peak, Indian Point, Castle Rock, Burnt 

Mountain, Sheridan Pass, Warm Spring 

Mountain, Dubois, Fish Lake, Ouzel 

Falls, Mosquito Lake, Fish Creek Park, 

Union Peak, Simpson Lake, Tosi Peak, 

Klondike Hill, Big Sheep Mountain, 

Downs Mountain, Green River Lakes, 

Windy Mountain, Pelican Cone, Little 

Saddle Mountain, Pollux Peak, 

Stinkingwater Peak, Geers Point, Mount 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
10894 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Chittenden, Cathedral Peak, Pahaska 

Tepee, Sunlight Peak, Sylvan Lake, 

Plenty Coups Peak, Eagle Creek, Trail 

Lake, Eagle Peak, Pinnacle Mountain, 

Badger Creek, Open Creek, The Trident, 

Two Ocean Pass, Yellowstone Point, 

Thorofare Plateau, McLeod Basin, 

Squaw Peak, Sliderock Mountain, 

Wildcat Draw, Chrome Mountain, Picket 

Pin Mountain, Meyer Mountain, Nye, 

Beehive, Mount Douglas, Tumble 

Mountain, Cathedral Point, Mount 

Wood, Emerald Lake, Mackay Ranch, 

Roscoe, Haystack Peak, Granite Peak, 

Alpine, Sylvan Peak, Bare Mountain, 

Pinnacle Mountain, Little Park 

Mountain, Roundhead Butte, Cutoff 

Mountain, Cooke City, Fossil Lake, 

Castle Mountain, Silver Run Peak, Black 

Pyramid Mountain, Jim Smith Peak, 

Muddy Creek, Mount Hornaday, 

Abiathar Peak, Pilot Peak, Beartooth 

Butte, Deep Lake, Opal Creek, Wahb 

Springs, Canoe Lake, Hurricane Mesa, 

Hunter Peak, Dillworth Bench, Dodge 

Butte, Kendall Mountain, Gannett Peak, 

Pass Peak, Squaretop Mountain, 

Fremont Peak North, Bridger Lakes, 

Fremont Peak South, New Fork Lakes, 

Fremont Lake North, Cora, Fremont 

Lake South, Fayette Lake. 

(ii) Map of Greater Yellowstone Area 

unit follows: 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 10895 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP28FE08.005</GPH>
10896 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

* * * * * Dated: February 13, 2008. 

Lyle Laverty, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks. 

[FR Doc. 08–779 Filed 2–27–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS