[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 130 (Wednesday, July 8, 1998)][Proposed Rules][Pages 36994-37013]From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov][FR Doc No: 98-17771][[Page 36993]]_______________________________________________________________________Part IIDepartment of the Interior_______________________________________________________________________Fish and Wildlife Service_______________________________________________________________________50 CFR Part 17Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposal To List theContiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the CanadaLynx; Proposed RuleFederal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 / Wednesday, July 8, 1998 /Proposed Rules[[Page 36994]]-----------------------------------------------------------------------DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORFish and Wildlife Service50 CFR Part 17RIN 1018-AF03Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposal To Listthe Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the CanadaLynx as a Threatened Species; and the Captive Population of Canada LynxWithin the Coterminous United States (lower 48 States) as ThreatenedDue to Similarity of Appearance, With a Special RuleAGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.ACTION: Proposed rule.-----------------------------------------------------------------------SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to listthe contiguous United States population segment of the Canada lynx(Lynx canadensis) as threatened, pursuant to the Endangered Species Actof 1973, as amended (Act). This population segment includes the Statesof Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado,Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, NewYork, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. The contiguous United Statespopulation segment of the Canada lynx is threatened by human alterationof forests, low numbers as a result of past overexploitation, expansionof the range of competitors (bobcats (Felis rufus) and coyotes (Canislatrans)), and elevated levels of human access into lynx habitat. Thisrule also lists the captive population of Canada lynx within thecoterminous United States (lower 48 States) as threatened due tosimilarity of appearance with a special rule.DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received bySeptember 30, 1998. Public hearing locations and dates are set forth inSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.ADDRESSES: Comments and materials concerning this proposal should besent to the Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MontanaField Office, 100 N. Park Ave., Suite 320, Helena, Montana 59601.Comments and materials received will be available for publicinspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the aboveaddress.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kemper McMaster, Field Supervisor,Montana Field Office (see ADDRESSES section) (telephone 406/449-5225;facsimile 406/449-5339).SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public hearings on this proposal will beheld in the following locations:Western StatesColoradoWednesday, July 22, 1998 from 7 p.m. until 9 p.m. at the RamadaInn, 124 W. 6th St., Glenwood Springs, Colorado. This public hearingwill be preceded by an informational open house from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.Tuesday, July 28, 1998, from 7 p.m. until 9 p.m. at the SheratonDenver West, 360 Union Boulevard, Lakewood, Colorado. This publichearing will be preceded by an informational open house from 6 p.m. to7 p.m.IdahoThursday, September 10, 1998, from 2 p.m. until 4 p.m. and from 6p.m. until 8 p.m. at the Coeur d'Alene Inn and Conference Center, 414West Appleway Avenue, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.MontanaTuesday, July 21, 1998, from 2 p.m. until 4 p.m. and from 6 p.m.until 8 p.m. at the Colonial Inn Best Western, 2301 Colonial Drive,Helena, Montana.Wednesday, July 22, 1998, from 2 p.m. until 4 p.m. and from 6 p.m.until 8 p.m. at Cavanaugh's at Kalispell Center, 20 N. Main, Kalispell,Montana.OregonTuesday September 15, 1998, from 2 p.m. until 4 p.m. and from 6p.m. until 8 p.m. at Eastern Oregon University, Hoke University Center,1410 L Avenue, Rooms 201-203, LaGrande Oregon.WashingtonTuesday, September 8, 1998, from 2 p.m. until 4 p.m. and from 6p.m. until 8 p.m. at the Cedars Inn, 1 Appleway, Okanogan, Washington.WyomingWednesday, August 12, 1998, from 2 p.m until 4 p.m and from 6 p.muntil 8 p.m. at the Cody Auditorium, Cody Club Room, 1234 Beck Avenue,Cody, Wyoming.Eastern StatesMaineTuesday, September 15, 1998 from 7 p.m. until 9 p.m. at the OldTown High School, 240 Stillwater Ave, Old Town, Maine.Great Lakes StatesWisconsinTuesday, September 15, 1998 from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. at the NorthernGreat Lakes Center on County Road G near Hwy 2, west of Ashland,Wisconsin. This public hearing will be preceded by an informationalopen house from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.BackgroundThe Canada lynx is a medium-sized cat with long legs, large, well-furred paws, long tufts on the ears, and a short, black-tipped tail(McCord and Cardoza 1982). Adult males average 10 kilograms (kg) (22pounds (lb)) in weight and 85 centimeters (cm) (33.5 inches (in)) inlength (head to tail), and females average 8.5 kg (19 lb) and 82 cm (32in) (Quinn and Parker 1987). The lynx's long legs and large feet makeit highly adapted to hunting in deep snow.The bobcat (F. rufus) is a North American relative of the Canadalynx. Compared to the lynx, the bobcat has smaller paws, shorter eartufts, a more spotted pelage, and only the top of the tip of the tailis black. The paws of the lynx have twice the surface area of those ofthe bobcat (Quinn and Parker 1987). The lynx also differs in its bodyproportions in comparison to the bobcat. Lynx have longer legs, withhind legs that are longer than the front legs, giving the lynx a``stooped'' appearance (Quinn and Parker 1987). Bobcats are largelyrestricted to habitats where deep snows do not accumulate (Koehler andHornocker 1991). Hybridization between lynx and bobcat is unknown(Quinn and Parker 1987).Classification of the Canada lynx (also called the North Americanlynx) has been subject to revision. The Service, in accordance withWilson and Reeder (1993), recognizes the Canada lynx as L. canadensis.The Service previously used the name L. lynx canadensis for the Canadalynx (Jones et al. 1992; S. Williams, Texas Tech University, pers.comm. 1994). Other scientific names still in use include Felis lynx orF. lynx canadensis (Jones et al. 1986; Tumlison 1987).The historical and present North American range of the Canada lynxnorth of the contiguous United States includes Alaska and that part ofCanada that extends from the Yukon and Northwest Territories south tothe United States border, and east to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Inthe contiguous United States, the lynx historically occurred in theCascade Range of Washington and Oregon; the Rocky Mountains fromMontana, Idaho, and Oregon south to Utah and Colorado; the westernGreat Lakes region; and the northeastern United States region fromMaine, south to New York and Pennsylvania, and east to Massachusetts(McCord and Cardoza 1982; Quinn and Parker 1987).[[Page 36995]]In the contiguous United States, Canada lynx inhabit a mosaicbetween boreal forests and subalpine coniferous forest or northernhardwoods, whereas Canada lynx habitat in Canada and Alaska is theboreal forest ecosystem (Barbour et al. 1980; McCord and Cardoza 1982;Koehler and Aubry 1994; M. Hunter, University of Maine, pers. comm.1994, Colorado Division of Wildlife 1997).Canada lynx are specialized predators that are highly dependent onthe snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) for food. Snowshoe hare preferdiverse, early successional forests with stands of conifers and shrubbyunderstories that provide for feeding and cover to escape frompredators and protection during extreme weather (Wolfe et al. 1982,Monthey 1986, Koehler and Aubry 1994). Lynx usually concentrate theirforaging activities in areas where hare activity is high (Koehler etal. 1979; Parker 1981; Ward and Krebs 1985; Hash 1990; Weaver 1993;Koehler and Aubry 1994; D. Winger, U.S. Forest Service, pers. comm.1994).Canada lynx utilize late successional forests with large woodydebris, such as downed logs and windfalls, to provide denning siteswith security and thermal cover for kittens (McCord and Cardoza 1982,Koehler 1990, Koehler and Brittell 1990). In Washington, lynx usedlodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), spruce (Picea spp.), and subalpine fir(Abies lasiocarpa) forests older than 200 years for denning (Koehlerand Brittell 1990). Based on information from the western UnitedStates, Koehler and Brittell (1990) concluded sites selected fordenning also must provide for minimal disturbance by humans andproximity to foraging habitat (early successional forests), withdenning stands at least 1 hectare (ha) (2.471 acres (ac)) in size.Lynx require adequate travel cover (frequently intermediatesuccessional forest stages) to provide connectivity within a forestlandscape for security, movement within home ranges, and access betweenden sites and foraging areas (Brittell et al. 1989, Koehler and Aubry1994). Such areas also may provide foraging opportunities.The size and shape of Canada lynx home ranges appear related to theavailability of prey and the density of lynx (Koehler and Aubry 1994).Documented home ranges vary from 12 to 243 square kilometers (sq km)(5-94 square miles (sq mi)) and larger (Saunders 1963; Brand et al.1976; Mech 1980; Parker et al. 1983; Koehler and Aubry 1994).The association between lynx and snowshoe hare is considered aclassic predator-prey relationship (Saunders 1963; van Zyll de Jong1966; Quinn and Parker 1987). In much of its North American range,Canada lynx populations fluctuate with the approximate 10-year harecycle of abundance (Elton and Nicholson 1942); as hare populationsincrease, lynx populations increase. Generally, it is believed thatwhen hare populations are at their cyclic high, they deplete their foodresources and hare populations decline. This causes lynx populations todecline as a result of reduced reproductive success caused by aninadequate alternate food source (Nellis et al. 1972; Brand et al.1976).Snowshoe hare provide the prey quality necessary to support highdensity lynx populations (Brand and Keith 1979). Lynx also preyopportunistically on other small mammals and birds, particularly whenhare populations decline (Nellis et al. 1972; Brand et al. 1976; McCordand Cardoza 1982). Apparently, a shift to alternate food sources maynot compensate for the decrease in hares consumed (Koehler and Aubry1994). The lower quality diet causes sudden decreases in theproductivity of adult females, and decreased survival of young, whichcauses recruitment to the breeding population to essentially cease(Nellis et al. 1972; Brand and Keith 1979).Based primarily on studies in the western mountains of thecontiguous United States, it appears lynx and snowshoe hare in moresouthern latitudes may not exhibit strong population cycles (Dolbeerand Clark 1975; Wolff 1980; Buehler and Keith 1982; Brittell et al.1989; Koehler 1990; Koehler and Aubry 1994). Wolff (1982 in Koehler andAubry 1994) hypothesized that the presence of additional predators andcompetitors of hares at lower latitudes accounts for this pattern. Therelative stability of hare populations in southern latitudes also maybe a result of patchy, suboptimal habitat (Buehler and Keith 1982,Koehler 1990, Koehler and Aubry 1994).Periodic increases in lynx numbers in the contiguous United Statesmay be accentuated by dispersal of transient animals from Canadianpopulations. Canada lynx are capable of dispersing extremely longdistances (Mech 1977; Brainerd 1985; Washington Department of Wildlife1993); for example, a male was documented traveling 616 km (370 mi)(Brainerd 1985). Canada lynx may disperse long distances from theirnormal range to search for food when snowshoe hare populations decline(Ward and Krebs 1985; C. Pils, in litt. 1994; Koehler and Aubry 1994).Canada lynx also may disperse when local lynx densities are high (U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service 1977; Thiel 1987; J. Conley, Idaho Departmentof Fish and Game, in litt. 1994).Because lynx occurrence throughout much of the contiguous UnitedStates is on the southern periphery of the species' range, there isspeculation that presence of lynx in the contiguous United States issolely a consequence of dispersal from Canada. This has led tospeculation that most of the United States may never have supportedself-sustaining, resident

¹

 populations over time (T.Bremicker, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, in litt. 1994; S.Fritts, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in litt. 1994).---------------------------------------------------------------------------\1\ Note: With respect to the lynx and the analysis presented inthis document, the terms ``resident'' and ``resident population''mean a group or subgroup of lynx in an area (e.g., Minnesota) orportion of a larger area (e.g., Great Lakes States) that is capableof long-term persistence, based on self-sustaining reproduction ofyoung and successful recruitment of young into the breeding agecohort, without immigration of lynx from Canada. It is acknowledgedthat movements of lynx across the United States and Canada borderdid occur and that this migration was beneficial to the lynx in thecontiguous United States.---------------------------------------------------------------------------Based on the majority view of the respondents and the bestscientific and commercial data available, the Service has determinedthat, historically, the Canada lynx was a resident species in 16 Statesin the contiguous United States, occurring in dispersed populations atrelatively low densities (Rust 1946; Harger 1965; Nellis 1971;Henderson 1978; Brocke 1982; Mccord and Cardoza 1982; Brainerd 1985;Washington Department of Wildlife 1993; Koehler and Aubry 1994; Kurta1995; T. Bailey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in litt. 1994; E.Bangs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1994; P. Beir,Northern Arizona University, in litt. 1994; B. Berg, MinnesotaDepartment of Natural Resources, pers. comm. 1994; P. Brussard,University of Nevada, in litt. 1994; G. Koehler, IndependentResearcher, in litt. 1994; W. Krohn, University of Maine, in litt.1994; J. Weaver, Independent Researcher, in litt. 1994). Furthermore,the historic and current presence of snowshoe hare populations, thelynx's primary food, within the same ecosystems in the contiguousUnited States (Adams 1959; Keener 1971; Dolbeer and Clark 1975; Buehlerand Keith 1982; Fuller and Heisey 1986; Monthey 1986; Koehler 1991)supports the Service's conclusion.The Service considers Canada lynx to have been historicallyresident within Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania,Massachusetts, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota,[[Page 36996]]Montana, Wyoming, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Utah, and Colorado.While evidence suggests historical lynx numbers in the contiguousUnited States increased because of dispersal from lynx populations innorthern latitudes during the cyclic peaks (Henderson 1978, Mech 1980),the Service does not conclude that dispersal from Canada was requiredto maintain the contiguous United States lynx population as viable.However, dispersal of Canada lynx into the contiguous United States maynow be necessary to replenish lynx numbers because of the currentstatus of lynx in the contiguous United States. In addition, theService concludes that suitable Canada lynx habitat currently exists(and existed to a greater extent historically) in the contiguous UnitedStates (Rust 1946; Harger 1965; Nellis 1971; Washington Department ofWildlife 1993; Henderson 1978; B. Giddings, Montana Department of Fish,Wildlife, and Parks, in litt. 1994; S. Parren, Vermont Department ofFish and Wildlife, pers. comm. 1994; F. Hurley, in litt. 1994; and K.Staley, White Mountain National Forest, pers. comm. 1994).Distribution and StatusWithin the contiguous United States, the lynx population is dividedregionally by ecological barriers consisting of unsuitable lynxhabitat. These regions are the Northeast, the Great Lakes, and theRocky Mountains/Cascades. To enhance the organization and clarity ofthis proposal, the regions are discussed separately below.Northeast Region--Historically, lynx habitat in the NortheastUnited States existed in a mostly contiguous block of forest in theecotone between boreal and deciduous forest. This forest has beendescribed as sub-boreal forest (M. Hunter, University of Maine, pers.comm. 1994). Principal tree species include red spruce (Picea rubens)and balsam fir (Abies balsamea), interspersed with northern hardwoodssuch as sugar maple (Acer saccharum), yellow birch (Betulaalleghaniensis), and American beech (Fagus grandifolia). Lynx onceoccurred from northern Maine, across northern New Hampshire andVermont, to the Adirondacks in New York (McCord and Cardoza 1982) andprobably occurred southward along the higher elevations of the mountainranges in the region (Brocke 1982; K. Gustafson, New HampshireDepartment of Fish and Game, pers. comm. 1994). Unfortunately, inrecords compiled prior to the 1970's, lynx were often not distinguishedfrom bobcats (J. Cardoza, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries andWildlife, pers. comm. 1994).Snowshoe hare habitat in the region is characterized by spruce/firsoftwood forests typical of boreal forests; a mixture of mature andsuccessional softwood growth provides cover and browse for hares(Monthey 1986). Forested habitat in the region has increased because ofland-use changes during the past century (Irland 1982, Litvaitis 1993).In some areas, there may be a gradual upward trend in the coniferouscomponent as spruce and fir regenerate beneath the hardwood speciesthat had established after large-scale logging and burning at the turnof the century (D. Degraff, U.S. Forest Service, pers. comm. 1994; F.Hurley, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, in litt.1994; J. Lanier, New Hampshire Fish and Game, pers. comm. 1994).Although localized habitat conditions have improved, reoccupation ofthese areas may be impeded by barriers to lynx immigration, such aspaved roads with high-volume traffic, nonforested agriculturalhabitats, or other intervening areas of unsuitable habitat.Although Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York report areasof suitable lynx habitat and/or prey base, low numbers of lynx arepresent only in Maine and lynx may be extirpated throughout theremainder of the Northeast Region (see discussion below). Much of thepotential lynx habitat in this region is held in private ownership(Harper et al. 1990).Maine--In Maine, historical accounts indicate that, although lynxprobably were never abundant, they were resident in the State and thatnumbers of lynx fluctuated over the past 150 years (Maine Department ofInland Fisheries and Wildlife, in litt. 1997). Information onpopulation size, trends, distribution, and factors influencing thesevariables are sparse and mostly anecdotal (F. Hurley, in litt. 1994).Lynx were bountied in Maine prior to the closure of hunting andtrapping seasons in 1967.Suitable habitat and prey to support lynx are abundant innorthwestern Maine (F. Hurley, in litt. 1994). The Maine Department ofInland Fisheries and Wildlife classifies the lynx as a species ofspecial concern (Matula 1997). The lynx is currently protected fromhunting and trapping.Although no reliable population estimates exist, in 1994 it wassuggested that only 200 animals or less occur statewide (MaineDepartment of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife 1994). A statewide tracksurvey, initiated during the 1994/1995 winter was conducted for 3successive years. A total of 4,118, 1-km (0.62-mi) transects weresurveyed. Lynx were encountered on 54 of the transects in ninetownships, all during the first year of the survey (Maine Department ofInland Fisheries and Wildlife, in litt. 1997). However, biologists haveencountered lynx tracks in northwestern Maine during the past threewinters while conducting unrelated fieldwork (Maine Department ofInland Fisheries and Wildlife, in litt., 1998). The Service concludes aresident lynx population exists in Maine.New Hampshire--Lynx were intermittently bountied in New Hampshireuntil 1965. In response to the apparent declines in lynx abundancereflected in bounty numbers, the bounty was repealed and thereafter thelynx was provided full protection from legal harvest (Siegler 1971;Silver 1974; Litvaitis et al. 1991). Despite legal protection, the lynxpopulation did not increase. Since 1980, the lynx has been listed as anendangered species by the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. Twoyears of winter track surveys did not detect Canada lynx (Litvaitis etal. 1991). The Service concludes the Canada lynx is very rare andlikely extirpated from New Hampshire.Vermont--In Vermont, historically, lynx likely occurred at lowdensities in the northern part of the State. Quantitative data on thecurrent abundance or distribution of lynx are unavailable. By the mid-1900's, Vermont had not had a documented breeding population of lynxfor several decades (Osgood 1938 in Vermont Department of Fish andWildlife 1987). Since 1972 the lynx has been listed by the State asendangered. One of the last verified occurrences of lynx in the Stateoccurred in 1968, with periodic reports since then. Suitable habitatexists in the northeastern section and along mountain ridges in theState, and snowshoe hares are present in high numbers (S. Parren,Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife, pers. comm. 1994; C. Groves,Green Mountain National Forest, pers. comm. 1994). Canada lynx iscurrently considered to be extirpated in Vermont (S. Parren, pers.comm. 1998). The Service concludes the Canada lynx is very rare andlikely extirpated from Vermont.New York State--Historically, lynx occurred in most northernregions of New York, the Adirondack Mountains, and the CatskillMountains (K. Gustafson, pers. comm. 1994), but they are now consideredextirpated (G. Parsons, New York State Department of EnvironmentalConservation, in litt. 1994). By the 1880's, the population was[[Page 36997]]apparently approaching extirpation (Miller 1899 in Brocke 1982).Trapping and sighting records from the early 1900's to the presentindicate that lynx occurred only infrequently. The most recent verifiedsighting was in 1980 (G. Parsons, in litt. 1994). An abundant prey baseexists (Brocke 1982), but the habitat has been highly fragmented.Extensive road infrastructure and a lack of early successionalconiferous forest in much of the potential habitat likely precludesnatural lynx reestablishment in New York (G. Batchellor, New York StateDepartment of Environmental Conservation, pers. comm. 1994; G. Parsons,in litt. 1994).An effort to reintroduce Canada lynx into the Adirondack Mountainsoccurred from 1988 to 1990 (Brocke et al. 1990, D. Major, U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, pers. comm. 1998), but success of the reintroductionremains doubtful. As of 1993, some Canada lynx were believed stillpresent, but no reproduction had been documented (K. Gustafson, pers.comm. 1994). A collared lynx from the reintroduction effort wasrecently found near Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (M. Amaral, U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, pers. comm. 1997). No verified occurrences in NewYork have been reported recently; however, both the State University ofNew York at Syracuse and the New York Department of EnvironmentalConservation maintain records of reported sightings. No furthermonitoring is planned. In New York, lynx are legally classified as asmall game species with a closed season. The Service concludes theCanada lynx is very rare and probably extirpated from New York.Pennsylvania/Massachusetts--In Pennsylvania and Massachusetts,located at the southernmost reaches of the historical range of thespecies in the Northeast United States (Hall and Kelson 1959), residentanimals may have existed in the coniferous forests of higher elevationsof mountain ranges, but accurate historical information is unavailable.Based on the lack of lynx habitat in these States, historically theanimal was probably uncommon (J. Belfonti, in litt. 1994). Manyindividuals in these States may have dispersed from more northernregions during cyclic irruptions of the lynx populations in Canada (J.Belfonti, The Nature Conservancy, in litt. 1994). The last known recordof a naturally occurring Canada lynx in Pennsylvania was in 1923 (J.Belfonti, in litt. 1994), and a possible record from 1930 exists forMassachusetts (J. Cardoza, in litt. 1994). The Service concludes lynxare extirpated from Pennsylvania and Massachusetts.Great Lakes Region--Historically the lynx was found in the westernGreat Lakes States of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. The habitatoccupied by lynx in this region consists primarily of an ecotonebetween boreal and mixed deciduous forest and is a mosaic of balsamfir, eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), eastern white pine (Pinusstrobus), jack pine (P. banksiana), quaking aspen (Populustremuloides), birch (Betula spp.), and maple (Acer spp.) (Barbour etal. 1980). Much of the lynx habitat in this region is in publicownership, primarily county, State, or national forests.The lynx population in this region was regularly supplemented bydispersing lynx from Canada (Harger 1965; M. DonCarlos, in litt. 1994;C. Pils, in litt. 1994). Historically, Ontario and Manitoba had verystrong, cyclic lynx populations from which individuals dispersed tosearch for food during periods when the hare populations crashed orduring cyclic highs of lynx populations. However, trapping harvestsduring the period of extremely high pelt prices in the 1970's and1980's substantially impacted Canadian lynx populations. As a result,harvest was closed temporarily and since has been closely regulated (I.McKay, Manitoba Natural Resources, in litt. 1994; M. Novak, OntarioMinistry of Natural Resources, pers. comm. 1994). Because of lownumbers of lynx, Manitoba closed its season on lynx harvest from 1995to 1997 (I. McKay, pers. comm. 1997). Although current habitatconditions along the Canada/United States border for lynx are mostlyintact and suitable, dispersal into the Great Lakes States has beenseverely limited because of the reduced lynx population in Canada (D.Mech, pers comm. 1994; M. Novak, pers. comm. 1994).Minnesota--In the past, Minnesota lynx populations fluctuatedmarkedly during 10-year cycles and were influenced by influxes fromCanada (Henderson 1978; Mech 1980; M. DonCarlos, Minnesota Departmentof Natural Resources, in litt. 1994). The resident lynx population wasrestricted to the northeastern area of the State; however, transientshave been found throughout Minnesota (Gunderson 1978; Mech 1980).Until 1965, lynx were bountied in Minnesota. In 1976, the lynx wasclassified as a game species and harvest seasons were established (M.DonCarlos, in litt. 1994). Harvest and bounty records for the State areavailable since 1930. Based on these records, highs in the lynx cyclewere approximated to have occurred in 1940, 1952, 1962, and 1973(Henderson 1978). Henderson (1978) estimated that during a 47-yearperiod (1930-1976), the Minnesota lynx harvest was substantial, rangingfrom at least 50 to more than 200 per year during 29 seasons.From the mid-1970's to the late 1980's, pelt prices were extremelyhigh in Canada and the United States. Also, from 1979 to 1980, harenumbers were at their cyclic peak (M. DonCarlos, in litt. 1994).Despite these two factors, lynx harvest remained very low and theexpected lynx peak for the early 1980's did not occur (B. Berg, pers.comm. 1994; M. DonCarlos, in litt. 1994). As a result, the harvestseason was closed and remains closed today. Although lynx are currentlyconsidered rare (D. Mech, pers. comm. 1994), available habitat innorthern Minnesota is capable of maintaining resident lynx populations(M. DonCarlos, in litt. 1994). Based on recent anecdotal information,the Service concludes that a resident population possibly exists inMinnesota (P. Burke, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1998).Wisconsin--A resident lynx population likely has not existed inWisconsin since 1900 (Thiel 1987). The presence of lynx in Wisconsinhas been associated with the cyclic lynx population fluctuations inCanada (Thiel 1987). A bounty on lynx existed until 1957. Between 1948and 1956, 19 lynx were harvested in the State; annual harvest rangedfrom zero (1954) to four (1952) (Wisconsin Department of NaturalResources 1993). Lynx were placed on the protected species list in 1957and were classified as State endangered in 1972 (C. Pils, in litt.1994). Between 1976 and 1984, 63 lynx observations were reported, withmost reports from the northwestern area adjacent to Minnesota; sevenlynx were reported from 1991-1993, two of which were mortalities(Wydeven 1992; Wydeven 1993; Wydeven in prep.; C. Pils, in litt. 1994).There were no sightings of lynx in 1994 or 1995 and one possible set oftracks was sighted in 1996 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in litt.1997). Snowshoe hares occur across northern Wisconsin (Buehler andKeith 1982). Potential lynx habitat in northern Wisconsin has remainedin an early- to mid-successional mixed coniferous forest conditionsince the early 1900's, with some limited older growth present butprimarily confined to forested wetlands (D. Zastrow, WisconsinDepartment of Natural Resources, pers. comm. 1998). The lynx has beenreclassified as a State protected species with a closed season (A.Wydeven, Wisconsin Department of Natural[[Page 36998]]Resources, pers. comm. 1998). Despite extensive review of historic andcurrent information regarding the lynx in Wisconsin, neither Jackson(1961) nor Thiel (1987) were able to cite any evidence of breedingsubsequent to the decline of the species in the 1800's. There has beena continued decline in confirmed sightings in recent years and theService concludes that, based on available information, a residentpopulation of lynx no longer exists in Wisconsin, although individualanimals likely are present.Michigan--In Michigan, historical reports indicate that the Canadalynx was resident and widespread throughout the upper and lowerpeninsula in the 19th century (Harger 1965). Lynx moved into the upperpeninsula from Wisconsin or crossed the St. Mary's River from Ontario(Baker 1983). The limited ability for lynx dispersal from the upper tothe lower peninsula, in addition to positive records of lynx in 23lower peninsula counties, indicated that in the lower peninsula, Canadalynx were self-sustaining in the past (Harger 1965; Baker 1983). Canadalynx were believed extirpated from Michigan's lower peninsula in 1928,and by 1938 they were considered rare or extinct throughout the State(Harger 1965). The lynx persisted on Isle Royale in Lake Superior intothe late 1970's (Peterson 1977 in Baker 1983). Based on the numbers anddistribution of lynx reported from 1940 to 1965, particularly during1962, Harger (1965) believed that lynx were repopulating Michigan as aresult of improved habitat conditions in the upper peninsula.The lynx was first listed as State endangered in 1974, but was notincluded on the list during revisions in 1976 and 1980. It was returnedto the list as threatened in 1983 and its status upgraded to endangeredin 1987, where it remains. As such, it is protected from harvest butconservation actions are limited because little is known about thespecies requirements (T. Weise, in litt. 1994).Throughout the 1980's and 1990's, reports of lynx in the upperpeninsula of Michigan have been rare; no lynx have been reported in thelower peninsula during this time period (T. Weise, Michigan Departmentof Natural Resources, in litt. 1994). The lynx's current distributionin Michigan is unknown but is likely limited to the upper peninsula. Nosurveys have been conducted to determine lynx numbers or range (T.Weise, in litt. 1994). The last breeding record was in 1976 (T. Weise,in litt. 1994). Suitable lynx habitat is currently available inMichigan's upper peninsula (T. Weise, in litt. 1994). Since the mid-1960's the trend of lynx numbers has been unknown. However, the Serviceconcludes that low numbers of lynx may still occur in Michigan's upperpeninsula with no increasing trend apparent.Rocky Mountain/Cascades Region--Lynx currently are thought to bepresent in the western mountains of the contiguous United States in theCascades Range of Washington, the Thompson-Okanogan Highlands ofnorthern Washington, the Blue Mountains of Oregon, and the RockyMountains in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado.Lynx habitat in Montana occurs primarily in the high elevationmountains. Principal tree species include lodgepole pine (Pinuscontorta), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and subalpine fir(Abies lasiocarpa) (Koehler et al. 1979, Hash 1990). In Washington,lynx live in boreal-type forests that occur in north central Washingtonalong the east slope of the Cascade Mountain range and the Thompson-Okanogan Highlands. In Oregon, lynx habitat exists in the BlueMountains in northeastern Oregon and the Cascades. Preferred lynxhabitat in Idaho consists of dense coniferous, high elevation forestbroken by small shrubby openings and coniferous swamps (Leptich 1990).Unsuitable habitat in Wyoming's Red Desert isolates the lynx populationin Colorado and extreme southeastern Wyoming from that of the RockyMountains to the northwest (Thompson and Halfpenny 1989; Koehler andAubry 1994). Colorado's montane and subalpine forest ecosystems arenaturally highly fragmented (Findley and Anderson 1956 in Koehler andAubry 1994, Thompson 1994). Utah is considered the southern margin ofthe Canada lynx range.Washington--In Washington, resident Canada lynx were historicallyfound in highest concentrations in the northeast and north centralregions, along the east slope of the Cascade Mountains (WashingtonDepartment of Wildlife 1993). Nellis (1971) regarded lynx occurrence inWashington as rare to common. Records of lynx exist from the MountRainier National Park area in the central Cascades, south in theCascades nearly to the Oregon border on Mount Adams, and in the BlueMountains in the southeastern part of the State (Taylor and Shaw 1927in Koehler and Aubry 1994, Dalquest 1948, Washington Department ofNatural Resources 1996a). Washington has designated six ``LynxManagement Zones'' across north central Washington (WashingtonDepartment of Natural Resources 1996a). Currently, lynx occupy five ofthese zones: Okanogan, Kettle Range, the Wedge, Little Pend Oreille,and Salmo Priest. Additionally, lynx occupy the northern and southernCascades of Washington (Washington Department of Natural Resources1996a; C. Lee, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1998). Muchof these areas are in Federal, Tribal, and State ownership.A total harvest of 215 lynx was reported for the hunting andtrapping seasons from 1960-61 to 1990-91, with peak harvests in 1969-70(31 lynx) and 1976-77 (39 lynx) (Washington Department of Wildlife1993). Following the 1976-77 season, lynx harvests decreased markedly,resulting in increasingly restrictive harvest regulations. Based ontrapper interviews and track sighting, lynx densities in northeasternWashington appear to have been depressed during at least the past 20years (Washington Department of Wildlife 1993). In response to markedlydecreased harvests, regulations were tightened in 1977-78; lynx huntingand trapping seasons were closed in 1991 (Washington Department ofWildlife 1993).The current lynx population in the State of Washington has beenestimated at 96 to 191 individuals (Washington Department of Wildlife1993). Brittell et al. (1989) estimated 225 lynx in Washington State.However, population estimates may be high because it was assumed thathabitat suitability and lynx densities were similar across the range,which is not the case (Washington Department of Wildlife 1993). Since1993, the lynx has been listed as a State threatened species(Washington Department of Wildlife 1993). The Service concludes that aresident lynx population exists in the State of Washington.Oregon--Resident Canada lynx populations were historically low inOregon (Koehler and Aubry 1994). Historic records exist from ninecounties in Oregon (Bailey 1936, Nellis 1971). Recent observations oflynx have been reported from the Cascades and the Blue Mountains innortheastern Oregon (Csuti et al. 1997; E. Gaines, Oregon NaturalHeritage Program, in litt. 1994; R. Anderson, Wallowa-Whitman NationalForest, in litt. 1998). The Canada lynx is currently classified as afurbearer with a closed trapping and hunting season (E. Gaines, OregonNatural Heritage Program, pers. comm. 1997). The Service concludes thata self-sustaining resident population does not exist in Oregon, butindividual animals are present.[[Page 36999]]Idaho--According to Rust (1946), lynx were distributed throughoutnorthern Idaho in the early 1940's, occurring in 8 of the 10 northernand north-central counties. In 1990, Hash reported stable or decliningsmall lynx populations in Idaho. Harvest records were unreliable priorto the late 1980's because no distinction was made between lynx andlarge bobcats. In 1982, Idaho Department of Fish and Game initiated amandatory pelt tagging program and the number of reported lynx harvestsdropped to zero. Twelve lynx were reported harvested between 1978 and1991 (M. Tera-Berns, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, pers. comm.1997). No current population estimates are available (P. Harrington,U.S. Forest Service, pers. comm. 1994; J. Hayden, Idaho Department ofFish and Game, pers. comm. 1994). Recent confirmed lynx reports arescarce (J. Conley, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, in litt. 1994).Prior to 1977, the species was considered a predator, subject tounrestricted harvest with no closed season and no bag limit. In 1990,in response to concern over the status of lynx in Idaho, the IdahoDepartment of Fish and Game instituted a statewide harvest quota ofthree lynx per year. Idaho closed the Canada lynx trapping/huntingseason in the 1997/1998 season because the quota had not been filled inseveral years, although lynx remain classified as a furbearer. In 1995,a multiple agency Conservation Strategy was initiated to assess theconservation of the lynx and other forest carnivores (Idaho Departmentof Fish and Game et al. 1995; Roloff 1995). The Service concludes thata self-sustaining resident population does not exist in Idaho, butindividual animals are present.Montana--In Montana, Canada lynx were reported to be common (Nellis1971) and were found throughout the western part of the State (B.Giddings, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, in litt.1994). After 1985, lynx populations in Montana were believed to be ator near their lowest levels in the past several decades (Hash 1990).Brainerd (1985) documented evidence of Canada lynx reproduction;however, more recent evidence of recruitment into the population hasnot been documented.Until 1977, lynx in Montana were classified as nongame and wereprovided no regulatory protection (D. Childress, Montana Department ofFish, Wildlife, and Parks, in litt. 1990). Assessment of historicpopulation levels or trends is difficult because lynx often were notdistinguished from bobcats in harvest records prior to 1977. Between1959 and 1967, estimates of statewide harvest ranged from a low of 36in the 1961-62 season to a high of 376 during the 1963-64 season(Hoffman et al. 1969). However, these figures likely overestimate lynxabundance because they probably include bobcats. Since 1985, harvestrecords exist from 24 counties in the northwest, southwest, and west-central part of the State (B. Giddings, in litt. 1994). Hoffman et al.(1969) cited numerous records of lynx harvested in eastern Montana'sGreat Plains region between 1959 and 1967, but these records aresuspect because of possible misidentification with bobcat.Beginning in 1977, lynx were classified as a furbearer. A seasonlength and licensing regulations were set, but no quota was imposed.Harvest records can reflect the status of lynx populations; however,the lynx harvest and, consequently, the lynx population likely weresignificantly influenced by extremely high pelt prices during the mid-1970's to late 1980's.Since 1977, Montana's highest lynx harvest occurred in both 1979and 1984 when 62 lynx were taken in each season (B. Giddings, in litt.1994). Although quotas dropped incrementally from 135 to 40 over an 8-year period (1982-1989), lynx harvest never approached the quotalevels, ranging from 62 to 15 animals taken per season (B. Giddings, inlitt. 1994). After 1985, lynx harvests declined to record lows and lynxpopulations in Montana were believed to be at or near their lowestlevels in the past several decades (Hash 1990). In response, a districtof the Montana Trappers Association requested that lynx harvest beclosed for one season (S. Conn, Montana Trappers Association, in litt.1990). The State responded by decreasing the quota from 40 to 5 in 1990(B. Giddings, in litt. 1994). During this period, the lowest annualharvest occurred in 1990, with two lynx taken while the quota was five(B. Giddings, in litt. 1994). From 1991 to the present, the quota hasbeen two, which was filled annually or exceeded by one (1991) or two(1993) (B. Giddings, in litt. 1994).The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks estimated thelynx population as 1,750 to 2,400 in 1977, 700 to 950 in 1982, and1,040 lynx in 1994 (B. Giddings, in litt. 1994). These estimates weredetermined using a habitat area/density index. Habitat area estimatesdid not account for habitat areas that would be unsuitable for lynx.Harvest records, winter track surveys conducted since 1990-91, andtrapper logbooks, have led Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, andParks to conclude that the State's lynx population has recovered and isdistributed across its historic range (B. Giddings, in litt. 1994).However, others familiar with lynx in the Rocky Mountain region suggestthat these estimates are optimistic, and express serious concerns aboutthe status of lynx in Montana (E. Bangs, pers. comm. 1994; M.Hornocker, Hornocker Wildlife Research Institute, Inc., in litt. 1994;G. Koehler, in litt. 1994; L. Nordstrom, U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, in litt. 1994; M. Roy and S. Torbit, National WildlifeFederation, in litt. 1994). The Service concludes a resident populationof lynx is present in Montana.Wyoming--In Wyoming, Canada lynx are generally believed to havebeen uncommon in the State because of the limited availability of largeareas of suitable habitat (Reeve et al. 1986; Clark and Stromberg 1987;Wyoming Game and Fish Department 1992). Until 1957, lynx were bountiedin the State. Since 1973, the lynx has been listed as a protectednongame species. Nearly all historical and recent records of lynx inWyoming are from the western mountain ranges, primarily within theGreater Yellowstone Ecosystem (Reeve et al. 1986). However, documentedreports of lynx in Yellowstone National Park are rare (S. Consolo-Murphy, Yellowstone National Park, pers. comm. 1994). Elsewhere inWyoming, lynx have been reported from the Uinta Mountains in theextreme southwest and the Big Horn Mountains in the north-central partof the State, although these are unconfirmed by field investigations(Reeve et al. 1986).Only 12 records of lynx exist for Wyoming from 1981 to 1994 (C.Gillin, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, in litt. 1994). In late 1996the Wyoming Game and Fish Department began a study to attempt todocument the current range of the lynx. Two lynx have been trapped andcollared in the Wyoming Range and continue to be tracked (B. Oakleaf,Wyoming Game and Fish Department, pers. comm. 1998). In addition, onelynx was confirmed in the Wind River Range in 1997 (B. Luce, WyomingGame and Fish, pers. comm. 1997).If lynx exist in southeastern Wyoming, they are isolated from therest of the State by the Red Desert but are contiguous with Coloradolynx populations (J. Fitzgerald, University of Northern Colorado, pers.comm. 1994; J. Halfpenny, Independent Researcher, pers. comm. 1994; J.Weaver, pers. comm. 1994). None of the reports of lynx in the MedicineBow and Laramie ranges in southeastern Wyoming have been confirmed todate (Reeve et al. 1986). The Service concludes that,[[Page 37000]]although individual lynx are present, a resident population likely nolonger exists in Wyoming.Utah--In Utah, Canada lynx are thought to be nearly extirpated,although it is possible a few may exist in the high, inaccessible areasof the Uinta Mountains (B. Blackwell, Utah Department of NaturalResources, pers. comm. 1994). Sightings have been reported from most ofthe mountain ranges in Utah. However, because of misidentification withthe bobcat, some of these records may not be valid (McKay 1991). Nearlyall the reliable lynx reports are from the Uinta Mountain Range alongthe Wyoming border (McKay 1991). The lynx is listed as a Statesensitive species. The Service concludes that a self-sustainingresident population does not exist in Utah, but individual animals maybe present.Colorado--Colorado represents the extreme southern edge of therange of the Canada lynx. Wyoming's Red Desert likely acts as a barrierthat reduces or precludes opportunities for immigration and emigration,effectively isolating lynx in the southern Rocky Mountains in Coloradoand Wyoming (Halfpenny et al. 1982; Koehler and Aubry 1994; G. Koehler,in litt. 1994; J. Weaver, in litt. 1994). It is likely Canada lynxnever have been abundant in Colorado (Colorado Division of Wildlife etal. 1997), partially because its montane and subalpine forestecosystems are naturally highly fragmented (Thompson 1994).The lynx has been listed as a State endangered species since 1976(Colorado Division of Wildlife et al. 1997). From the late 1800's to1993, only 65 reliable lynx records exist; the last verified lynxspecimens were taken in the early 1970's (J. Sheppard, ColoradoDivision of Wildlife, in litt. 1994). Since the late 1970's, intensivesurveying efforts have revealed only minimal evidence of lynx presence(Halfpenny and Miller 1981; Thompson and Halfpenny 1989; Anderson 1990;Thompson and Halfpenny 1991; Andrews 1992; Carney 1993; Fitzgerald1994; J. Sheppard, in litt. 1994; J. Halfpenny, pers. comm. 1994;Colorado Division of Wildlife et al. 1997). Lynx in Colorado arebelieved to be extremely rare and the long-term viability of the lynxin Colorado is questionable (Colorado Division of Wildlife et al.1997). The Service concludes that a self-sustaining resident populationdoes not exist in Colorado, but individual animals may be present.Other Reports or Sightings--Lynx observations in Nevada, NorthDakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, Indiana, Ohio, and Virginiaappear to be a result of transients dispersing during periods of highlynx density elsewhere (Hall and Kelson 1959; Burt 1954 in Brocke 1982;S. Johnson, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, in litt. 1994; P.Jones, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, in litt. 1994; W. Jobman,U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in litt. 1997; Smithsonian Institute,in litt. 1998). During the early 1960's, lynx moved into the GreatPlains and the Midwest region of the United States during an apparentcyclic high in surrounding lynx populations (Gunderson 1978; Mech 1980;DeStefano 1987; South Dakota Natural Heritage Program, in litt. 1994).Based on the lynx's ecological requirements, such records likelyrepresent dispersing, transient individuals, not resident populations.Summary of Status--Based on information available to the Service atthis time, the Service concludes that lynx were resident in 16 Statesin the contiguous United States. Currently, resident populations oflynx likely exist in Maine, Montana, Washington, and possiblyMinnesota. States with recent records of individual lynx sightings, butpossibly no longer sustaining self-supporting populations, includeWisconsin, Michigan, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. Lynxmay be extirpated from New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania,and Massachusetts.Previous Federal ActionThe Canada lynx was added to Appendix II of the Convention onInternational Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna in1977. The Service classified the Canada lynx as a category 2 candidatespecies in the December 30, 1982, Vertebrate Notice of Review (47 FR58454). Category 2 species were those species for which information inthe Service's possession indicated that listing was possiblyappropriate, but for which substantive data on biological vulnerabilityand threats were not available to support a proposed rule. Candidatespecies are currently defined as those species for which the Servicehas sufficient information on file detailing biological vulnerabilityand threats to support issuance of a proposed rule, but issuance of theproposed rule is precluded by other listing actions. On October 6,1992, the Service published a notice of a 90-day petition findingindicating that the August 22, 1991 petition did not presentsubstantial information to indicate that listing the North Cascadespopulation of the Canada lynx as endangered was warranted (57 FR46007). A lawsuit was filed challenging the October 6, 1992, petitionfinding. On July 9, 1993, the Service published a notice indicatingthat it had revisited the North Cascades 90-day petition afterreceiving new information and again found that there was notsubstantial information to indicate that listing the population may bewarranted (58 FR 36924). The Service announced in the finding that astatus review would be conducted. In a settlement agreement datedNovember 30, 1993, the Service agreed to conduct a status reviewthroughout the lower 48 States to determine if the species wasthreatened or endangered, and to complete the review and publish thefinding by November 15, 1994. On February 2, 1994, the Servicepublished a notice (59 FR 4887) announcing continuation of the statusreview that was initiated in 1982.On April 27, 1994, the Service received a petition to list thecoterminous United States population of ``North American'' lynx asthreatened or endangered. Additionally, the petitioners requested thatthe southern Rocky Mountain population of the ``North American'' lynxin Wyoming and Colorado be emergency listed. A notice was published onAugust 26, 1994 (59 FR 44123), indicating that the petition presentedsubstantial information that listing may be warranted, but that therewas not substantial information to indicate that emergency listing maybe warranted for the Southern Rocky Mountain population.On December 27, 1994, the Service published a notice (59 FR 66507)of its 12-month finding as to the status of the Canada lynx in the 48contiguous States, as directed by the settlement agreement and thepetition, that listing was not warranted because of the lack ofresidency of lynx populations in the lower 48 States and the Service'sinability to substantiate that threats such as ``trapping, hunting,poaching, and present habitat destruction'' actually ``threaten thecontinued existence of the lynx in the wild.'' On January 30, 1996, theDefenders of Wildlife and 14 other plaintiffs challenged the Service'sfinding by filing a lawsuit.On March 27, 1997, the U.S. District Court (District of Columbia)issued an order setting aside the not warranted finding and remanded itto the Service for further consideration. The Service was ordered topublish a 12-month finding on the status of the lynx within 60 days. OnMay 27, 1997, the Service published a 12-month petition finding (62 FR28653) that the Canada lynx population in the contiguous United Stateswas warranted for listing under[[Page 37001]]the Act but precluded by higher priority listing actions. Thiswarranted but precluded finding automatically elevated the Canada lynxto candidate species status. Candidate species are defined as thosespecies for which the Service has sufficient information on filedetailing biological vulnerability and threats to support issuance of aproposed rule, but issuance of the proposed rule is precluded by otherlisting actions.On September 15, 1997, Defenders of Wildlife, et al. filed suitagainst the Service in the U.S. District Court, District of Columbia,arguing that the Service violated the Act in finding that listing theCanada lynx population in the contiguous United States was warrantedbut precluded. On December 22, 1997, the court denied the plaintiffs'motion to enforce judgement against the Service's May 1997 warrantedbut precluded finding for the Canada lynx population in the contiguousUnited States. At the same time, the court set an expedited scheduleand hearing date (March 18, 1998) for the lawsuit filed in September1997.On February 12, 1998, the U.S. District Court approved a settlementagreement between the Service and the Plaintiffs that called for theService to publish a proposed rule to list the Canada lynx in thecontiguous United States by June 30, 1998. This proposed rule for thecontiguous United States population of the Canada lynx fulfills therequirement of the settlement agreement and serves as the final 12-month warranted finding on the petitions to list the lynx.Processing of this proposed rule conforms with the Service'sListing Priority Guidance for Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999, published onMay 8, 1998 (63 FR 25502). The guidance clarifies the order in whichthe Service will process rulemakings giving highest priority (Tier 1)to processing emergency rules to add species to the Lists of Endangeredand Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists); second priority (Tier 2) toprocessing final determinations on proposals to add species to theLists, processing new proposals to add species to the Lists, processingadministrative findings on petitions (to add species to the Lists,delist species, or reclassify listed species), and processing a limitednumber of proposed or final rules to delist or reclassify species; andthird priority (Tier 3) to processing proposed or final rulesdesignating critical habitat. Processing of this proposed rule is aTier 2 action. At this time, this region has no pending Tier 1 actionsand is progressing with work on Tier 2 actions. This proposed rule alsoconforms to earlier Service guidance on assignment of priorities tospecies under consideration for listing as endangered or threatenedpublished in the Federal Register on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098).This guidance sets up a priority system from 1-12 based on immediacyand magnitude of threat and on species' taxonomy. In the Service's May1997 finding the lynx was elevated to candidate status and given alisting priority of 3.In accordance with the policy promulgated July 1, 1994 (59 FR34270), the Service will solicit the opinions of independent Canadalynx experts and/or conservation biologists regarding the proposedrule. The purpose of such review is to ensure listing decisions arebased on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses,including input of appropriate experts and specialists. Peer reviewerswill be identified through requests to research institutions,universities, and museums for individuals with recognized expertisewith the subject matter. The reviewers will be asked to comment duringthe public comment period upon the specific assumptions and conclusionsregarding the proposed listing and special rule. These comments will beconsidered in the preparation of the final rule as appropriate. In astatus review of the lynx in 1994, prior to the publication of theService's formal peer review policy, the Service solicited the commentsof 31 independent experts and/or conservation biologists regarding theeffects of cyclic Canada lynx movements from Canada to the contiguousUnited States. Of the 16 responses received, 9 respondents believedCanada lynx should be considered resident in portions of the contiguousUnited States, 1 did not (regarding the Great Lakes region only), and 6did not specifically respond to the questions.Summary of Factors Affecting the SpeciesSection 4 of the Act and regulations (50 CFR part 424) promulgatedto implement the listing provisions of the Act set forth the proceduresfor adding species to the Federal lists. A species may be determined tobe an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the fivefactors described in section 4(a)(1). These factors and theirapplication to the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) are discussed below.A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailmentof Its Habitat or RangeSince the mid-to-late 1800's, several habitat-related factorsinfluenced, and continue to contribute to, declines in local orregional Canada lynx populations. The most influential factor affectinglynx habitat is human alteration of the distribution and abundance,species composition, successional stages, and connectivity of forests,and the resulting changes in the forests' capacity to sustain lynxpopulations. Additionally, forest fragmentation isolates habitat intorelatively small patches, thereby reducing the viability of wildlifethat are dependent on larger areas of forest habitat (Litvaitis andHarrison 1989).In all regions of the lynx range in the contiguous United States,timber harvest and its related activities are a predominant land useaffecting lynx habitat. Forestry practices can be beneficial ordetrimental for lynx depending on the method and timing by which theyare conducted. Timber harvest can be used to achieve the earlysuccessional stages of forest preferred by snowshoe hares, although ittakes time (15 years or more depending on the type of forest) forharvested areas to reach this stage (Monthey 1986, Quinn and Parker1987, Koehler 1990, Koehler and Brittell 1990, Washington Department ofWildlife 1993). For example, in the West, thinning (either single treeor group selection), if implemented in a well-planned harvestprescription, can hasten the development of late-successional forestscontaining structures such as downed woody debris for thermal andsecurity cover and for denning; early thinning to maximize tree-growthpotential can be compatible with snowshoe hare and lynx habitat needsprovided that stands are thinned before snowshoe hares recolonize thearea (Koehler and Aubry 1994).Intensive tree harvesting (e.g., large-scale clearcutting) caneliminate the mosaic of habitats necessary for Canada lynx survival,including late successional denning and early successional preyhabitat. Specifically, these activities can result in reduced cover,unusable forest openings, and monotypic stands with a sparse understorythat are unfavorable for Canada lynx and/or their prey (Brittell et al.1989; de Vos and Matel 1952; Harger 1965; Hatler 1988; Koehler 1990; K.Gustafson, pers. comm. 1994; J. Lanier, pers. comm. 1994). Canada lynxavoid openings such as clearcuts, unforested areas, and grasslands(Koehler et al. 1979; Koehler and Brittell 1990, Murray et al. 1994)and snowshoe hares are also unlikely to use such areas because of thelack of cover (Koehler et al. 1979; H. Golden, Alaska Department[[Page 37002]]of Fish and Game, pers. comm. 1994; Koehler and Aubry 1994).Great Lakes and Northeast RegionSoftwoods that provided Canada lynx habitat were logged extensivelyduring the late 1800's and early 1900's (Jackson 1961; Barbour et al.1980; Belcher 1980; Irland 1982). Over a relatively short period,timber extraction during this era resulted in the replacement of late-successional conifer forest with extensive tracts of very earlysuccessional habitat and eliminated cover for lynx and hare (Jackson1961, Keener 1971). Coniferous forests also were cleared foragriculture during this period. In the Northeast Region, slash,accumulated during logging operations, fueled wildfires that burnedvast acreages of softwood forest (Belcher 1980; J. Lanier, pers. comm.1994). This sudden alteration of habitat likely resulted in sharpdeclines in snowshoe hare numbers over large areas, subsequentlyreducing Canada lynx numbers (Jackson 1961; Keener 1971; K. Gustafson,pers. comm. 1994; J. Lanier, pers. comm. 1994).During these early periods of timber extraction in the Northeastand Great Lakes Regions, probable declines in Canada lynx numbers wereconcurrent with substantial increases in human populations andunregulated trapping in or near lynx habitat (K. Gustafson, pers. comm.1994; J. Lanier, pers. comm. 1994). By the turn of the century in theNortheast Region, historical records indicate that lynx populationswere declining or were nearly extirpated (Silver 1974; VermontDepartment of Fish and Game 1987; K. Gustafson, in litt. 1994; G.Parsons, in litt. 1994).The impacts of the logging conducted in the Northeast Region duringthe late 1800's continue to affect Canada lynx habitat. In Maine,softwood cover and dense sapling growth provided improved snowshoe harehabitat after timber harvest and fires in late successional forests(Monthey 1986). However, in the western sections of the NortheastRegion, extensive tracts of predominantly softwood forests that wereharvested and burned-over during the late 1800's and early 1900's weresubsequently replaced with regenerating hardwoods (D. Degraff, pers.comm. 1994; J. Lanier, pers. comm. 1994). For a period of time, thisextensive area would have been in the early successional habitat usedby snowshoe hare. However, such extensive tracts did not provide themosaic of forest habitats required by lynx and, as successionprogressed, these tracts became unsuitable for both lynx and hare.Hardwood forests do not typically supply adequate cover for snowshoehares (Monthey 1986). Additional declines in hare populations may haveoccurred during the 1940's and 1950's as a result of large-scale forestmaturation (Litvaitis et al. 1991).In Maine, large tracts of forest (some as large as 36-square miletownships) were harvested in the 1960's to reduce the incidence ofspruce budworm. Harvesting of these large tracts create a simplified,monotypic forest over large areas, not a mosaic of forest stands.Passage of the State Forestry Practices Act has required clearcut sizeto be substantially reduced.At higher elevations and northern latitudes in the Northeast, redspruce and balsam fir are important components of snowshoe harehabitat. Declines in red spruce forests have been documented, anddrought, acid deposition, and other human-generated pollutants havebeen suggested as principal causes (Scott et al. 1984).Lynx populations have not increased in the Northeast Region despitesome apparent improvements in habitat. Forested habitat in theNortheast has increased because of land-use changes during the pastcentury (Irland 1982; Litvaitis 1993). In some areas there may be agradual upward trend in the coniferous component as spruce and firregenerate beneath hardwood species (D. Degraff, pers. comm. 1994).Several of the Northeast States support adequate, if not abundant,snowshoe hare populations (C. Grove, Green Mountain National Forest,pers. comm. 1994; F. Hurley, in litt. 1994; J. Lanier, pers. comm.1994).Isolation of suitable habitat and lack of immigration apparentlyremain important factors in the continued absence of lynx populationsin the Northeast Region (Litvaitis et al. 1991; W. Krohn, University ofMaine, in litt. 1994; R. Lafond, Quebec Department of Recreation, Fish,and Game, pers. comm. 1994). Historically, resident Canada lynxpopulations in the Northeast were periodically supplemented withtransient or dispersing individuals from the north (Litvaitis et al.1991; J. Lanier, pers. comm. 1994). However, over the past severaldecades, Canada lynx numbers also declined in the southern portions ofits range in Canada in response to overexploitation and clearing offorested habitat for agriculture, timber, and human settlement (Mills1990; McAlpine and Heward 1993; Quebec Department of Recreation, Fish,and Game, in litt. 1993). The fragmented landscape across southernQuebec probably presents a substantial barrier to lynx attempting todisperse southward across the St. Lawrence River (W. Krohn, in litt.1994; R. Lafond, pers. comm. 1994; J. Lanier, pers. comm. 1994; J.Litvaitis, University of New Hampshire, pers. comm. 1994). However,lynx from a resident population in a Quebec reserve south of the St.Lawrence should encounter little difficulty crossing into Maine (C.McLaughlin, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, in litt.1998). Similarly, movement of lynx into Maine from occupied habitat inNew Brunswick should be possible.Today, diminished numbers of Canada lynx in southern Canada and thepaucity of functional dispersal routes from Canadian lynx populationshave substantially restricted the opportunity for Canada lynx torecolonize suitable habitat in New York, Vermont, and New Hampshire(Litvaitis et al. 1991; W. Krohn, in litt. 1994; R. La Fond, pers.comm. 1994; J. Lanier, pers. comm. 1994).In 1990, the U.S. Forest Service published a report that examinedthe northern forest lands in New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, andMaine (Harper et al. 1990). The 26-million acre study area encompassedmost of the historic range of lynx in the region. Eighty-four percentof northern forest lands in the region are currently privately ownedand 16 percent are in public ownership, of which only 300,000 acres arefederally owned. Commercial forestry continues to be the dominant landuse on 60 percent of the private lands in the northern forests. Therapid pace of subdivision for recreation home sites has been identifiedas a serious concern to maintaining the integrity of Northeast forests(Harper et al. 1990).Habitat fragmentation from forestry management programs,agricultural conversions, and roadway construction may be limiting lynxin the Great Lakes States. However, insufficient information currentlyexists to assess the impact of these threats to lynx. Lynx habitatquality appeared to be increasing in Michigan's upper peninsula as of1965 (Harger 1965); however, as of 1998, lynx numbers have notincreased in response to predicted improved habitat (Kurta 1995).Rocky Mountain/Cascades RegionThe majority of Canada lynx habitat in the West occurs on publiclands. Research linking forest management on Federal lands in the Westto Canada lynx habitat requirements is minimal.In the interior Columbia River basin of eastern Washington andOregon, Idaho, and western Montana, timber harvest patterns, along withthe[[Page 37003]]exclusion of fire have converted much of the late successional stageforest to younger, mid-successional stage forests (U.S. Forest Serviceand Bureau of Land Management 1996). There has been an increase infragmentation of forest lands and loss of connectivity within andbetween blocks of habitat, which has isolated some wildlife habitatsand reduced the ability of some wildlife populations to move across thelandscape (U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 1997).In the Seeley-Swan Valley in northwestern Montana, the forestlandscape has become increasingly fragmented since 1930, consisting ofsmaller, more numerous patches with more edge and less interior habitat(Hart 1994). Fragmentation was caused by an extensive network ofhighway and forest roads, timber harvest, and residential construction.Timber harvest replaced fire as the dominant disturbance process (Hart1994). Mature/overmature forests have declined in total area, whileseedling and sapling seral stages have become more extensive (Hart1994). The amount of predicted lynx habitat in the Seeley-Swan Valleyhas declined 36 percent since 1930 and became more fragmented over time(Hart 1994).Recolonization of suitable lynx habitat within the State ofWashington eventually may be precluded by the fragmentation of habitatand potential isolation from the lynx population in Canada (WashingtonDepartment of Wildlife 1993).Fire has played an important role in forest ecology in westernmountain ranges of the United States. Forest fires naturally maintainedmosaics of early successional forest stands, unburnt bogs and swamps,and late-successional conifer forest forming ideal snowshoe hare andCanada lynx habitat (Todd 1985; Fischer and Bradley 1987; Quinn andParker 1987). During the early twentieth century, Federal and Stateagencies in the contiguous United States enacted a policy ofsuppressing forest fires. The lack of adequate hare habitat in southernlatitudes may be partially a result of fire suppression during the past50 years (Koehler 1990). Suppression of forest fires in the West hasallowed forests to mature, thereby reducing habitat suitability forsnowshoe hares and Canada lynx (Brittell et al. 1989; Fox 1978; Koehler1990; Washington Department of Wildlife 1993; T. Bailey, U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, in litt. 1994; H. Golden, pers. comm. 1994). Firesuppression is most likely affecting lynx habitat in areas wherehistorical frequency of fires is shorter than the length of time fireshave been suppressed in the Region (P. Stickney, U.S. Forest Service,pers. comm. 1994).In all regions of the contiguous United States lynx range, clearingof forests for urbanization, recreational developments such as skiareas, and agriculture has fragmented, degraded, or reduced theavailable suitable lynx habitat, reduced the prey base, and increasedhuman disturbance and the likelihood of accidental trapping, shooting,or highway mortality (de Vos and Matel 1952; Harger 1965; Belcher 1980;Thiel 1987; Todd 1985; Thompson 1987; Harper et al. 1990; Brocke et al.1991; Thompson and Halfpenny 1991; Colorado Division of Wildlife et al.1997) (see factor E).B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, orEducation PurposesThe Service believes that the effects of an overharvest of Canadalynx during the 1970's and 1980's persist today and continue to reducethe potential for recovery of lynx populations in the contiguous UnitedStates by precluding repopulation of areas of suitable habitat. Whereexploitation is intense and recruitment is low, trapping cansignificantly depress lynx populations (Koehler and Aubry 1994). FewerCanada lynx of breeding age reduce the ability and degree to which lynxpopulations recover after population lows (de Vos and Matel 1952; Brandand Keith 1979; Todd 1985; Ward and Krebs 1985; Bailey et al. 1986;Hatler 1988; Brittell et al. 1989). Elton and Nicholson (1942)recognized that overharvest had the potential to diminish lynxpopulations to levels where the natural cycles of lynx populationscould not occur.Lynx behavior makes them susceptible to trapping. Canada lynx areeasy to catch in traps (Bailey et al. 1986; Hatler 1988; Mills 1990).The potential number of traps a lynx encounters is increased when itmoves long distances to search for prey. Canada lynx are morevulnerable to concentrated trapping efforts because lynx focus theirhunting in areas where snowshoe hare densities are high (Ward and Krebs1985). On the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, juvenile lynx were five timesmore vulnerable to trapping than adults; several juvenile siblings caneasily be trapped from a small area (Bailey et al. 1986). Trappingfemales that are accompanied by kittens often results in the death ofthose kittens because they are unable to feed and protect themselves(Bailey et al. 1986; Carbyn and Patriquin 1983; Parker et al. 1983). Itis possible for a trapper to remove a large proportion of a local lynxpopulation by trapping where lynx are concentrated (Carbyn andPatriquin 1983; Ward and Krebs 1985; Bailey et al. 1986; J. Weaver,pers. comm. 1994).Human-induced mortality is the most important mortality factor forCanada lynx populations (Ward and Krebs 1985). Trapping mortality hasbeen shown to be entirely additive (i.e., in addition to naturalmortality) rather than compensatory (taking the place of naturalmortality) (Brand and Keith 1979). In Minnesota, trapping was estimatedto account for 81 percent of known lynx mortality during cyclic lowsand 58 percent of mortality during cyclic highs (Henderson 1978). Innumerous studies, trapping or shooting was documented as the cause of asubstantial majority of Canada lynx mortalities (Mech 1980; Carbyn andPatriquin 1983; Ward and Krebs 1985; Bailey et al. 1986).Unregulated trapping and hunting of Canada lynx continued fordecades in the contiguous United States. Lynx were bountied in severalStates until relatively recently. Canada lynx were likely overexploitedduring periods of unregulated harvest in the Northeast and Great Lakesregions (K. Gustafson, pers. comm. 1994; J. Lanier, pers. comm. 1994).In the Rocky Mountains/Cascades Region, lynx population declines priorto 1940 were attributed to high trapping pressure (Nellis 1971).Historically, lynx trapping provided a significant economic returnin the fur trading industry. During periods of high pelt prices, thepotential for obtaining even a single lynx pelt made trapping effortsworthwhile (Quinn and Parker 1987, Hatler 1988). This economicincentive increases the threat of over exploitation of Canada lynxpopulations.The present low numbers of lynx in the contiguous United States andsouthern Canada are the residual effects of substantial overtrappingthat occurred in the 1970's and 1980's, in response to unprecedentedhigh pelt prices (Bailey et al. 1986; B. Berg, pers. comm. 1994; D.Mech, pers. comm. 1994; M. Novak, Ontario Ministry Natural Resources,pers. comm. 1994; A. Todd, Alberta Department of Forestry, Lands, andWildlife, pers. comm. 1994). As a result of fur demands by the fashionindustry, pelt prices began increasing around 1975 (Hatler 1988, Hash1990). In Montana, the 1974 average pelt price was $63, but by 1978 theaverage price increased over 500 percent to $348 (B. Giddings, in litt.1994). Lynx pelt prices peaked in the mid-1980's at nearly $500 andremained above $200 per pelt for 12 years until 1989. Pelt prices werecomparable throughout the United States and[[Page 37004]]Canada (Todd 1985; Hatler 1988; I. McKay, Manitoba Natural Resources,in litt. 1994; Quebec Department of Recreation, Fish, and Game, inlitt. 1994).The number of Montana bobcat and lynx trapping licenses is anexample of a general index of trapper effort and also of the amount oftrapping pressure on lynx populations. Records indicate that the priceof pelts influenced the trapping effort. The average number of licensedlynx and bobcat trappers from 1972-73 through 1974-75 was 1,600 (B.Giddings, in litt. 1994). After the record high pelt prices in 1978-79,a total of nearly 5,000 trappers were licensed for the next season.Although information on licenses was not available after 1982, trappereffort likely remained high as long as pelt prices were high and lynxwere being trapped. Records for other regions during this perioddemonstrate the same trend (Brand and Keith 1979; Todd 1985; Bailey etal. 1986; Hatler 1988; Washington Department of Wildlife 1993; M.DonCarlos, in litt. 1994; I. McKay, in litt. 1994; Quebec Department ofRecreation, Fish, and Game, in litt. 1994).This period of intense trapping pressure also occurred during aperiod of naturally declining Canada lynx numbers in Canada. Periods ofpopulation decline are critical times when trapping has a greateradditive impact on a population's ability to recover from periodic lows(Brand and Keith 1979; Bailey et al. 1986). Alberta's lynx fur harvestduring the 1975-76 cyclic low was still nearly 2 to 3 times higher thanthat during the preceding two cyclic lows (Todd 1985). In Quebec from1976 to 1979, lynx harvest reached record highs for a period during acyclic low in hare and lynx populations (Quebec Department ofRecreation, Fish, and Game, in litt. 1993). These harvest levels arelinked to the highest pelt prices ever recorded there and to acontinuous and sustained increase in the number of trappers during thepreceding decade.The additive trapping mortality of Canada lynx during the 1970'sand 1980's depleted the breeding stock of lynx populations in theUnited States and southern Canada, which limited the ability for lynxpopulations to subsequently recover and repopulate areas of suitablehabitat. Lynx populations may have become so severely depleted thatthey cannot reach their former densities during the periods of abundantprey and maximum reproductive success (Quinn and Parker 1987; Hatler1988). The lynx population of the 1980's and 1990's has reflected theover exploitation of the previous decade in the lack of cyclic lynxhighs in parts of the contiguous United States and the lack of typicalcyclic influxes of lynx from Canada, although data have indicatednormal hare populations (M. DonCarlos, in litt. 1994; M. DonCarlos,pers. comm. 1994).In response to substantially declining harvests during the 1970'sand 1980's (indicating that lynx populations were being overexploited), Washington, Montana, Minnesota, Alberta, British Columbia,Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and Alaska severely restricted or closedtheir lynx harvest seasons (Bailey et al. 1986; Hatler 1988; Hash 1990;Washington Department of Wildlife 1993; S. Conn, in litt. 1990; M.DonCarlos, in litt. 1994; B. Giddings, in litt. 1994; R. McFetridge,Alberta Environmental Protection, in litt. 1994; I. McKay, in litt.1994; M. Novak, pers. comm. 1994). Because of continued concern forlynx populations, none of the States have relaxed their restrictions,and many Canadian provinces still maintain careful control of lynxharvest (Alberta Environmental Protection 1993; Washington Departmentof Wildlife 1993; M. DonCarlos, in litt. 1994; B. Giddings, in litt.1994; R. McFetridge, in litt. 1994; I. McKay pers. comm. 1997).As of 1993, the lynx population in portions of Quebec apparentlyhas not yet fully recovered despite adequate, increasing harepopulations (Quebec Department of Recreation, Fish, and Game, in litt.1993). Because of concern over a potentially declining lynx population,the British Columbia government closed the season on Canada lynx for a3-year period in the mid-1990's (A. Fontana, British ColumbiaDepartment of Wildlife, pers. comm. 1994). Manitoba closed its lynxseason Province-wide from 1995-1997 because of low lynx numbers (I.McKay, pers. comm. 1997).States where lynx currently or historically occur declare harvestof lynx illegal, with the exception of Montana, where legal harvest isset by a limited statewide quota of two. In all States where the lynxwas considered to be a resident species, lynx are included on theState's lists of endangered, threatened, protected, or regulated gamespecies.C. Disease or PredationDisease and predation are not known to be factors threateningCanada lynx. However, in areas with human population centers, or highhuman densities in more rural areas, diseases of domestic animals maypose potential threats to lynx (R. Brocke, State University of NewYork, pers. comm. 1994).D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory MechanismsThere are no regulatory mechanisms that address the management orconservation of functional Canada lynx habitat, although most statesprovide the Canada lynx with protection from hunting and trapping.Lynx are classified as endangered by 4 of the 16 States in thecontiguous United States where the Canada lynx was considered to be aresident species, Vermont (1972), New Hampshire (1980), Michigan(1987), and Colorado (1976). Lynx are classified as threatened byWashington (1993). Utah has classified the lynx as a sensitive species.The lynx is classified as a species of special concern in Maine (1997)and in Wisconsin it is protected (1997). Two States officially classifythem as extirpated: Pennsylvania (J. Belfonti, in litt. 1994) andMassachusetts (J. Cardoza, in litt. 1994). Five States classify lynx assmall game or furbearers with closed seasons: Idaho (1997), New York(1967), Minnesota (1984), Wyoming (1973), and Oregon (1997).A Canada lynx trapping season still occurs in Montana, but thelegal, State wide quota is restricted to two animals. In response todeclining harvests, Montana has substantially reduced the lynx quotasince 1977 (when the lynx was added to the Convention on InternationalTrade in Endangered Species (CITES) and Montana classified the speciesas a furbearer). Since 1991, the quota has been two for the entireState, which has been met or slightly exceeded annually (B. Giddings,pers. comm. 1998).Estimates of illegal harvest of Canada lynx are unavailable formost areas. Illegal harvest has been a serious concern in localizedareas in the past (Washington Department of Wildlife 1993).On February 4, 1977, the Canada lynx was included in Appendix II ofCITES. The CITES is an international treaty established to preventinternational trade that may be detrimental to the survival of plantsand animals. A CITES export permit must be issued by the exportingcountry before an Appendix II species may be shipped. The CITES permitsmay not be issued if the export will be detrimental to the survival ofthe species or if the specimens were not legally acquired. However,CITES does not itself regulate take or domestic trade.Regulatory mechanisms to protect Canada lynx habitat are limited.Although the U.S. Forest Service[[Page 37005]]classifies lynx as a sensitive species within the contiguous UnitedStates, few national forests have developed population viabilityobjectives or management guidelines required by the National ForestManagement Act for Canada lynx because of limited information about thespecies' requirements. All national forests are obligated to protectbiological diversity on Federal lands.In the northeast region, the Green Mountain National Forest Planstates that the national forest will develop management plans if andwhen an established Canada lynx population is detected (U.S. ForestService 1986a). There are no specific regulations or guidelinespertaining to lynx habitat. The White Mountain National Forest Planincludes Canada lynx as an indicator species and limits recreationaltrail density in Canada lynx habitat. The forest plan calls forconsideration of the needs of the species in planning alternatives, themonitoring of lynx populations, and for initiating or coordinatingstudies and/or recovery efforts (U.S. Forest Service 1986b).In the Great Lakes region, some national forests apply standardsfor gray wolf (Canis lupus) to guide Canada lynx habitat management (M.Shedd, Superior National Forest, pers. comm. 1994). It is unknownwhether wolf standards are appropriate for lynx.Washington Department of Wildlife (1993) determined that habitatneeds of Canada lynx had not been considered adequately while planningfor timber harvest on national forest and State lands in some areas ofthe State.Several lynx conservation plans exist or are under development.Such plans include the lynx habitat management guidelines forWashington (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 1993; R. Naney,Okanogan National Forest, in litt. 1994), the Idaho State conservationeffort (Roloff 1995), Washington Department of Natural Resourcesconservation strategy (Washington Department of Natural Resources1996a), Boise-Cascade Timber Corporation lynx habitat management planin Washington (Whitwill and Roloff 1996), Kootenai National Forest inMontana (Kootenai National Forest 1997), and the Southern RockyMountains, Draft strategy for the conservation and reestablishment oflynx and wolverine in the southern Rocky Mountains (Colorado Divisionof Wildlife et al. 1997). At this time, there has been no comprehensivereview of these plans to determine whether the guidelines in theseplans have the ability to maintain or increase lynx populations. Thedegree to which these plans are or will be implemented and monitoredvaries.Land use on private lands can have a great impact on Canada lynxhabitat. The majority of Canada lynx habitat in the Northeast regionoccurs on private land, ranging from small residential lots to largeindustrial ownerships (Harper et al. 1990). All States in the regionhave various laws and regulations regarding environmental issues(Harper et al. 1990). Indirectly these regulations may promote theconservation of habitat; however, none are directed specifically toCanada lynx habitat conservation. In the Northeast region, the NorthernForest Lands Council has a charter to maintain traditional patterns oflandownership and use; part of this effort includes a forest inventory(Northern Forest Lands Council, in litt. 1994). How this effort mayaffect the conservation of Canada lynx habitat is unknown.E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued ExistenceLoss of suitable habitat for Canada lynx reduces the potential forpopulation growth or recolonization of the lynx and further confineslynx to smaller, more isolated habitat units (Weaver 1993). Isolationincreases the susceptibility of the lynx to human-caused threats,natural stochastic events, and effects of genetic bottlenecks (Andrews1992; Weaver 1993). In the Rocky Mountain/Cascades Region much of lynxhabitat is naturally disjunct and habitat connectivity is requiredacross large geographic areas to facilitate dispersal and geneticexchange (Roloff 1995). The increased fragmentation of forest lands andloss of connectivity within and among blocks of habitat in the interiorColumbia River basin of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana hasreduced the ability of some wildlife populations to move across thelandscape, resulting in long-term loss of genetic interchange (U.S.Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 1997).Elevated levels of human access into forests are a significantthreat to Canada lynx because they increase the likelihood of lynxencountering people, which may result in displacement of lynx fromtheir habitats and/or possible injuries or deaths by intentional orunintentional shooting, trapping, and vehicle accidents (Hatler 1988;Thiel 1987; Brittell et al. 1989; Koehler and Brittell 1990; Brocke etal. 1991; Andrew 1992; Washington Department of Wildlife 1993; Brockeet al. 1993; M. Hunter, University of Maine, pers. comm. 1994). Humanaccess into Canada lynx habitat in many areas has increased over thelast several decades because of increasing human populations andincreased construction of roads and trails and the growing popularityof snowmobiles and offroad vehicles. In the interior Columbia Riverbasin of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana, increased human accesshas decreased the availability of areas with low human activities,which are important to large forest carnivores, including lynx (U.S.Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 1997).Lynx will use some types of roads for hunting and travel (Koehlerand Aubry 1994). Koehler and Aubry (1994) concluded road constructionand maintenance are important components of lynx habitat managementbecause they both destroy and create prey habitat, but also make lynxmore vulnerable to human-caused mortalities. In the interior ColumbiaRiver basin of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana, high roaddensities were found primarily in intensively managed forest lands ofboth public and private ownership (U.S. Forest Service and Bureau ofLand Management 1997).Wide-ranging species are impacted by the increased road densitiesthat often accompany human-caused forest fragmentation (Litvaitis1993). The Loomis State Forest in Washington plans to construct a totalof 615 mi of roads from 1996 to 2005 (Washington Department of NaturalResources 1996b). According to the plan, the density of roads inprimary lynx habitat will be 1.91 to 3.04 road mi per square mile (sqmi) (Washington Department of Natural Resources 1996b). Even roads thatare considered ``closed'' will continue to be accessible tosnowmobiles, thereby allowing access to higher elevation lynx habitatby humans and lynx competitors.In the Pioneer Mountains of Montana, a currently narrow, unpavedroad is being paved and widened to further encourage already highrecreational use of the forest (Harding Lawson AssociatesInfrastructure, Inc. 1996). The project area is occupied, high-qualitylynx habitat, although lynx use of the area is currently restrictedbecause of intense recreational use of the area (Harding LawsonAssociates Infrastructure, Inc. 1996). Completion of this road projectwill impact lynx by causing further deterioration of lynx habitat,because increased human activity will sever lynx travel corridors andmortalities from vehicle collisions will increase (Harding LawsonAssociates Infrastructure, Inc. 1996).Blocks of suitable habitat, both public and private, are oftendissected by extensive networks of paved roads. Traffic on highways hasbeen shown to[[Page 37006]]pose a considerable mortality risk to Canada lynx (Brocke et al. 1991;B. Ruediger, U.S. Forest Service, pers. comm. 1997). Highway densitiesare a contributing factor in the decline of carnivores, including thelynx, in the contiguous United States (Ruediger 1996). Dispersing ortransient lynx are more vulnerable to traffic deaths than resident lynxbecause their movements over large areas increase their exposure toroads. In the Great Lakes States, recent records of lynx are frommortalities due to vehicle collisions, which could limit the potentialfor reestablishment of populations in Wisconsin or Michigan.Increasing human access into Canada lynx habitat has increased thevulnerability of Canada lynx to both legal and illegal harvest in areasthat, historically, were relatively isolated from humans (Todd 1985;McKay 1991; Washington Department of Wildlife 1993; M. Hunter, pers.comm. 1994). In the Uinta Mountains of Utah, most of the documentedCanada lynx specimens were shot during deer hunting season in an areaeasily accessed by hunters (McKay 1991). In Washington, there isconcern that human access may reduce the number of Canada lynxemigrating from British Columbia, further increasing the vulnerabilityof the remaining small population (Washington Department of Wildlife1993). The high degree of access into Alberta's forests created bypetroleum development and logging was suggested as an explanation forwhy Alberta produced a large proportion of the total Canadian lynxharvest in the 1970's and 1980's (Todd 1985).Human access is a particularly important factor during periods whenCanada lynx populations are low and concentrated in localized refugia.Brand and Keith (1979) indicated that refugia may have supported onlyadult lynx during population lows. Refugia were therefore critical forrepopulating available range elsewhere when the population increased(Todd 1985). If such refugia were accessible to humans, local lynxpopulations could be easily extirpated by trapping, particularly ifthere are incentives such as high pelt prices (Carbyn and Patriquin1983; Ward and Krebs 1985; Bailey et al. 1986; J. Weaver, pers. comm.1994; Koehler and Aubry 1994).The Canada lynx may be displaced or eliminated when competitors(e.g., bobcat, coyote) expand into its range (de Vos and Matel 1952;Parker et al. 1983; Quinn and Parker 1987; M. DonCarlos, pers. comm.1994; D. Major, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1994; J.Weaver, pers. comm. 1994). The Canada lynx is at a competitivedisadvantage against these other species because it is a specializedpredator, whereas bobcat and coyotes are generalists that are able tofeed on a wide variety of prey. Historically, bobcat and coyotes havenot been able to compete with lynx in areas that receive deep snowcover, where lynx are much more highly adapted. Where Canada lynx andbobcat or coyote ranges overlapped, their niches were segregated bywinter range conditions (McCord and Cardoza 1982; Parker et al. 1983;Quinn and Parker 1987). In Yukon, Canada, coyotes selected snow thatwas shallower and harder than that used by lynx (Murray et al. 1994).Some biologists believe competition has played a significant rolein the decline of Canada lynx (Brocke 1982; Parker et al. 1983; E.Bangs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1994). Murray et al.(1994) speculate that, in Yukon, use of open spruce forests by lynx mayhave been to avoid areas where coyotes were present. In Utah, wheremore habitat is suitable for bobcat, it has been suggested that bobcatcompetition with Canada lynx resulted in the possible extirpation ofCanada lynx from Utah (B. Blackwell, pers. comm. 1994). Research hasdetected direct competition in certain areas, as on Cape Breton Islandwhere, without changes in forest habitat, bobcats displaced Canada lynxfrom all areas except high elevations, where snow accumulation limitedthe bobcat's range (Parker et al. 1983).Competition between Canada lynx and other species may befacilitated through alteration of forests by timber harvest or otherhuman activities. Modified habitat may be more suitable to Canada lynxcompetitors or may facilitate the establishment of a competitor afterlocal extirpation of the lynx (McCord and Cardoza 1982; Quinn andParker 1987). In the Northeast United States, extensive clearing offorests for timber and agriculture improved conditions for white-taileddeer (Odocoileus virginianus) populations, which subsequently may haveinfluenced a northward expansion of bobcats into the region (K.Gustafson, pers. comm. 1994). Additionally, mild weather in someregions for the past decade has improved conditions and habitat forbobcat and coyotes, particularly by minimizing snow depth (Quinn andParker 1987; J. Weaver, pers. comm. 1994). Coyotes have been colonizingMaine and New Hampshire since the 1970's (Litvaitis and Harrison 1989).Competition during late winter, a time when lynx are alreadynutritionally stressed, may be especially detrimental to lynx (Koehlerand Aubry 1994). Snowmobile trails and roads that are maintained forwinter recreation and forest management activities enable coyotes andbobcats to access lynx winter habitat (Koehler and Aubry 1994).Snowmobile use in the Great Lakes and Rocky Mountain/Cascadesregions has resulted in an increase in both human presence and theprevalence of packed snow corridors in lynx habitat. The increasedsnowmobile use and the increased area in which snowmobiles are usedlikely diminishes habitat quality for lynx, and also decreases thelynx's competitive advantage in deep snow. This results in an increasedthreat posed by competitors, as a result of the increase in hard-packedsnow trails.Legal trapping activities for bobcat, coyotes, and other furbearerscreate a potential for incidental capture of lynx. The threat toresident lynx from legal trapping for other species may be limitedbecause most bobcat or coyote trapping occurs in areas unlikely tosupport lynx (M. DonCarlos, pers. comm. 1994; K. Elowe, MaineDepartment of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, pers. comm. 1994; J.Lanier, pers. comm. 1994; D. Mech, pers. comm. 1994; Maine Departmentof Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, in litt. 1997).Where Canada lynx populations have been substantially reduced orextirpated in the contiguous United States, natural recolonization ofsuitable habitat likely will require lynx migration from other areas inthe contiguous United States or Canada. However, because of theunsuitable habitat isolating Colorado and southeastern Wyoming from theremainder of the Rocky Mountains/Cascades, recolonization throughimmigration is extremely unlikely.Winter navigation and associated ice breaking on the St. Mary'sRiver between Ontario and Upper Michigan could be a potential threat toreestablishment or maintenance of a lynx population in that area.Presently, the St. Mary's River shipping channel is not kept openbetween January 15 and March 25. Ice breaking before or after thatperiod could reduce the amount of time available for lynx to immigrateacross the St. Mary's shipping channel from Ontario to Michigan(Robinson and Fuller 1980).Distinct Population SegmentFor a species to be listable under the Act, it must meet thedefinition of a ``species'' as provided in the Act. The Act defines``species'' as a species, subspecies, or distinct population segment ofa vertebrate species. On[[Page 37007]]February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722), the Service and National MarineFisheries Service published final policy guidance concerningrecognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments forconsideration under the Act. It is necessary for the Service to usethis Vertebrate Population Policy when it is considering listing avertebrate species or species as endangered or threatened in only aportion of its range. In developing this proposed rule the Serviceevaluated whether Canada lynx in the contiguous United Statesconstitutes a distinct population segment under the population policy.While application of the vertebrate population policy may result inthe identification of a greater number of potentially listableentities, the policy was developed specifically to allow for morerefined application of the Act that better reflects the biologicalneeds of the taxon being considered and avoids the inclusion ofentities that may not require the considerable protections of the Act.This approach better serves Congress's intent that listing of distinctpopulation segments be conducted ``sparingly.''Under the vertebrate population policy, two elements, discretenessand significance, must be considered to determine whether a species'population meets the definition of a distinct population segment. If apopulation is discrete and significant, its status is evaluated usingthe five listing factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act todetermine if it meets the definition of either threatened orendangered.A species' population segment can be considered discrete from theremainder of the taxon if it satisfies either one of the followingconditions: (1) ``it is markedly separated from other populations ofthe same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological,or behavioral factors,'' or (2) ``it is delimited by internationalgovernmental boundaries within which differences in control ofexploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatorymechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) ofthe Act.'' Given that the Service has determined that resident, viablenumbers of Canada lynx exist in the contiguous United States (seeBackground section), the Service concludes that the contiguous UnitedStates population of the Canada lynx is discrete based on theinternational boundary between Canada and the contiguous United Statesbecause of differences in status and management of Canada lynx betweenthe United States and Canada.In Canada, management of forest lands and conservation of wildlifehabitat varies depending on Provincial regulations. In Alberta, thereis no law regulating forest practices and the status of Canada lynx inAlberta is of concern because of habitat-related threats as a result oflogging (B. Triechel, Alberta Environmental Protection, pers. comm.1997). There is no overarching forest practices legislation in Canada,such as the United States' National Forest Management Act, governingmanagement of national lands and/or providing for consideration ofwildlife habitat requirements. Additionally, in Canada, lynx harvestregulations vary, being regulated by individual Province or, in somecases, individual trapping district.According to the Vertebrate Population policy, a population segmentcan be considered significant based on information such as thefollowing: (1) ``Persistence of the discrete population segment in anecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon''; (2) ``Evidencethat loss of the discrete population segment would result in asignificant gap in the range of the taxon''; (3) ``Evidence that thediscrete population segment represents the only surviving naturaloccurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as anintroduced population outside its historic range;'' and (4) ``Evidencethat the discrete population segment differs markedly from otherpopulations of the species in its genetic characteristics.''In a general sense, Canada lynx in the contiguous United Statesmight be considered biologically and/or ecologically significant simplybecause they represent the southern extent of the species' overallrange. There are climatic and vegetational differences between Canadalynx habitat in the contiguous United States and that in northernlatitudes in Canada and Alaska (Kuchler 1965). In the contiguous UnitedStates, Canada lynx inhabit a mosaic between boreal forests andsublpine coniferous forests or northern hardwoods, whereas in morenorthern latitudes, Canada lynx habitat is the boreal forest ecosystem(Barbour et al. 1980; McCord and Cardoza 1982; Koehler and Aubry 1994;M. Hunter, University of Maine, pers. comm. 1994; Colorado Division ofWildlife et al. 1997) (see Background section).Canada lynx and snowshoe hare population dynamics in portions ofthe contiguous United States are different from those in northernCanada. Historically, Canada lynx and snowshoe hare populations in someareas of the contiguous United States have not exhibited the extremecyclic population fluctuations of the northern latitudes for whichCanada lynx are noted (Dolbeer and Clark 1975; Brittell et al. 1989;Wolff 1980; Buehler and Keith 1982; Koehler 1990; Koehler and Aubry1994) (see Background section). This less cyclic population has beenattributed to the lower quality and quantity of snowshoe hare habitatavailable in southern latitudes and/or the presence of additionalsnowshoe hare predators (Buehler and Keith 1982, Wolff 1982 in Koehlerand Aubry 1994, Koehler 1990, Koehler and Aubry 1994).Extirpation of the contiguous United States population of theCanada lynx would result in a significant gap in the range of thetaxon. Canada lynx would not only be lost throughout a broad region ofthe United States, but a number of ecosystems would lose a top-levelcarnivore from their representative fauna.After review and consideration of Canada lynx status and managementin the contiguous United States and Canada, contacts with recognizedexperts, lynx life history, habitat, and population dynamics, theService has determined that the Canada lynx in the contiguous UnitedStates is discrete and significant and, therefore, qualifies as adistinct population segment to be considered for listing under the Act.FindingBased on historic observations, trapping records and other evidenceavailable to the Service at this time, the Service finds that,historically, Canada lynx were resident in 16 of the contiguous UnitedStates. The overall numbers and range of Canada lynx in the contiguousUnited States are substantially reduced from historic levels.Currently, resident populations of lynx likely exist in Maine, Montana,Washington, and possibly Minnesota. States with recent records ofindividual lynx sightings, but possibly no longer sustaining self-supporting populations, include Wisconsin, Michigan, Oregon, Idaho,Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. Lynx may be extirpated from New Hampshire,Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts.At present, lynx numbers in the contiguous United States have notrecovered from the overexploitation by both unregulated and regulatedtrapping that occurred in the 1970's and 1980's. As a result, the otherthreats to the lynx described earlier under the ``Summary of FactorsAffecting the Species'' section have a serious effect on the remainingpopulation. Where Canada lynx numbers have been substantially reducedor extirpated, natural recolonization of suitable habitat likely[[Page 37008]]will require lynx migration from other areas in the contiguous UnitedStates or Canada. In Maine, there is evidence that lynx move back andforth across the Canadian border, indicating that Maine lynx habitat iscontiguous with occupied habitat in Quebec and possibly, New Brunswick(M. Amaral, in litt. 1998).Forest management practices that result in the loss of diverse agestructure, roading, urbanization, agriculture, recreationaldevelopments, and unnatural fire frequencies have altered suitable lynxhabitat in many areas throughout the contiguous United States. As aresult, many states may have insufficient habitat quality and/orquantity to sustain lynx or their prey.The likelihood of lynx encountering people has dramaticallyincreased over the last few decades as a result of elevated levels ofhuman access into lynx habitat. Roads and trails, snowmobiles, offroadvehicles, and ski area developments enable human access intohistorically remote forests, thereby increasing the likelihood of lynxbeing displaced from otherwise suitable habitats and increasing thevulnerability of lynx to human-induced mortality.Although the legal taking of lynx is highly restricted in thecontiguous United States, existing regulatory mechanisms may beinadequate to protect the small, remnant lynx populations or toconserve Canada lynx habitat.The cumulative effect of these habitat changes has been thecreation of habitats and prey bases that are better able to supportlynx competitors, such as bobcats and coyotes, rather than lynx.Bobcats are able to outcompete lynx except in habitats with excessivesnow depths. Roads and packed snow trails have allowed bobcats andcoyotes to access the winter habitats for which lynx are highlyspecialized.Recently, some States, Federal agencies, and other entities haveinitiated survey and research efforts to better evaluate the status ofthe Canada lynx within the contiguous United States. Additionally, someStates such as Washington, Colorado, and Idaho are in the process ofdeveloping strategies to conserve and restore lynx in their states.Resident lynx populations still occur in Montana, Washington, Maineand, possibly, Minnesota. According to Montana Fish, Wildlife andParks, Montana's lynx numbers are fairly stable. Therefore, the Serviceconcludes that a designation as threatened is appropriate. A threatenedspecies is defined in the Act as a species likely to become anendangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or asignificant portion of its range.Based on the preceding discussions and analyses, using the bestavailable scientific and commercial information available, the Servicefinds that listing of the Canada lynx within the contiguous UnitedStates is warranted. The Service proposes to list the contiguous UnitedStates Canada lynx population segment (consisting of the States ofMaine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts,Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana,Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado) as threatened.Critical HabitatCritical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(a) of the Act as-- (i)the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species,at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are foundthose physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservationof the species and (II) that may require special managementconsiderations or protection and; (ii) specific areas outside thegeographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upona determination that such areas are essential for the conservation ofthe species. The term ``conservation'' as defined in section 3(3) ofthe Act means ``to use and the use of all methods and proceduresnecessary to bring any endangered or threatened species to the point atwhich the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longernecessary,'' i.e., the species is recovered and can be removed from thelist of endangered and threatened species.Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementingregulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudentand determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the timethe species is determined to be endangered or threatened. The Servicefinds that designation of critical habitat is not prudent for theCanada lynx at this time. Service regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1))state that designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one orboth of the following situations exist--(1) the species is threatenedby taking or other human activity, and identification of criticalhabitat can be expected to increase the degree of threat to thespecies, or (2) such designation of critical habitat would not bebeneficial to the species.In accordance with the definition of critical habitat provided bysection 3(5)(A)(I) of the Act, the Service's regulations require theService to consider those physical and biological features that areessential to the conservation of the species and that may requirespecial management considerations or protection. Such requirementsinclude, but are not limited to--(1) space for individual andpopulation 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, rearing ofoffspring, germination, or seed dispersal; and, generally, (5) habitatsthat are protected from disturbance or are representative of thehistoric geographical and ecological distributions of a species.Potential benefits of critical habitat designation derive fromsection 7(a)(2) of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, inconsultation with the Service, to ensure that their actions are notlikely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or toresult in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitatof such species. Critical habitat, by definition, applies only toFederal agency actions. The 50 CFR 402.02 defines ``jeopardize thecontinued existence of'' as meaning to engage in an action that wouldreasonably be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciablythe likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species inthe wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of thatspecies. ``Destruction or adverse modification'' is defined as a director indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value ofcritical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a listedspecies. Such alterations include, but are not limited to, alterationsadversely modifying any of those physical or biological features thatwere the basis for determining the habitat to be critical. Thus, in thesection 7(a)(2) consultation process, the jeopardy analysis focuses onpotential effects on the species' populations, whereas the destructionor adverse modification analysis focuses on habitat value.Common to both a jeopardy and the destruction or adversemodification of critical habitat is the requirement that the Servicefind an appreciable effect on both the species' survival and recovery.This is in contrast to the public perception that the adversemodification standard sets a lower threshold for violation of section 7than that for jeopardy. Thus, Federal actions satisfying the standardfor adverse modification are nearly always found to also jeopardize thespecies concerned, and the existence of critical habitat designationdoes not materially affect[[Page 37009]]the outcome of consultation. Biological opinions that conclude that aFederal agency action is likely to adversely modify critical habitatbut is not likely to jeopardize the species for which it is designatedare extremely rare historically; none have been issued in recent years.Thus, the Service believes that, from a section 7 consultationperspective, no additional conservation benefit would be achieved forthe contiguous United States Canada lynx population by the designationof critical habitat.Currently, in the contiguous United States, legal harvest of lynxis not a threat to the population because all States, except Montana,have closed seasons on the harvest of lynx. Montana has an extremelylow quota, allowing two lynx to be harvested per season. Additionally,current prices for lynx pelts are relatively low so there is littleincentive to trap lynx. However, should pelt prices increase again inthe future, there will be strong incentive to trap lynx as evidenced bytrapping records from the 1970's and 1980's (see Factor B, above).Designation of critical habitat would increase the vulnerability oflynx to poaching; therefore, the Service concludes it would not beprudent to designate critical habitat.In the contiguous United States, Canada lynx inhabit a mosaicbetween boreal forests and subalpine coniferous forests or northernhardwoods, as described earlier in the Background section. Canada lynxare highly dependent on snowshoe hares to supply an adequate foodsource. Canada lynx concentrate their foraging activities in areaswhere hare activity is high. Snowshoe hares prefer structurally diverseforests, often early successional stages, with stands of conifers andshrubby understories that provide for feeding, escape from predators,and protection during extreme weather. For denning, it is believedCanada lynx require late successional forests that provide downed logsand windfalls for cover. Additionally, Canada lynx are highly mobileand can move long distances in search of prey (see Background section,above). Home range sizes vary widely (12 to 243 sq km (5-94 sq mi)depending primarily on the density of lynx and availability of prey inan area. For example, the estimated range of one male lynx wouldencompass all protected lands in the White Mountain National Forest inNew Hampshire and Maine (Brocke et al. 1993).The Service concludes it would not be beneficial to designatespecific geographic locations as critical habitat because snowshoe harehabitat and lynx denning habitat will always shift spatially andtemporally across the landscape as a result of natural (e.g., fire,forest maturation, seasonal) and human-caused changes (e.g., logging,thinning). Canada lynx would reasonably be expected to relocate inresponse to the natural dynamics of lynx population levels, preyavailability, and habitat conditions, thereby making little use ofspecific areas designated as critical habitat.Attempting to encompass lynx movements or the spatial shifts inlynx foraging or denning habitat that will occur over time bydesignating critical habitat on a large-scale (e.g., an entire nationalforest or wilderness area) would not be beneficial to the species.Under such a designation, it would be impracticable to assert that asingle Federal action would appreciably diminish the value of criticalhabitat for both the survival and recovery of a listed species or thatthe entire expansive area requires special management or protection(the purpose of a critical habitat designation) for lynx. Additionally,Forest Plans that dictate how an entire national forest would bemanaged are already subject to review under section 7.A large-scale designation would be over inclusive because it wouldcontain many areas that never were or will be lynx habitat and areasthat, although they may be used by lynx, would not require specialmanagement or protection for lynx. For example, in 1994, nearly 60percent of the approximately 17 million acres of national forests inMontana were classified as roadless or designated wilderness areas (J.Gatchell, Montana Wilderness Association, pers. comm. 1994). However, alarge proportion of these areas are not suitable lynx habitat becausethey consist of rock- and ice-covered mountaintops.A substantial amount of Federal land exists in the Western andGreat Lakes regions of the contiguous United States lynx populationsegment in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado,Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Actions on these Federal lands areensured of the benefit of review under section 7 of the Act, regardlessof whether or not critical habitat is designated. Potential andoccupied Canada lynx habitat exists primarily on Federal lands managedby the U.S. Forest Service. Additional Federal land managers includebut are not limited to the National Park Service and Bureau of LandManagement. Currently, the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of LandManagement, and the Service are developing a section 7 conferencing andconsultation strategy to conserve lynx on the 56 National Forests andnumerous Bureau of Land Management districts within its historic rangein the contiguous United States (B. Ruediger, in litt. 1998).Designation of critical habitat provides no limitations orconstraints on private landowners if there is no Federal involvementand, as such, provides the species no conservation benefit. The amountof Federal land in the northeastern United States range of the lynx issmall (primarily the White Mountain and Green Mountain National Forestsin parts of Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine) compared to the amountof non-Federal land. Because few Federal actions occur in thenortheastern United States range of the lynx, project review undersection 7 of the Act would be rarely required (M. Amaral, pers. comm.1998).In the Rocky Mountain/Cascades, Great Lakes, and Northeast regionsof the lynx range, there are large parcels of land in corporateownership. Actions on these lands will either have no Federal nexus orwill require review under section 7 of the Act.Protection of lynx habitat can be addressed in habitat conservationplans voluntarily developed by landowners under the section 10permitting process. In the State of Washington, Canada lynx are coveredunder a multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan on forest lands owned byPlum Creek Timber Company in the central Cascades mountain range.Therefore, because of the increased vulnerability of the lynx, thespatial and temporal changes in lynx foraging and denning habitats, thehigh mobility of individual lynx, the inability to control lynx habitatin Canada, and the fact that designation of critical habitat wouldprovide little different or greater benefit than that provided by thejeopardy standard under section 7 regulations, the Service hasdetermined that the designation of critical habitat for the contiguousUnited States population of the Canada lynx is not prudent.Available Conservation MeasuresConservation measures provided to species listed as endangered orthreatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certainpractices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness andconservation actions by Federal, State, and local agencies, privateorganizations, and individuals. The Act provides for possible landacquisition and cooperation with the States and requires[[Page 37010]]that recovery actions be carried out for all listed species. Theprotection required of Federal agencies and the prohibitions againsttaking and harm are discussed, in part, below.Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate theiractions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed asendangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, ifany is being designated. Regulations implementing this interagencycooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402.Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service onany action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of aspecies proposed for listing or result in destruction or adversemodification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is listedsubsequently, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure thatactivities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely tojeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy oradversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect alisted species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agencymust enter into formal consultation with the Service.The contiguous United States population of the Canada lynx occurson lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service, National ParkService, Bureau of Land Management; Tribal lands, State lands, andprivate lands. Examples of Federal agency actions that may requireconference and/or consultation as described in the preceding paragraphinclude timber, silviculture/thinning, road construction, fire, andrecreation management activities or plans by the Forest Service, Bureauof Land Management, and National Park Service; Federal highwayprojects, and U.S. Housing and Urban Development projects.The Act and implementing regulations set forth a series of generalprohibitions and exceptions that apply to all threatened wildlife. Theprohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21 and 17.31, in part, make itillegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United Statesto take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,capture, or collect; or attempt any of these), import or export, shipin interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell oroffer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. Italso is illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or shipany such wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptionsapply to agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activitiesinvolving endangered or threatened wildlife under certaincircumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR17.32. Such permits are available for scientific purposes, to enhancethe propagation or survival of the species, and/or for incidental takein the course of otherwise lawful activities. For threatened species,permits also are available for zoological exhibition, educationalpurposes, or special purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act.Regulations governing permits for species listed as threatened due tosimilarity of appearance are codified at 50 CFR 17.52 and regulationimplementing CITES are codified at 50 CFR part 23.It is the policy of the Service (59 FR 34272; July 1, 1994) toidentify to the maximum extent practicable at the time a species islisted those activities that would or would not constitute a violationof section 9 of the Act. The intent of this policy is to increasepublic awareness of the effect of this listing on proposed and ongoingactivities within the species' range.For the contiguous United States population of the Canada lynx, theService believes the following actions would not likely result in aviolation of section 9:(1) Actions that may affect Canada lynx in the contiguous UnitedStates that are authorized, funded or carried out by a Federal agencywhen the action is conducted in accordance with an incidental takestatement issued by the Service pursuant to section 7 of the Act;(2) Actions that may result in take of Canada lynx in thecontiguous United States when the action is conducted in accordancewith a permit under section 10 of the Act; For the contiguous UnitedStates population of the Canada lynx, the following actions likelywould be considered a violation of section 9:(1) Actions that take Canada lynx that are not authorized by eithera permit under section 10 of the Act, or an incidental take permitunder section 7 of the Act; the term ``take'' includes harassing,harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping,capturing, or collecting, or attempting any of these actions;(2) Possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship illegallytaken Canada lynx;(3) Interstate and foreign commerce (commerce across State andinternational boundaries) without the appropriate permits under section10(a)(1)(a), 50 CFR 17.32 and/or CITES.(4) Significant lynx habitat modification or degradation, includingbut not limited to forest management (e.g., logging, road constructionand maintenance, prescribed fire), and recreational, urban, oragricultural development, to the point that it results in death orinjury by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns,including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.Requests for copies of the regulations regarding listed wildlifeand inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be addressed to U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal Center,Denver, Colorado 80225.Special RuleThe implementing regulations for threatened wildlife under the Actincorporate the section 9 prohibitions for endangered wildlife (50 CFR17.31), except when a special rule promulgated pursuant to section 4(d)applies (50 CFR 17.31(c)). Section 4(d) of the Act provides thatwhenever a species is listed as a threatened species, the Service shallissue regulations deemed necessary and advisable to provide for theconservation of the species. Conservation means the use of all methodsand procedures necessary to bring the species to the point at which theprotections of the Act are no longer necessary. Section 4(d) alsostates that the Service may, by regulation, extend to threatenedspecies, prohibitions provided for endangered species under Section 9.This special rule will provide for the take of captive-bred Canadalynx without permit, allow the continuation of the export of captive-bred Canada lynx under CITES export permits, and provide for thetransportation of lynx skins in commerce within the United States. Theexport of properly tagged (with valid CITES export tag) skins from lynxdocumented as captive-bred will be permitted in accordance with part 23of this chapter. Properly tagged skins may be transported in interstatetrade without permits otherwise required under part 17.32.Public Comments SolicitedThe Service intends that any final action resulting from thisproposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore,comments, or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmentalagencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interestedparty concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. Commentsparticularly are sought concerning:(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerningany threat (or lack thereof) to this species;[[Page 37011]](2) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, andpopulation size of the species;(3) Current or planned activities in the subject area and theirpossible impacts on this species;(4) Additional information pertaining to the promulgation of aspecial rule to provide States and Tribes the opportunity to maintainthe lead role in protection, management, and recovery of the speciesthrough the voluntary development and implementation of a conservationplan. Such conservation plans would address activities having thepotential to adversely impact lynx or lynx habitat, includingactivities that may result in the take of lynx incidental to otherwiselawful activities; provisions to avoid and minimize those impacts; andexisting or planned conservation measures that will be implemented toresult in a net recovery benefit for lynx. Potential activities to beaddressed in such a plan may include trapping and hunting programs thattarget species other than lynx; forest management; road construction,maintenance and use; and recreational development. Approvedconservation plans would authorize the non deliberate or non purposefultake of lynx incidental to otherwise lawful State or Tribal activities.The final decision on this proposal will take into considerationthe comments and any additional information received by the Service,and such communications may lead to a final regulation that differsfrom this proposal.The Act provides for at least one public hearing on this proposal,if requested. However, given the high likelihood of several requeststhroughout the species' range, the Service has scheduled hearings inadvance of any request. For additional information on public hearings,see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.Similarity of AppearanceSection 4(e) of the Act authorizes the treatment of a species (orsubspecies or population segment) as an endangered or threatenedspecies even though it is not otherwise listed as endangered orthreatened if: (a) The species so closely resembles in appearance anendangered or threatened species that enforcement personnel would havesubstantial difficulty in differentiating between listed and unlistedspecies; (b) the effect of this substantial difficulty is an additionalthreat to the endangered or threatened species; and (c) that suchtreatment will substantially facilitate the enforcement and further thepolicy of the Act.The Canada lynx is included in Appendix II of the Convention onInternational Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora(CITES). CITES is an international treaty that regulates internationaltrade in certain animal and plant species. Exports of animals andplants listed on CITES Appendix II as a similarity of appearancespecies may occur only if the Scientific Authority has advised theManagement Authority that such exports will not be detrimental to thesurvival of the look alike species, and if the Management Authority issatisfied that the animals or plants were not obtained in violation oflaws for their protection. The Canada lynx was included in CITESAppendix II on February 4, 1977, as a part of the listing of allFelidae that were not already included in the appendices. A CITESexport permit pursuant to 50 CFR part 23 must be issued by theexporting country before an Appendix II species may be shipped. AllFelidae were included in Appendix II to enable better protection oflook alike species that were or could be threatened with extinctionwithout strict regulation of trade. After inclusion of the lynx (aswell as the bobcat and river otter) in CITES Appendix II, the Serviceworked with the States to develop guidelines for State programs thatwould provide the information needed to satisfy CITES exportrequirements. Under the State CITES export programs, all skins to beexported are required to be tagged with a permanently attached,serially numbered tag that identified the species, State of origin, andseason of taking. The tags are provided to the States by the Service.The States that were approved for export of lynx are Alaska, Idaho,Minnesota, Montana, and Washington. Canada lynx in Alaska are notencompassed by this listing, all existing CITES requirements remainingthe same. Of the 48 contiguous States, Montana is the only State thatstill has a wild lynx harvest with a quota of two.Currently there are facilities in Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, NorthDakota, and Utah that raise captive-bred Canada lynx for commercialpurposes. At least some of the farms report that their initial stockwas obtained from Canada. From 1992 through 1997, Minnesota and Montanareported that a total of 139 lynx pelts were tagged for export underthe CITES program and these primarily originated from farmed animals.The Service currently has an application pending for the export of 254captive-bred lynx from Utah. These captive-bred specimens have neithera positive or negative effect on the species in the wild.Current prices for lynx pelts are relatively low so there is littlepresent incentive to trap lynx. However, should pelt prices increaseagain in the future, there could be strong incentive to trap wild lynxand export their pelts. Lynx are easy to trap and the illegal take oflynx may present an enforcement and inspection problem for Servicepersonnel. Captive-bred Canada lynx cannot be effectivelydifferentiated from wild Canada lynx by Service law enforcement andinspection personnel without proper tagging. For these reasons, theService is listing the captive populations of Canada lynx within theUnited States as threatened due to similarity of appearance. However,under the latitude for threatened species afforded by the Act and 50CFR 17.31(c) the Service is proposing to issue permits for captive-bredCanada lynx to facilitate the lawful export of Canada lynx. The listingof the captive populations of Canada lynx within the United States asthreatened due to similarity of appearance eliminates the ability ofpersons to misrepresent illegally taken wild Canada lynx as captive-bred Canada lynx for commercial purposes.This proposed rule would, in addition to the export under 50 CFRpart 23 of live captive-bred Canada lynx, allow the export of skinsderived from captive-bred populations of Canada lynx if the specimensare tagged with a CITES export tag and accompanied by a valid CITESexport permit. The import of lawfully obtained Canada lynx peltsoriginating in the nation of Canada would continue to require thenecessary CITES export permits, but no additional Endangered SpeciesAct import permit would be required. Interstate transport and/orcommerce in skins that are properly tagged with valid CITES export tagswould be allowed without permits otherwise required under 50 CFR 17.32.The export or interstate transport of skins of Canada lynx takenincidental to otherwise lawful trapping for species other than Canadalynx will not be permitted under the special rule. The import of livespecimens would require permits under the Act.Regulations implementing the Endangered Species Act are set forthat 50 CFR part 17. Any person intending to engage in an activity forwhich a permit is required such as exporting lawfully obtained Canadalynx must, before commencing such activity, obtain a valid permitauthorizing such activity. Permit requirements for threatened speciesare set forth at 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32. Permit requirements forspecies[[Page 37012]]listed by similarity of appearance are set forth at 50 CFR 17.52, withexceptions to permit requirements provided by special rule as proposedherein. The Service's general permit procedures are set forth at 50 CFRpart 13. Uniform rules and procedures for the importation, exportationand transportation of wildlife are set forth at 50 CFR part 14.In summary, CITES/Endangered Species Act permits will be requiredfor U.S. captive-bred lynx being sold abroad. No U.S. Fish and Wildlifepermits will be required for the importation of lynx products into theU.S., and permits will not be required for interstate transport andcommerce in skins that are properly tagged with valid CITES exporttags.National Environmental Policy ActThe Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that EnvironmentalAssessments and Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under theauthority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not beprepared in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section4(a) of the Act. A notice outlining the Service's reasons for thisdetermination was published in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983(48 FR 49244).Required DeterminationsThe Service has examined this regulation under the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 and found it to contain no information collectionrequirements for which Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approvalis required. Persons exporting captive-bred Canada lynx may continue toobtain permits which are already authorized under 50 CFR part 23 asapproved by OMB and assigned clearance number 1018-0022.The Service invites comments on the anticipated direct and indirectcosts and benefits or cost savings associated with the special rule forthe captive Canada lynx population. In particular the Service isinterested in obtaining information on any significant economic impactsof the proposed rule on small public and private entities. Once we havereviewed the available information, we will prepare an initialregulatory flexibility analysis for the special rule and make thisavailable for public review. This analysis will be revised asappropriate and incorporated into the record of compliance (ROC)certifying that the special rule complies with the various applicablestatutory, Executive Order, and Departmental Manual requirements.Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, the ROC is not applicable tothe listing of the Canada lynx. In accordance with the criteria inExecutive Order 12866, neither the listing nor the special rule aresignificant regulatory actions subject to review by the Office ofManagement and Budget.References CitedA complete list of all references cited herein, as well as others,is available upon request from the Montana Field Office (see ADDRESSESsection).AuthorThe primary author of this document is Lori H. Nordstrom, MontanaField Office (see ADDRESSES section).List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting andrecordkeeping requirements, Transportation.Proposed Regulation PromulgationAccordingly, the Service hereby proposes to amend Part 17,Subchapter B of Chapter I, Title 50 of the U.S. Code of FederalRegulations, as set forth below:PART 17--[AMENDED]1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.2. Amend 17.11(h) by adding the following, in alphabetical orderunder ``MAMMALS,'' to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife toread as follows:Sec. 17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.* * * * *(h) * * *--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Species                                                    Vertebrate--------------------------------------------------------                        population where                                  Critical     SpecialHistoric range       endangered or         Status      When listed    habitat       rulesCommon name                Scientific name                              threatened--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mammals*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *Lynx, Canada.....................  Lynx canadensis.....  USA (WA, OR, WA,     (Unless bred in      T                                    N/A          N/AOR, ID, MT, ID,      captivity).MT, UT, UT, WY,CO, MN, WY, CO,MN, WI, MI, ME,VT, WI, MI, ME,NH, NY, MA, VT,NH, NY, PA, MA,PA, AK), Canada.Do...............................  ......do............  ......do...........  All captive animals  T(S/A)                               N/A     17.40(k)within thecoterminous U.S.A.(lower 48 States),activities asprohibited orallowed under17.31, 17.32,17.40(k), 17.52,and part 23.*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3. Amend Sec. 17.40 by adding paragraph (k) to read as follows:Sec. 17.40  Special rules--mammals.* * * * *(k) Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) population--(1) Prohibitions. (i)Except as noted in paragraph (k)(2) of this[[Page 37013]]section, all prohibitions of 50 CFR 17.31 and exemptions of 50 CFR17.32 and 17.52 apply to the captive Canada lynx population within thecoterminous United States (lower 48 States).(2) Exceptions. (i) The Service may issue incidental take permitsor permits authorizing activities that would otherwise be unlawfulunder paragraph (k)(1) of this section for education purposes,scientific purposes, the enhancement or propagation for survival ofCanada lynx, zoological exhibition, and other conservation purposesconsistent with the Act in accordance with 50 CFR 17.52 and pursuant toa section 6 cooperative agreement with a State, if applicable.(ii) No permit will be required for taking of lawfully obtaincaptive-bred lynx. The Service may issue CITES export permits forcaptive-bred Canada lynx and properly tagged captive-bred Canada lynxskins in accordance with 50 CFR part 23. Interstate transport and orcommerce in skins that are properly tagged with a valid CITES exporttag would be allowed without a permit. The export or interstatetransport of skins of Canada lynx taken incidental to otherwise lawfultrapping for species other than Canada lynx will not be permitted.Dated: June 26, 1998.Donald Barry,Acting Assistant Secretary, Fish and Wildlife and Parks.[FR Doc. 98-17771 Filed 6-30-98; 11:22 am]BILLING CODE 4310-55-P