36994 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 / Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Hwy 2, west of Ashland, Wisconsin. hearings on this proposal will be held This public hearing will be preceded by Fish and Wildlife Service in the following locations: an informational open house from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. 50 CFR Part 17 Western States Background RIN 1018±AF03 Colorado The Canada lynx is a medium-sized Wednesday, July 22, 1998 from 7 p.m. cat with long legs, large, well-furred Endangered and Threatened Wildlife until 9 p.m. at the Ramada Inn, 124 W. and Plants; Proposal To List the paws, long tufts on the ears, and a short, 6th St., Glenwood Springs, Colorado. black-tipped tail (McCord and Cardoza Contiguous United States Distinct This public hearing will be preceded by Population Segment of the Canada 1982). Adult males average 10 kilograms an informational open house from 6 (kg) (22 pounds (lb)) in weight and 85 Lynx as a Threatened Species; and the p.m. to 7 p.m. Captive Population of Canada Lynx centimeters (cm) (33.5 inches (in)) in Tuesday, July 28, 1998, from 7 p.m. length (head to tail), and females Within the Coterminous United States until 9 p.m. at the Sheraton Denver (lower 48 States) as Threatened Due to average 8.5 kg (19 lb) and 82 cm (32 in) West, 360 Union Boulevard, Lakewood, (Quinn and Parker 1987). The lynx’s Similarity of Appearance, With a Colorado. This public hearing will be Special Rule long legs and large feet make it highly preceded by an informational open adapted to hunting in deep snow. AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, house from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. The bobcat (F. rufus) is a North Interior. Idaho American relative of the Canada lynx. ACTION: Proposed rule. Compared to the lynx, the bobcat has Thursday, September 10, 1998, from 2 smaller paws, shorter ear tufts, a more p.m. until 4 p.m. and from 6 p.m. until SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife spotted pelage, and only the top of the Service (Service) proposes to list the 8 p.m. at the Coeur d’Alene Inn and tip of the tail is black. The paws of the contiguous United States population Conference Center, 414 West Appleway lynx have twice the surface area of those segment of the Canada lynx (Lynx Avenue, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. of the bobcat (Quinn and Parker 1987). canadensis) as threatened, pursuant to Montana The lynx also differs in its body proportions in comparison to the the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Tuesday, July 21, 1998, from 2 p.m. bobcat. Lynx have longer legs, with hind amended (Act). This population until 4 p.m. and from 6 p.m. until 8 p.m. legs that are longer than the front legs, segment includes the States of at the Colonial Inn Best Western, 2301 Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, giving the lynx a ‘‘stooped’’ appearance Colonial Drive, Helena, Montana. (Quinn and Parker 1987). Bobcats are Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Minnesota, Wednesday, July 22, 1998, from 2 largely restricted to habitats where deep Wisconsin, Michigan, Maine, New p.m. until 4 p.m. and from 6 p.m. until snows do not accumulate (Koehler and Hampshire, Vermont, New York, 8 p.m. at Cavanaugh’s at Kalispell Hornocker 1991). Hybridization Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. The Center, 20 N. Main, Kalispell, Montana. contiguous United States population between lynx and bobcat is unknown segment of the Canada lynx is Oregon (Quinn and Parker 1987). Classification of the Canada lynx (also threatened by human alteration of Tuesday September 15, 1998, from 2 called the North American lynx) has forests, low numbers as a result of past p.m. until 4 p.m. and from 6 p.m. until been subject to revision. The Service, in overexploitation, expansion of the range 8 p.m. at Eastern Oregon University, accordance with Wilson and Reeder of competitors (bobcats (Felis rufus) and Hoke University Center, 1410 L Avenue, (1993), recognizes the Canada lynx as L. coyotes (Canis latrans)), and elevated Rooms 201–203, LaGrande Oregon. levels of human access into lynx habitat. canadensis. The Service previously This rule also lists the captive Washington used the name L. lynx canadensis for population of Canada lynx within the Tuesday, September 8, 1998, from 2 the Canada lynx (Jones et al. 1992; S. coterminous United States (lower 48 p.m. until 4 p.m. and from 6 p.m. until Williams, Texas Tech University, pers. States) as threatened due to similarity of 8 p.m. at the Cedars Inn, 1 Appleway, comm. 1994). Other scientific names appearance with a special rule. Okanogan, Washington. still in use include Felis lynx or F. lynx canadensis (Jones et al. 1986; Tumlison DATES: Comments from all interested Wyoming 1987). parties must be received by September The historical and present North 30, 1998. Public hearing locations and Wednesday, August 12, 1998, from 2 p.m until 4 p.m and from 6 p.m until American range of the Canada lynx dates are set forth in SUPPLEMENTARY north of the contiguous United States INFORMATION section. 8 p.m. at the Cody Auditorium, Cody Club Room, 1234 Beck Avenue, Cody, includes Alaska and that part of Canada ADDRESSES: Comments and materials Wyoming. that extends from the Yukon and concerning this proposal should be sent Northwest Territories south to the to the Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Eastern States United States border, and east to New Wildlife Service, Montana Field Office, Maine Brunswick and Nova Scotia. In the 100 N. Park Ave., Suite 320, Helena, contiguous United States, the lynx Montana 59601. Comments and Tuesday, September 15, 1998 from 7 historically occurred in the Cascade materials received will be available for p.m. until 9 p.m. at the Old Town High Range of Washington and Oregon; the public inspection, by appointment, School, 240 Stillwater Ave, Old Town, Rocky Mountains from Montana, Idaho, during normal business hours at the Maine. and Oregon south to Utah and Colorado; above address. Great Lakes States the western Great Lakes region; and the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: northeastern United States region from Kemper McMaster, Field Supervisor, Wisconsin Maine, south to New York and Montana Field Office (see ADDRESSES Tuesday, September 15, 1998 from 7 Pennsylvania, and east to Massachusetts section) (telephone 406/449–5225; p.m. to 9 p.m. at the Northern Great (McCord and Cardoza 1982; Quinn and facsimile 406/449–5339). Lakes Center on County Road G near Parker 1987). Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 / Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules 36995

In the contiguous United States, 1963; van Zyll de Jong 1966; Quinn and densities are high (U.S. Fish and Canada lynx inhabit a mosaic between Parker 1987). In much of its North Wildlife Service 1977; Thiel 1987; J. boreal forests and subalpine coniferous American range, Canada lynx Conley, Idaho Department of Fish and forest or northern hardwoods, whereas populations fluctuate with the Game, in litt. 1994). Canada lynx habitat in Canada and approximate 10-year hare cycle of Because lynx occurrence throughout Alaska is the boreal forest ecosystem abundance (Elton and Nicholson 1942); much of the contiguous United States is (Barbour et al. 1980; McCord and as hare populations increase, lynx on the southern periphery of the Cardoza 1982; Koehler and Aubry 1994; populations increase. Generally, it is species’ range, there is speculation that M. Hunter, University of Maine, pers. believed that when hare populations are presence of lynx in the contiguous comm. 1994, Colorado Division of at their cyclic high, they deplete their United States is solely a consequence of Wildlife 1997). food resources and hare populations dispersal from Canada. This has led to Canada lynx are specialized predators decline. This causes lynx populations to speculation that most of the United that are highly dependent on the decline as a result of reduced States may never have supported self- snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) for reproductive success caused by an sustaining, resident 1 populations over food. Snowshoe hare prefer diverse, inadequate alternate food source (Nellis time (T. Bremicker, Minnesota early successional forests with stands of et al. 1972; Brand et al. 1976). Department of Natural Resources, in litt. conifers and shrubby understories that Snowshoe hare provide the prey 1994; S. Fritts, U.S. Fish and Wildlife provide for feeding and cover to escape quality necessary to support high Service, in litt. 1994). from predators and protection during density lynx populations (Brand and Based on the majority view of the extreme weather (Wolfe et al. 1982, Keith 1979). Lynx also prey respondents and the best scientific and Monthey 1986, Koehler and Aubry opportunistically on other small commercial data available, the Service 1994). Lynx usually concentrate their mammals and birds, particularly when has determined that, historically, the foraging activities in areas where hare hare populations decline (Nellis et al. Canada lynx was a resident species in activity is high (Koehler et al. 1979; 1972; Brand et al. 1976; McCord and 16 States in the contiguous United Parker 1981; Ward and Krebs 1985; Cardoza 1982). Apparently, a shift to States, occurring in dispersed Hash 1990; Weaver 1993; Koehler and alternate food sources may not populations at relatively low densities Aubry 1994; D. Winger, U.S. Forest compensate for the decrease in hares (Rust 1946; Harger 1965; Nellis 1971; Service, pers. comm. 1994). consumed (Koehler and Aubry 1994). Henderson 1978; Brocke 1982; Mccord Canada lynx utilize late successional The lower quality diet causes sudden and Cardoza 1982; Brainerd 1985; forests with large woody debris, such as decreases in the productivity of adult Washington Department of Wildlife downed logs and windfalls, to provide females, and decreased survival of 1993; Koehler and Aubry 1994; Kurta denning sites with security and thermal young, which causes recruitment to the 1995; T. Bailey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife cover for kittens (McCord and Cardoza breeding population to essentially cease Service, in litt. 1994; E. Bangs, U.S. Fish 1982, Koehler 1990, Koehler and Brittell (Nellis et al. 1972; Brand and Keith and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1994; 1990). In Washington, lynx used 1979). P. Beir, Northern Arizona University, in lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), spruce Based primarily on studies in the litt. 1994; B. Berg, Minnesota (Picea spp.), and subalpine fir (Abies western mountains of the contiguous Department of Natural Resources, pers. lasiocarpa) forests older than 200 years United States, it appears lynx and comm. 1994; P. Brussard, University of for denning (Koehler and Brittell 1990). snowshoe hare in more southern Nevada, in litt. 1994; G. Koehler, Based on information from the western latitudes may not exhibit strong Independent Researcher, in litt. 1994; United States, Koehler and Brittell population cycles (Dolbeer and Clark W. Krohn, University of Maine, in litt. (1990) concluded sites selected for 1975; Wolff 1980; Buehler and Keith 1994; J. Weaver, Independent denning also must provide for minimal 1982; Brittell et al. 1989; Koehler 1990; Researcher, in litt. 1994). Furthermore, disturbance by humans and proximity Koehler and Aubry 1994). Wolff (1982 the historic and current presence of to foraging habitat (early successional in Koehler and Aubry 1994) snowshoe hare populations, the lynx’s forests), with denning stands at least 1 hypothesized that the presence of primary food, within the same hectare (ha) (2.471 acres (ac)) in size. additional predators and competitors of ecosystems in the contiguous United Lynx require adequate travel cover hares at lower latitudes accounts for this States (Adams 1959; Keener 1971; (frequently intermediate successional pattern. The relative stability of hare Dolbeer and Clark 1975; Buehler and forest stages) to provide connectivity populations in southern latitudes also Keith 1982; Fuller and Heisey 1986; within a forest landscape for security, may be a result of patchy, suboptimal Monthey 1986; Koehler 1991) supports movement within home ranges, and habitat (Buehler and Keith 1982, the Service’s conclusion. access between den sites and foraging Koehler 1990, Koehler and Aubry 1994). The Service considers Canada lynx to areas (Brittell et al. 1989, Koehler and Periodic increases in lynx numbers in have been historically resident within Aubry 1994). Such areas also may the contiguous United States may be Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New provide foraging opportunities. accentuated by dispersal of transient York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, The size and shape of Canada lynx animals from Canadian populations. Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, home ranges appear related to the Canada lynx are capable of dispersing availability of prey and the density of extremely long distances (Mech 1977; 1 Note: With respect to the lynx and the analysis lynx (Koehler and Aubry 1994). Brainerd 1985; Washington Department presented in this document, the terms ‘‘resident’’ Documented home ranges vary from 12 of Wildlife 1993); for example, a male and ‘‘resident population’’ mean a group or to 243 square kilometers (sq km) (5–94 was documented traveling 616 km (370 subgroup of lynx in an area (e.g., Minnesota) or portion of a larger area (e.g., Great Lakes States) that square miles (sq mi)) and larger mi) (Brainerd 1985). Canada lynx may is capable of long-term persistence, based on self- (Saunders 1963; Brand et al. 1976; Mech disperse long distances from their sustaining reproduction of young and successful 1980; Parker et al. 1983; Koehler and normal range to search for food when recruitment of young into the breeding age cohort, Aubry 1994). snowshoe hare populations decline without immigration of lynx from Canada. It is acknowledged that movements of lynx across the The association between lynx and (Ward and Krebs 1985; C. Pils, in litt. United States and Canada border did occur and that snowshoe hare is considered a classic 1994; Koehler and Aubry 1994). Canada this migration was beneficial to the lynx in the predator-prey relationship (Saunders lynx also may disperse when local lynx contiguous United States. 36996 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 / Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Montana, Wyoming, Washington, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and 3 successive years. A total of 4,118, 1- Oregon, Idaho, Utah, and Colorado. Wildlife, pers. comm. 1994). km (0.62-mi) transects were surveyed. While evidence suggests historical Snowshoe hare habitat in the region is Lynx were encountered on 54 of the lynx numbers in the contiguous United characterized by spruce/fir softwood transects in nine townships, all during States increased because of dispersal forests typical of boreal forests; a the first year of the survey (Maine from lynx populations in northern mixture of mature and successional Department of Inland Fisheries and latitudes during the cyclic peaks softwood growth provides cover and Wildlife, in litt. 1997). However, (Henderson 1978, Mech 1980), the browse for hares (Monthey 1986). biologists have encountered lynx tracks Service does not conclude that dispersal Forested habitat in the region has in northwestern Maine during the past from Canada was required to maintain increased because of land-use changes three winters while conducting the contiguous United States lynx during the past century (Irland 1982, unrelated fieldwork (Maine Department population as viable. However, Litvaitis 1993). In some areas, there may of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, in litt., dispersal of Canada lynx into the be a gradual upward trend in the 1998). The Service concludes a resident contiguous United States may now be coniferous component as spruce and fir lynx population exists in Maine. necessary to replenish lynx numbers regenerate beneath the hardwood New Hampshire—Lynx were because of the current status of lynx in species that had established after large- intermittently bountied in New the contiguous United States. In scale logging and burning at the turn of Hampshire until 1965. In response to addition, the Service concludes that the century (D. Degraff, U.S. Forest the apparent declines in lynx suitable Canada lynx habitat currently Service, pers. comm. 1994; F. Hurley, abundance reflected in bounty numbers, exists (and existed to a greater extent Maine Department of Inland Fisheries the bounty was repealed and thereafter historically) in the contiguous United and Wildlife, in litt. 1994; J. Lanier, New the lynx was provided full protection States (Rust 1946; Harger 1965; Nellis Hampshire Fish and Game, pers. comm. from legal harvest (Siegler 1971; Silver 1971; Washington Department of 1994). Although localized habitat 1974; Litvaitis et al. 1991). Despite legal Wildlife 1993; Henderson 1978; B. conditions have improved, reoccupation protection, the lynx population did not Giddings, Montana Department of Fish, of these areas may be impeded by increase. Since 1980, the lynx has been Wildlife, and Parks, in litt. 1994; S. barriers to lynx immigration, such as listed as an endangered species by the Parren, Vermont Department of Fish and paved roads with high-volume traffic, New Hampshire Fish and Game Wildlife, pers. comm. 1994; F. Hurley, nonforested agricultural habitats, or Department. Two years of winter track in litt. 1994; and K. Staley, White other intervening areas of unsuitable surveys did not detect Canada lynx Mountain National Forest, pers. comm. habitat. (Litvaitis et al. 1991). The Service 1994). Although Maine, New Hampshire, concludes the Canada lynx is very rare Vermont, and New York report areas of and likely extirpated from New Distribution and Status suitable lynx habitat and/or prey base, Hampshire. Within the contiguous United States, low numbers of lynx are present only in Vermont—In Vermont, historically, the lynx population is divided Maine and lynx may be extirpated lynx likely occurred at low densities in regionally by ecological barriers throughout the remainder of the the northern part of the State. consisting of unsuitable lynx habitat. Northeast Region (see discussion Quantitative data on the current These regions are the Northeast, the below). Much of the potential lynx abundance or distribution of lynx are Great Lakes, and the Rocky Mountains/ habitat in this region is held in private unavailable. By the mid-1900’s, Cascades. To enhance the organization ownership (Harper et al. 1990). Vermont had not had a documented and clarity of this proposal, the regions Maine—In Maine, historical accounts breeding population of lynx for several are discussed separately below. indicate that, although lynx probably decades (Osgood 1938 in Vermont Northeast Region—Historically, lynx were never abundant, they were Department of Fish and Wildlife 1987). habitat in the Northeast United States resident in the State and that numbers Since 1972 the lynx has been listed by existed in a mostly contiguous block of of lynx fluctuated over the past 150 the State as endangered. One of the last forest in the ecotone between boreal and years (Maine Department of Inland verified occurrences of lynx in the State deciduous forest. This forest has been Fisheries and Wildlife, in litt. 1997). occurred in 1968, with periodic reports described as sub-boreal forest (M. Information on population size, trends, since then. Suitable habitat exists in the Hunter, University of Maine, pers. distribution, and factors influencing northeastern section and along comm. 1994). Principal tree species these variables are sparse and mostly mountain ridges in the State, and include red spruce (Picea rubens) and anecdotal (F. Hurley, in litt. 1994). Lynx snowshoe hares are present in high balsam fir (Abies balsamea), were bountied in Maine prior to the numbers (S. Parren, Vermont interspersed with northern hardwoods closure of hunting and trapping seasons Department of Fish and Wildlife, pers. such as sugar maple (Acer saccharum), in 1967. comm. 1994; C. Groves, Green Mountain yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), Suitable habitat and prey to support National Forest, pers. comm. 1994). and American beech (Fagus lynx are abundant in northwestern Canada lynx is currently considered to grandifolia). Lynx once occurred from Maine (F. Hurley, in litt. 1994). The be extirpated in Vermont (S. Parren, northern Maine, across northern New Maine Department of Inland Fisheries pers. comm. 1998). The Service Hampshire and Vermont, to the and Wildlife classifies the lynx as a concludes the Canada lynx is very rare Adirondacks in New York (McCord and species of special concern (Matula and likely extirpated from Vermont. Cardoza 1982) and probably occurred 1997). The lynx is currently protected New York State—Historically, lynx southward along the higher elevations from hunting and trapping. occurred in most northern regions of of the mountain ranges in the region Although no reliable population New York, the Adirondack Mountains, (Brocke 1982; K. Gustafson, New estimates exist, in 1994 it was suggested and the Catskill Mountains (K. Hampshire Department of Fish and that only 200 animals or less occur Gustafson, pers. comm. 1994), but they Game, pers. comm. 1994). statewide (Maine Department of Inland are now considered extirpated (G. Unfortunately, in records compiled Fisheries and Wildlife 1994). A Parsons, New York State Department of prior to the 1970’s, lynx were often not statewide track survey, initiated during Environmental Conservation, in litt. distinguished from bobcats (J. Cardoza, the 1994/1995 winter was conducted for 1994). By the 1880’s, the population was Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 / Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules 36997 apparently approaching extirpation extirpated from Pennsylvania and have occurred in 1940, 1952, 1962, and (Miller 1899 in Brocke 1982). Trapping Massachusetts. 1973 (Henderson 1978). Henderson and sighting records from the early Great Lakes Region—Historically the (1978) estimated that during a 47-year 1900’s to the present indicate that lynx lynx was found in the western Great period (1930–1976), the Minnesota lynx occurred only infrequently. The most Lakes States of Michigan, Wisconsin, harvest was substantial, ranging from at recent verified sighting was in 1980 (G. and Minnesota. The habitat occupied by least 50 to more than 200 per year Parsons, in litt. 1994). An abundant prey lynx in this region consists primarily of during 29 seasons. base exists (Brocke 1982), but the an ecotone between boreal and mixed From the mid-1970’s to the late habitat has been highly fragmented. deciduous forest and is a mosaic of 1980’s, pelt prices were extremely high Extensive road infrastructure and a lack balsam fir, eastern hemlock (Tsuga in Canada and the United States. Also, of early successional coniferous forest in canadensis), eastern white pine (Pinus from 1979 to 1980, hare numbers were much of the potential habitat likely strobus), jack pine (P. banksiana), at their cyclic peak (M. DonCarlos, in precludes natural lynx reestablishment quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), litt. 1994). Despite these two factors, in New York (G. Batchellor, New York birch (Betula spp.), and maple (Acer lynx harvest remained very low and the State Department of Environmental spp.) (Barbour et al. 1980). Much of the expected lynx peak for the early 1980’s Conservation, pers. comm. 1994; G. lynx habitat in this region is in public did not occur (B. Berg, pers. comm. Parsons, in litt. 1994). ownership, primarily county, State, or 1994; M. DonCarlos, in litt. 1994). As a An effort to reintroduce Canada lynx national forests. result, the harvest season was closed into the Adirondack Mountains The lynx population in this region and remains closed today. Although occurred from 1988 to 1990 (Brocke et was regularly supplemented by lynx are currently considered rare (D. al. 1990, D. Major, U.S. Fish and dispersing lynx from Canada (Harger Mech, pers. comm. 1994), available 1965; M. DonCarlos, in litt. 1994; C. Pils, Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1998), but habitat in northern Minnesota is capable in litt. 1994). Historically, Ontario and success of the reintroduction remains of maintaining resident lynx Manitoba had very strong, cyclic lynx doubtful. As of 1993, some Canada lynx populations (M. DonCarlos, in litt. populations from which individuals were believed still present, but no 1994). Based on recent anecdotal dispersed to search for food during reproduction had been documented (K. information, the Service concludes that periods when the hare populations Gustafson, pers. comm. 1994). A a resident population possibly exists in crashed or during cyclic highs of lynx collared lynx from the reintroduction Minnesota (P. Burke, U.S. Fish and populations. However, trapping harvests Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1998). effort was recently found near Ottawa, during the period of extremely high pelt Wisconsin—A resident lynx Ontario, Canada (M. Amaral, U.S. Fish prices in the 1970’s and 1980’s population likely has not existed in and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. substantially impacted Canadian lynx Wisconsin since 1900 (Thiel 1987). The 1997). No verified occurrences in New populations. As a result, harvest was presence of lynx in Wisconsin has been York have been reported recently; closed temporarily and since has been associated with the cyclic lynx however, both the State University of closely regulated (I. McKay, Manitoba population fluctuations in Canada New York at Syracuse and the New Natural Resources, in litt. 1994; M. (Thiel 1987). A bounty on lynx existed York Department of Environmental Novak, Ontario Ministry of Natural until 1957. Between 1948 and 1956, 19 Conservation maintain records of Resources, pers. comm. 1994). Because lynx were harvested in the State; annual reported sightings. No further of low numbers of lynx, Manitoba harvest ranged from zero (1954) to four monitoring is planned. In New York, closed its season on lynx harvest from (1952) (Wisconsin Department of lynx are legally classified as a small 1995 to 1997 (I. McKay, pers. comm. Natural Resources 1993). Lynx were game species with a closed season. The 1997). Although current habitat placed on the protected species list in Service concludes the Canada lynx is conditions along the Canada/United 1957 and were classified as State very rare and probably extirpated from States border for lynx are mostly intact endangered in 1972 (C. Pils, in litt. New York. and suitable, dispersal into the Great 1994). Between 1976 and 1984, 63 lynx Pennsylvania/Massachusetts—In Lakes States has been severely limited observations were reported, with most Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, because of the reduced lynx population reports from the northwestern area located at the southernmost reaches of in Canada (D. Mech, pers comm. 1994; adjacent to Minnesota; seven lynx were the historical range of the species in the M. Novak, pers. comm. 1994). reported from 1991–1993, two of which Northeast United States (Hall and Minnesota—In the past, Minnesota were mortalities (Wydeven 1992; Kelson 1959), resident animals may lynx populations fluctuated markedly Wydeven 1993; Wydeven in prep.; C. have existed in the coniferous forests of during 10-year cycles and were Pils, in litt. 1994). There were no higher elevations of mountain ranges, influenced by influxes from Canada sightings of lynx in 1994 or 1995 and but accurate historical information is (Henderson 1978; Mech 1980; M. one possible set of tracks was sighted in unavailable. Based on the lack of lynx DonCarlos, Minnesota Department of 1996 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in habitat in these States, historically the Natural Resources, in litt. 1994). The litt. 1997). Snowshoe hares occur across animal was probably uncommon (J. resident lynx population was restricted northern Wisconsin (Buehler and Keith Belfonti, in litt. 1994). Many individuals to the northeastern area of the State; 1982). Potential lynx habitat in northern in these States may have dispersed from however, transients have been found Wisconsin has remained in an early- to more northern regions during cyclic throughout Minnesota (Gunderson 1978; mid-successional mixed coniferous irruptions of the lynx populations in Mech 1980). forest condition since the early 1900’s, Canada (J. Belfonti, The Nature Until 1965, lynx were bountied in with some limited older growth present Conservancy, in litt. 1994). The last Minnesota. In 1976, the lynx was but primarily confined to forested known record of a naturally occurring classified as a game species and harvest wetlands (D. Zastrow, Wisconsin Canada lynx in Pennsylvania was in seasons were established (M. DonCarlos, Department of Natural Resources, pers. 1923 (J. Belfonti, in litt. 1994), and a in litt. 1994). Harvest and bounty comm. 1998). The lynx has been possible record from 1930 exists for records for the State are available since reclassified as a State protected species Massachusetts (J. Cardoza, in litt. 1994). 1930. Based on these records, highs in with a closed season (A. Wydeven, The Service concludes lynx are the lynx cycle were approximated to Wisconsin Department of Natural 36998 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 / Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Resources, pers. comm. 1998). Despite Michigan’s upper peninsula (T. Weise, Department of Natural Resources extensive review of historic and current in litt. 1994). Since the mid-1960’s the 1996a). Currently, lynx occupy five of information regarding the lynx in trend of lynx numbers has been these zones: Okanogan, Kettle Range, Wisconsin, neither Jackson (1961) nor unknown. However, the Service the Wedge, Little Pend Oreille, and Thiel (1987) were able to cite any concludes that low numbers of lynx Salmo Priest. Additionally, lynx occupy evidence of breeding subsequent to the may still occur in Michigan’s upper the northern and southern Cascades of decline of the species in the 1800’s. peninsula with no increasing trend Washington (Washington Department of There has been a continued decline in apparent. Natural Resources 1996a; C. Lee, U.S. confirmed sightings in recent years and Rocky Mountain/Cascades Region— Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. the Service concludes that, based on Lynx currently are thought to be present 1998). Much of these areas are in available information, a resident in the western mountains of the Federal, Tribal, and State ownership. population of lynx no longer exists in contiguous United States in the A total harvest of 215 lynx was Wisconsin, although individual animals Cascades Range of Washington, the reported for the hunting and trapping likely are present. Thompson-Okanogan Highlands of seasons from 1960–61 to 1990–91, with Michigan—In Michigan, historical northern Washington, the Blue peak harvests in 1969–70 (31 lynx) and reports indicate that the Canada lynx Mountains of Oregon, and the Rocky 1976–77 (39 lynx) (Washington was resident and widespread Mountains in Idaho, Montana, Department of Wildlife 1993). Following throughout the upper and lower Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. the 1976–77 season, lynx harvests peninsula in the 19th century (Harger Lynx habitat in Montana occurs decreased markedly, resulting in 1965). Lynx moved into the upper primarily in the high elevation increasingly restrictive harvest peninsula from Wisconsin or crossed mountains. Principal tree species regulations. Based on trapper interviews the St. Mary’s River from Ontario (Baker include lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), and track sighting, lynx densities in 1983). The limited ability for lynx Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and northeastern Washington appear to have dispersal from the upper to the lower subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) (Koehler been depressed during at least the past peninsula, in addition to positive et al. 1979, Hash 1990). In Washington, 20 years (Washington Department of lynx live in boreal-type forests that records of lynx in 23 lower peninsula Wildlife 1993). In response to markedly occur in north central Washington along counties, indicated that in the lower decreased harvests, regulations were the east slope of the Cascade Mountain peninsula, Canada lynx were self- tightened in 1977–78; lynx hunting and range and the Thompson-Okanogan sustaining in the past (Harger 1965; trapping seasons were closed in 1991 Highlands. In Oregon, lynx habitat Baker 1983). Canada lynx were believed (Washington Department of Wildlife exists in the Blue Mountains in extirpated from Michigan’s lower 1993). peninsula in 1928, and by 1938 they northeastern Oregon and the Cascades. The current lynx population in the were considered rare or extinct Preferred lynx habitat in Idaho consists State of Washington has been estimated throughout the State (Harger 1965). The of dense coniferous, high elevation at 96 to 191 individuals (Washington lynx persisted on Isle Royale in Lake forest broken by small shrubby openings Superior into the late 1970’s (Peterson and coniferous swamps (Leptich 1990). Department of Wildlife 1993). Brittell et 1977 in Baker 1983). Based on the Unsuitable habitat in Wyoming’s Red al. (1989) estimated 225 lynx in numbers and distribution of lynx Desert isolates the lynx population in Washington State. However, population reported from 1940 to 1965, particularly Colorado and extreme southeastern estimates may be high because it was during 1962, Harger (1965) believed that Wyoming from that of the Rocky assumed that habitat suitability and lynx were repopulating Michigan as a Mountains to the northwest (Thompson lynx densities were similar across the result of improved habitat conditions in and Halfpenny 1989; Koehler and Aubry range, which is not the case the upper peninsula. 1994). Colorado’s montane and (Washington Department of Wildlife The lynx was first listed as State subalpine forest ecosystems are 1993). Since 1993, the lynx has been endangered in 1974, but was not naturally highly fragmented (Findley listed as a State threatened species included on the list during revisions in and Anderson 1956 in Koehler and (Washington Department of Wildlife 1976 and 1980. It was returned to the Aubry 1994, Thompson 1994). Utah is 1993). The Service concludes that a list as threatened in 1983 and its status considered the southern margin of the resident lynx population exists in the upgraded to endangered in 1987, where Canada lynx range. State of Washington. it remains. As such, it is protected from Washington—In Washington, resident Oregon—Resident Canada lynx harvest but conservation actions are Canada lynx were historically found in populations were historically low in limited because little is known about highest concentrations in the northeast Oregon (Koehler and Aubry 1994). the species requirements (T. Weise, in and north central regions, along the east Historic records exist from nine litt. 1994). slope of the Cascade Mountains counties in Oregon (Bailey 1936, Nellis Throughout the 1980’s and 1990’s, (Washington Department of Wildlife 1971). Recent observations of lynx have reports of lynx in the upper peninsula 1993). Nellis (1971) regarded lynx been reported from the Cascades and the of Michigan have been rare; no lynx occurrence in Washington as rare to Blue Mountains in northeastern Oregon have been reported in the lower common. Records of lynx exist from the (Csuti et al. 1997; E. Gaines, Oregon peninsula during this time period (T. Mount Rainier National Park area in the Natural Heritage Program, in litt. 1994; Weise, Michigan Department of Natural central Cascades, south in the Cascades R. Anderson, Wallowa-Whitman Resources, in litt. 1994). The lynx’s nearly to the Oregon border on Mount National Forest, in litt. 1998). The current distribution in Michigan is Adams, and in the Blue Mountains in Canada lynx is currently classified as a unknown but is likely limited to the the southeastern part of the State furbearer with a closed trapping and upper peninsula. No surveys have been (Taylor and Shaw 1927 in Koehler and hunting season (E. Gaines, Oregon conducted to determine lynx numbers Aubry 1994, Dalquest 1948, Washington Natural Heritage Program, pers. comm. or range (T. Weise, in litt. 1994). The Department of Natural Resources 1997). The Service concludes that a self- last breeding record was in 1976 (T. 1996a). Washington has designated six sustaining resident population does not Weise, in litt. 1994). Suitable lynx ‘‘Lynx Management Zones’’ across north exist in Oregon, but individual animals habitat is currently available in central Washington (Washington are present. Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 / Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules 36999

Idaho—According to Rust (1946), 1959 and 1967, estimates of statewide recovered and is distributed across its lynx were distributed throughout harvest ranged from a low of 36 in the historic range (B. Giddings, in litt. northern Idaho in the early 1940’s, 1961–62 season to a high of 376 during 1994). However, others familiar with occurring in 8 of the 10 northern and the 1963–64 season (Hoffman et al. lynx in the Rocky Mountain region north-central counties. In 1990, Hash 1969). However, these figures likely suggest that these estimates are reported stable or declining small lynx overestimate lynx abundance because optimistic, and express serious concerns populations in Idaho. Harvest records they probably include bobcats. Since about the status of lynx in Montana (E. were unreliable prior to the late 1980’s 1985, harvest records exist from 24 Bangs, pers. comm. 1994; M. Hornocker, because no distinction was made counties in the northwest, southwest, Hornocker Wildlife Research Institute, between lynx and large bobcats. In 1982, and west-central part of the State (B. Inc., in litt. 1994; G. Koehler, in litt. Idaho Department of Fish and Game Giddings, in litt. 1994). Hoffman et al. 1994; L. Nordstrom, U.S. Fish and initiated a mandatory pelt tagging (1969) cited numerous records of lynx Wildlife Service, in litt. 1994; M. Roy program and the number of reported harvested in eastern Montana’s Great and S. Torbit, National Wildlife lynx harvests dropped to zero. Twelve Plains region between 1959 and 1967, Federation, in litt. 1994). The Service lynx were reported harvested between but these records are suspect because of concludes a resident population of lynx 1978 and 1991 (M. Tera-Berns, Idaho possible misidentification with bobcat. is present in Montana. Department of Fish and Game, pers. Beginning in 1977, lynx were Wyoming—In Wyoming, Canada lynx comm. 1997). No current population classified as a furbearer. A season length are generally believed to have been estimates are available (P. Harrington, and licensing regulations were set, but uncommon in the State because of the U.S. Forest Service, pers. comm. 1994; no quota was imposed. Harvest records limited availability of large areas of J. Hayden, Idaho Department of Fish can reflect the status of lynx suitable habitat (Reeve et al. 1986; Clark and Game, pers. comm. 1994). Recent populations; however, the lynx harvest and Stromberg 1987; Wyoming Game confirmed lynx reports are scarce (J. and, consequently, the lynx population and Fish Department 1992). Until 1957, Conley, Idaho Department of Fish and likely were significantly influenced by lynx were bountied in the State. Since Game, in litt. 1994). extremely high pelt prices during the 1973, the lynx has been listed as a Prior to 1977, the species was mid-1970’s to late 1980’s. protected nongame species. Nearly all considered a predator, subject to Since 1977, Montana’s highest lynx historical and recent records of lynx in unrestricted harvest with no closed harvest occurred in both 1979 and 1984 Wyoming are from the western season and no bag limit. In 1990, in when 62 lynx were taken in each season mountain ranges, primarily within the response to concern over the status of (B. Giddings, in litt. 1994). Although Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (Reeve lynx in Idaho, the Idaho Department of quotas dropped incrementally from 135 et al. 1986). However, documented Fish and Game instituted a statewide to 40 over an 8-year period (1982–1989), reports of lynx in Yellowstone National harvest quota of three lynx per year. lynx harvest never approached the Park are rare (S. Consolo-Murphy, Idaho closed the Canada lynx trapping/ quota levels, ranging from 62 to 15 Yellowstone National Park, pers. comm. hunting season in the 1997/1998 season animals taken per season (B. Giddings, 1994). Elsewhere in Wyoming, lynx because the quota had not been filled in in litt. 1994). After 1985, lynx harvests have been reported from the Uinta several years, although lynx remain declined to record lows and lynx Mountains in the extreme southwest classified as a furbearer. In 1995, a populations in Montana were believed and the Big Horn Mountains in the multiple agency Conservation Strategy to be at or near their lowest levels in the north-central part of the State, although was initiated to assess the conservation past several decades (Hash 1990). In these are unconfirmed by field of the lynx and other forest carnivores response, a district of the Montana investigations (Reeve et al. 1986). (Idaho Department of Fish and Game et Trappers Association requested that Only 12 records of lynx exist for al. 1995; Roloff 1995). The Service lynx harvest be closed for one season (S. Wyoming from 1981 to 1994 (C. Gillin, concludes that a self-sustaining resident Conn, Montana Trappers Association, in Wyoming Game and Fish Department, population does not exist in Idaho, but litt. 1990). The State responded by in litt. 1994). In late 1996 the Wyoming individual animals are present. decreasing the quota from 40 to 5 in Game and Fish Department began a Montana—In Montana, Canada lynx 1990 (B. Giddings, in litt. 1994). During study to attempt to document the were reported to be common (Nellis this period, the lowest annual harvest current range of the lynx. Two lynx 1971) and were found throughout the occurred in 1990, with two lynx taken have been trapped and collared in the western part of the State (B. Giddings, while the quota was five (B. Giddings, Wyoming Range and continue to be Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, in litt. 1994). From 1991 to the present, tracked (B. Oakleaf, Wyoming Game and and Parks, in litt. 1994). After 1985, lynx the quota has been two, which was Fish Department, pers. comm. 1998). In populations in Montana were believed filled annually or exceeded by one addition, one lynx was confirmed in the to be at or near their lowest levels in the (1991) or two (1993) (B. Giddings, in litt. Wind River Range in 1997 (B. Luce, past several decades (Hash 1990). 1994). Wyoming Game and Fish, pers. comm. Brainerd (1985) documented evidence The Montana Department of Fish, 1997). of Canada lynx reproduction; however, Wildlife, and Parks estimated the lynx If lynx exist in southeastern more recent evidence of recruitment population as 1,750 to 2,400 in 1977, Wyoming, they are isolated from the rest into the population has not been 700 to 950 in 1982, and 1,040 lynx in of the State by the Red Desert but are documented. 1994 (B. Giddings, in litt. 1994). These contiguous with Colorado lynx Until 1977, lynx in Montana were estimates were determined using a populations (J. Fitzgerald, University of classified as nongame and were habitat area/density index. Habitat area Northern Colorado, pers. comm. 1994; J. provided no regulatory protection (D. estimates did not account for habitat Halfpenny, Independent Researcher, Childress, Montana Department of Fish, areas that would be unsuitable for lynx. pers. comm. 1994; J. Weaver, pers. Wildlife, and Parks, in litt. 1990). Harvest records, winter track surveys comm. 1994). None of the reports of Assessment of historic population levels conducted since 1990–91, and trapper lynx in the Medicine Bow and Laramie or trends is difficult because lynx often logbooks, have led Montana Department ranges in southeastern Wyoming have were not distinguished from bobcats in of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks to conclude been confirmed to date (Reeve et al. harvest records prior to 1977. Between that the State’s lynx population has 1986). The Service concludes that, 37000 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 / Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules although individual lynx are present, a of transients dispersing during periods petition finding. On July 9, 1993, the resident population likely no longer of high lynx density elsewhere (Hall and Service published a notice indicating exists in Wyoming. Kelson 1959; Burt 1954 in Brocke 1982; that it had revisited the North Cascades Utah—In Utah, Canada lynx are S. Johnson, Indiana Department of 90-day petition after receiving new thought to be nearly extirpated, Natural Resources, in litt. 1994; P. Jones, information and again found that there although it is possible a few may exist Ohio Department of Natural Resources, was not substantial information to in the high, inaccessible areas of the in litt. 1994; W. Jobman, U.S. Fish and indicate that listing the population may Uinta Mountains (B. Blackwell, Utah Wildlife Service, in litt. 1997; be warranted (58 FR 36924). The Service Department of Natural Resources, pers. Smithsonian Institute, in litt. 1998). announced in the finding that a status comm. 1994). Sightings have been During the early 1960’s, lynx moved review would be conducted. In a reported from most of the mountain into the Great Plains and the Midwest settlement agreement dated November ranges in Utah. However, because of region of the United States during an 30, 1993, the Service agreed to conduct misidentification with the bobcat, some apparent cyclic high in surrounding a status review throughout the lower 48 of these records may not be valid lynx populations (Gunderson 1978; States to determine if the species was (McKay 1991). Nearly all the reliable Mech 1980; DeStefano 1987; South threatened or endangered, and to lynx reports are from the Uinta Dakota Natural Heritage Program, in litt. complete the review and publish the Mountain Range along the Wyoming 1994). Based on the lynx’s ecological finding by November 15, 1994. On border (McKay 1991). The lynx is listed requirements, such records likely February 2, 1994, the Service published as a State sensitive species. The Service represent dispersing, transient a notice (59 FR 4887) announcing concludes that a self-sustaining resident individuals, not resident populations. continuation of the status review that population does not exist in Utah, but Summary of Status—Based on was initiated in 1982. individual animals may be present. information available to the Service at On April 27, 1994, the Service Colorado—Colorado represents the this time, the Service concludes that received a petition to list the extreme southern edge of the range of lynx were resident in 16 States in the coterminous United States population of the Canada lynx. Wyoming’s Red Desert contiguous United States. Currently, ‘‘North American’’ lynx as threatened or likely acts as a barrier that reduces or resident populations of lynx likely exist endangered. Additionally, the precludes opportunities for immigration in Maine, Montana, Washington, and petitioners requested that the southern and emigration, effectively isolating possibly Minnesota. States with recent Rocky Mountain population of the lynx in the southern Rocky Mountains records of individual lynx sightings, but ‘‘North American’’ lynx in Wyoming in Colorado and Wyoming (Halfpenny et possibly no longer sustaining self- and Colorado be emergency listed. A al. 1982; Koehler and Aubry 1994; G. supporting populations, include notice was published on August 26, Koehler, in litt. 1994; J. Weaver, in litt. Wisconsin, Michigan, Oregon, Idaho, 1994 (59 FR 44123), indicating that the 1994). It is likely Canada lynx never Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. Lynx petition presented substantial have been abundant in Colorado may be extirpated from New Hampshire, information that listing may be (Colorado Division of Wildlife et al. Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania, and warranted, but that there was not 1997), partially because its montane and Massachusetts. substantial information to indicate that subalpine forest ecosystems are emergency listing may be warranted for Previous Federal Action naturally highly fragmented (Thompson the Southern Rocky Mountain 1994). The Canada lynx was added to population. The lynx has been listed as a State Appendix II of the Convention on On December 27, 1994, the Service endangered species since 1976 International Trade in Endangered published a notice (59 FR 66507) of its (Colorado Division of Wildlife et al. Species of Wild Flora and Fauna in 12-month finding as to the status of the 1997). From the late 1800’s to 1993, 1977. The Service classified the Canada Canada lynx in the 48 contiguous States, only 65 reliable lynx records exist; the lynx as a category 2 candidate species as directed by the settlement agreement last verified lynx specimens were taken in the December 30, 1982, Vertebrate and the petition, that listing was not in the early 1970’s (J. Sheppard, Notice of Review (47 FR 58454). warranted because of the lack of Colorado Division of Wildlife, in litt. Category 2 species were those species residency of lynx populations in the 1994). Since the late 1970’s, intensive for which information in the Service’s lower 48 States and the Service’s surveying efforts have revealed only possession indicated that listing was inability to substantiate that threats minimal evidence of lynx presence possibly appropriate, but for which such as ‘‘trapping, hunting, poaching, (Halfpenny and Miller 1981; Thompson substantive data on biological and present habitat destruction’’ and Halfpenny 1989; Anderson 1990; vulnerability and threats were not actually ‘‘threaten the continued Thompson and Halfpenny 1991; available to support a proposed rule. existence of the lynx in the wild.’’ On Andrews 1992; Carney 1993; Fitzgerald Candidate species are currently defined January 30, 1996, the Defenders of 1994; J. Sheppard, in litt. 1994; J. as those species for which the Service Wildlife and 14 other plaintiffs Halfpenny, pers. comm. 1994; Colorado has sufficient information on file challenged the Service’s finding by Division of Wildlife et al. 1997). Lynx in detailing biological vulnerability and filing a lawsuit. Colorado are believed to be extremely threats to support issuance of a On March 27, 1997, the U.S. District rare and the long-term viability of the proposed rule, but issuance of the Court (District of Columbia) issued an lynx in Colorado is questionable proposed rule is precluded by other order setting aside the not warranted (Colorado Division of Wildlife et al. listing actions. On October 6, 1992, the finding and remanded it to the Service 1997). The Service concludes that a self- Service published a notice of a 90-day for further consideration. The Service sustaining resident population does not petition finding indicating that the was ordered to publish a 12-month exist in Colorado, but individual August 22, 1991 petition did not present finding on the status of the lynx within animals may be present. substantial information to indicate that 60 days. On May 27, 1997, the Service Other Reports or Sightings—Lynx listing the North Cascades population of published a 12-month petition finding observations in Nevada, North Dakota, the Canada lynx as endangered was (62 FR 28653) that the Canada lynx South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, Indiana, warranted (57 FR 46007). A lawsuit was population in the contiguous United Ohio, and Virginia appear to be a result filed challenging the October 6, 1992, States was warranted for listing under Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 / Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules 37001 the Act but precluded by higher priority earlier Service guidance on assignment continue to contribute to, declines in listing actions. This warranted but of priorities to species under local or regional Canada lynx precluded finding automatically consideration for listing as endangered populations. The most influential factor elevated the Canada lynx to candidate or threatened published in the Federal affecting lynx habitat is human species status. Candidate species are Register on September 21, 1983 (48 FR alteration of the distribution and defined as those species for which the 43098). This guidance sets up a priority abundance, species composition, Service has sufficient information on system from 1–12 based on immediacy successional stages, and connectivity of file detailing biological vulnerability and magnitude of threat and on species’ forests, and the resulting changes in the and threats to support issuance of a taxonomy. In the Service’s May 1997 forests’ capacity to sustain lynx proposed rule, but issuance of the finding the lynx was elevated to populations. Additionally, forest proposed rule is precluded by other candidate status and given a listing fragmentation isolates habitat into listing actions. priority of 3. relatively small patches, thereby On September 15, 1997, Defenders of In accordance with the policy reducing the viability of wildlife that are Wildlife, et al. filed suit against the promulgated July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), dependent on larger areas of forest Service in the U.S. District Court, the Service will solicit the opinions of habitat (Litvaitis and Harrison 1989). District of Columbia, arguing that the independent Canada lynx experts and/ In all regions of the lynx range in the Service violated the Act in finding that or conservation biologists regarding the contiguous United States, timber harvest listing the Canada lynx population in proposed rule. The purpose of such and its related activities are a the contiguous United States was review is to ensure listing decisions are predominant land use affecting lynx warranted but precluded. On December based on scientifically sound data, habitat. Forestry practices can be 22, 1997, the court denied the plaintiffs’ assumptions, and analyses, including beneficial or detrimental for lynx motion to enforce judgement against the input of appropriate experts and depending on the method and timing by Service’s May 1997 warranted but specialists. Peer reviewers will be which they are conducted. Timber precluded finding for the Canada lynx identified through requests to research harvest can be used to achieve the early population in the contiguous United institutions, universities, and museums successional stages of forest preferred by States. At the same time, the court set for individuals with recognized snowshoe hares, although it takes time an expedited schedule and hearing date expertise with the subject matter. The (15 years or more depending on the type (March 18, 1998) for the lawsuit filed in reviewers will be asked to comment of forest) for harvested areas to reach September 1997. during the public comment period upon this stage (Monthey 1986, Quinn and On February 12, 1998, the U.S. the specific assumptions and Parker 1987, Koehler 1990, Koehler and District Court approved a settlement conclusions regarding the proposed Brittell 1990, Washington Department of agreement between the Service and the listing and special rule. These Wildlife 1993). For example, in the Plaintiffs that called for the Service to comments will be considered in the West, thinning (either single tree or publish a proposed rule to list the preparation of the final rule as group selection), if implemented in a Canada lynx in the contiguous United appropriate. In a status review of the well-planned harvest prescription, can States by June 30, 1998. This proposed lynx in 1994, prior to the publication of hasten the development of late- rule for the contiguous United States the Service’s formal peer review policy, successional forests containing population of the Canada lynx fulfills the Service solicited the comments of 31 structures such as downed woody the requirement of the settlement independent experts and/or debris for thermal and security cover agreement and serves as the final 12- conservation biologists regarding the and for denning; early thinning to month warranted finding on the effects of cyclic Canada lynx movements maximize tree-growth potential can be petitions to list the lynx. from Canada to the contiguous United compatible with snowshoe hare and Processing of this proposed rule States. Of the 16 responses received, 9 lynx habitat needs provided that stands conforms with the Service’s Listing respondents believed Canada lynx are thinned before snowshoe hares Priority Guidance for Fiscal Years 1998 should be considered resident in recolonize the area (Koehler and Aubry and 1999, published on May 8, 1998 (63 portions of the contiguous United 1994). FR 25502). The guidance clarifies the States, 1 did not (regarding the Great order in which the Service will process Lakes region only), and 6 did not Intensive tree harvesting (e.g., large- rulemakings giving highest priority (Tier specifically respond to the questions. scale clearcutting) can eliminate the 1) to processing emergency rules to add mosaic of habitats necessary for Canada species to the Lists of Endangered and Summary of Factors Affecting the lynx survival, including late Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists); Species successional denning and early second priority (Tier 2) to processing Section 4 of the Act and regulations successional prey habitat. Specifically, final determinations on proposals to add (50 CFR part 424) promulgated to these activities can result in reduced species to the Lists, processing new implement the listing provisions of the cover, unusable forest openings, and proposals to add species to the Lists, Act set forth the procedures for adding monotypic stands with a sparse processing administrative findings on species to the Federal lists. A species understory that are unfavorable for petitions (to add species to the Lists, may be determined to be an endangered Canada lynx and/or their prey (Brittell delist species, or reclassify listed or threatened species due to one or more et al. 1989; de Vos and Matel 1952; species), and processing a limited of the five factors described in section Harger 1965; Hatler 1988; Koehler 1990; number of proposed or final rules to 4(a)(1). These factors and their K. Gustafson, pers. comm. 1994; J. delist or reclassify species; and third application to the Canada lynx (Lynx Lanier, pers. comm. 1994). Canada lynx priority (Tier 3) to processing proposed canadensis) are discussed below. avoid openings such as clearcuts, or final rules designating critical habitat. unforested areas, and grasslands Processing of this proposed rule is a A. The Present or Threatened (Koehler et al. 1979; Koehler and Brittell Tier 2 action. At this time, this region Destruction, Modification, or 1990, Murray et al. 1994) and snowshoe has no pending Tier 1 actions and is Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range hares are also unlikely to use such areas progressing with work on Tier 2 actions. Since the mid-to-late 1800’s, several because of the lack of cover (Koehler et This proposed rule also conforms to habitat-related factors influenced, and al. 1979; H. Golden, Alaska Department 37002 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 / Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules of Fish and Game, pers. comm. 1994; supply adequate cover for snowshoe southward across the St. Lawrence River Koehler and Aubry 1994). hares (Monthey 1986). Additional (W. Krohn, in litt. 1994; R. Lafond, pers. declines in hare populations may have comm. 1994; J. Lanier, pers. comm. Great Lakes and Northeast Region occurred during the 1940’s and 1950’s 1994; J. Litvaitis, University of New Softwoods that provided Canada lynx as a result of large-scale forest Hampshire, pers. comm. 1994). habitat were logged extensively during maturation (Litvaitis et al. 1991). However, lynx from a resident the late 1800’s and early 1900’s (Jackson In Maine, large tracts of forest (some population in a Quebec reserve south of 1961; Barbour et al. 1980; Belcher 1980; as large as 36-square mile townships) the St. Lawrence should encounter little Irland 1982). Over a relatively short were harvested in the 1960’s to reduce difficulty crossing into Maine (C. period, timber extraction during this era the incidence of spruce budworm. McLaughlin, Maine Department of resulted in the replacement of late- Harvesting of these large tracts create a Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, in litt. successional conifer forest with simplified, monotypic forest over large 1998). Similarly, movement of lynx into extensive tracts of very early areas, not a mosaic of forest stands. Maine from occupied habitat in New successional habitat and eliminated Passage of the State Forestry Practices Brunswick should be possible. cover for lynx and hare (Jackson 1961, Act has required clearcut size to be Today, diminished numbers of Keener 1971). Coniferous forests also substantially reduced. Canada lynx in southern Canada and the were cleared for agriculture during this At higher elevations and northern paucity of functional dispersal routes period. In the Northeast Region, slash, latitudes in the Northeast, red spruce from Canadian lynx populations have accumulated during logging operations, and balsam fir are important substantially restricted the opportunity fueled wildfires that burned vast components of snowshoe hare habitat. for Canada lynx to recolonize suitable acreages of softwood forest (Belcher Declines in red spruce forests have been habitat in New York, Vermont, and New 1980; J. Lanier, pers. comm. 1994). This documented, and drought, acid Hampshire (Litvaitis et al. 1991; W. sudden alteration of habitat likely deposition, and other human-generated Krohn, in litt. 1994; R. La Fond, pers. resulted in sharp declines in snowshoe pollutants have been suggested as comm. 1994; J. Lanier, pers. comm. hare numbers over large areas, principal causes (Scott et al. 1984). 1994). subsequently reducing Canada lynx Lynx populations have not increased In 1990, the U.S. Forest Service numbers (Jackson 1961; Keener 1971; K. in the Northeast Region despite some published a report that examined the Gustafson, pers. comm. 1994; J. Lanier, apparent improvements in habitat. northern forest lands in New York, pers. comm. 1994). Forested habitat in the Northeast has Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine During these early periods of timber increased because of land-use changes (Harper et al. 1990). The 26-million acre extraction in the Northeast and Great during the past century (Irland 1982; study area encompassed most of the Lakes Regions, probable declines in Litvaitis 1993). In some areas there may historic range of lynx in the region. Canada lynx numbers were concurrent be a gradual upward trend in the Eighty-four percent of northern forest with substantial increases in human coniferous component as spruce and fir lands in the region are currently populations and unregulated trapping in regenerate beneath hardwood species privately owned and 16 percent are in or near lynx habitat (K. Gustafson, pers. (D. Degraff, pers. comm. 1994). Several public ownership, of which only comm. 1994; J. Lanier, pers. comm. of the Northeast States support 300,000 acres are federally owned. 1994). By the turn of the century in the adequate, if not abundant, snowshoe Commercial forestry continues to be the Northeast Region, historical records hare populations (C. Grove, Green dominant land use on 60 percent of the indicate that lynx populations were Mountain National Forest, pers. comm. private lands in the northern forests. declining or were nearly extirpated 1994; F. Hurley, in litt. 1994; J. Lanier, The rapid pace of subdivision for (Silver 1974; Vermont Department of pers. comm. 1994). recreation home sites has been Fish and Game 1987; K. Gustafson, in Isolation of suitable habitat and lack identified as a serious concern to litt. 1994; G. Parsons, in litt. 1994). of immigration apparently remain maintaining the integrity of Northeast The impacts of the logging conducted important factors in the continued forests (Harper et al. 1990). in the Northeast Region during the late absence of lynx populations in the Habitat fragmentation from forestry 1800’s continue to affect Canada lynx Northeast Region (Litvaitis et al. 1991; management programs, agricultural habitat. In Maine, softwood cover and W. Krohn, University of Maine, in litt. conversions, and roadway construction dense sapling growth provided 1994; R. Lafond, Quebec Department of may be limiting lynx in the Great Lakes improved snowshoe hare habitat after Recreation, Fish, and Game, pers. States. However, insufficient timber harvest and fires in late comm. 1994). Historically, resident information currently exists to assess successional forests (Monthey 1986). Canada lynx populations in the the impact of these threats to lynx. Lynx However, in the western sections of the Northeast were periodically habitat quality appeared to be increasing Northeast Region, extensive tracts of supplemented with transient or in Michigan’s upper peninsula as of predominantly softwood forests that dispersing individuals from the north 1965 (Harger 1965); however, as of 1998, were harvested and burned-over during (Litvaitis et al. 1991; J. Lanier, pers. lynx numbers have not increased in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s were comm. 1994). However, over the past response to predicted improved habitat subsequently replaced with regenerating several decades, Canada lynx numbers (Kurta 1995). hardwoods (D. Degraff, pers. comm. also declined in the southern portions of 1994; J. Lanier, pers. comm. 1994). For its range in Canada in response to Rocky Mountain/Cascades Region a period of time, this extensive area overexploitation and clearing of forested The majority of Canada lynx habitat would have been in the early habitat for agriculture, timber, and in the West occurs on public lands. successional habitat used by snowshoe human settlement (Mills 1990; Research linking forest management on hare. However, such extensive tracts did McAlpine and Heward 1993; Quebec Federal lands in the West to Canada not provide the mosaic of forest habitats Department of Recreation, Fish, and lynx habitat requirements is minimal. required by lynx and, as succession Game, in litt. 1993). The fragmented In the interior Columbia River basin progressed, these tracts became landscape across southern Quebec of eastern Washington and Oregon, unsuitable for both lynx and hare. probably presents a substantial barrier Idaho, and western Montana, timber Hardwood forests do not typically to lynx attempting to disperse harvest patterns, along with the Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 / Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules 37003 exclusion of fire have converted much suppressed in the Region (P. Stickney, are concentrated (Carbyn and Patriquin of the late successional stage forest to U.S. Forest Service, pers. comm. 1994). 1983; Ward and Krebs 1985; Bailey et al. younger, mid-successional stage forests In all regions of the contiguous United 1986; J. Weaver, pers. comm. 1994). (U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land States lynx range, clearing of forests for Human-induced mortality is the most Management 1996). There has been an urbanization, recreational developments important mortality factor for Canada increase in fragmentation of forest lands such as ski areas, and agriculture has lynx populations (Ward and Krebs and loss of connectivity within and fragmented, degraded, or reduced the 1985). Trapping mortality has been between blocks of habitat, which has available suitable lynx habitat, reduced shown to be entirely additive (i.e., in isolated some wildlife habitats and the prey base, and increased human addition to natural mortality) rather reduced the ability of some wildlife disturbance and the likelihood of than compensatory (taking the place of populations to move across the accidental trapping, shooting, or natural mortality) (Brand and Keith landscape (U.S. Forest Service and highway mortality (de Vos and Matel 1979). In Minnesota, trapping was Bureau of Land Management 1997). 1952; Harger 1965; Belcher 1980; Thiel estimated to account for 81 percent of In the Seeley-Swan Valley in 1987; Todd 1985; Thompson 1987; known lynx mortality during cyclic northwestern Montana, the forest Harper et al. 1990; Brocke et al. 1991; lows and 58 percent of mortality during landscape has become increasingly Thompson and Halfpenny 1991; cyclic highs (Henderson 1978). In fragmented since 1930, consisting of Colorado Division of Wildlife et al. numerous studies, trapping or shooting smaller, more numerous patches with 1997) (see factor E). was documented as the cause of a substantial majority of Canada lynx more edge and less interior habitat (Hart B. Overutilization for Commercial, mortalities (Mech 1980; Carbyn and 1994). Fragmentation was caused by an Recreational, Scientific, or Education Patriquin 1983; Ward and Krebs 1985; extensive network of highway and forest Purposes roads, timber harvest, and residential Bailey et al. 1986). The Service believes that the effects of construction. Timber harvest replaced Unregulated trapping and hunting of an overharvest of Canada lynx during fire as the dominant disturbance process Canada lynx continued for decades in the 1970’s and 1980’s persist today and the contiguous United States. Lynx were (Hart 1994). Mature/overmature forests continue to reduce the potential for bountied in several States until have declined in total area, while recovery of lynx populations in the relatively recently. Canada lynx were seedling and sapling seral stages have contiguous United States by precluding likely overexploited during periods of become more extensive (Hart 1994). The repopulation of areas of suitable habitat. unregulated harvest in the Northeast amount of predicted lynx habitat in the Where exploitation is intense and and Great Lakes regions (K. Gustafson, Seeley-Swan Valley has declined 36 recruitment is low, trapping can pers. comm. 1994; J. Lanier, pers. comm. percent since 1930 and became more significantly depress lynx populations 1994). In the Rocky Mountains/Cascades fragmented over time (Hart 1994). (Koehler and Aubry 1994). Fewer Region, lynx population declines prior Recolonization of suitable lynx Canada lynx of breeding age reduce the to 1940 were attributed to high trapping habitat within the State of Washington ability and degree to which lynx pressure (Nellis 1971). eventually may be precluded by the populations recover after population Historically, lynx trapping provided a fragmentation of habitat and potential lows (de Vos and Matel 1952; Brand and significant economic return in the fur isolation from the lynx population in Keith 1979; Todd 1985; Ward and Krebs trading industry. During periods of high Canada (Washington Department of 1985; Bailey et al. 1986; Hatler 1988; pelt prices, the potential for obtaining Wildlife 1993). Brittell et al. 1989). Elton and Nicholson even a single lynx pelt made trapping Fire has played an important role in (1942) recognized that overharvest had efforts worthwhile (Quinn and Parker forest ecology in western mountain the potential to diminish lynx 1987, Hatler 1988). This economic ranges of the United States. Forest fires populations to levels where the natural incentive increases the threat of over naturally maintained mosaics of early cycles of lynx populations could not exploitation of Canada lynx successional forest stands, unburnt bogs occur. populations. and swamps, and late-successional Lynx behavior makes them The present low numbers of lynx in conifer forest forming ideal snowshoe susceptible to trapping. Canada lynx are the contiguous United States and hare and Canada lynx habitat (Todd easy to catch in traps (Bailey et al. 1986; southern Canada are the residual effects 1985; Fischer and Bradley 1987; Quinn Hatler 1988; Mills 1990). The potential of substantial overtrapping that and Parker 1987). During the early number of traps a lynx encounters is occurred in the 1970’s and 1980’s, in twentieth century, Federal and State increased when it moves long distances response to unprecedented high pelt agencies in the contiguous United States to search for prey. Canada lynx are more prices (Bailey et al. 1986; B. Berg, pers. enacted a policy of suppressing forest vulnerable to concentrated trapping comm. 1994; D. Mech, pers. comm. fires. The lack of adequate hare habitat efforts because lynx focus their hunting 1994; M. Novak, Ontario Ministry in southern latitudes may be partially a in areas where snowshoe hare densities Natural Resources, pers. comm. 1994; A. result of fire suppression during the past are high (Ward and Krebs 1985). On the Todd, Alberta Department of Forestry, 50 years (Koehler 1990). Suppression of Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, juvenile lynx Lands, and Wildlife, pers. comm. 1994). forest fires in the West has allowed were five times more vulnerable to As a result of fur demands by the forests to mature, thereby reducing trapping than adults; several juvenile fashion industry, pelt prices began habitat suitability for snowshoe hares siblings can easily be trapped from a increasing around 1975 (Hatler 1988, and Canada lynx (Brittell et al. 1989; small area (Bailey et al. 1986). Trapping Hash 1990). In Montana, the 1974 Fox 1978; Koehler 1990; Washington females that are accompanied by kittens average pelt price was $63, but by 1978 Department of Wildlife 1993; T. Bailey, often results in the death of those the average price increased over 500 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in litt. kittens because they are unable to feed percent to $348 (B. Giddings, in litt. 1994; H. Golden, pers. comm. 1994). and protect themselves (Bailey et al. 1994). Lynx pelt prices peaked in the Fire suppression is most likely affecting 1986; Carbyn and Patriquin 1983; Parker mid-1980’s at nearly $500 and remained lynx habitat in areas where historical et al. 1983). It is possible for a trapper above $200 per pelt for 12 years until frequency of fires is shorter than the to remove a large proportion of a local 1989. Pelt prices were comparable length of time fires have been lynx population by trapping where lynx throughout the United States and 37004 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 / Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Canada (Todd 1985; Hatler 1988; I. decade in the lack of cyclic lynx highs University of New York, pers. comm. McKay, Manitoba Natural Resources, in in parts of the contiguous United States 1994). litt. 1994; Quebec Department of and the lack of typical cyclic influxes of D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Recreation, Fish, and Game, in litt. lynx from Canada, although data have Mechanisms 1994). indicated normal hare populations (M. The number of Montana bobcat and DonCarlos, in litt. 1994; M. DonCarlos, There are no regulatory mechanisms lynx trapping licenses is an example of pers. comm. 1994). that address the management or a general index of trapper effort and also In response to substantially declining conservation of functional Canada lynx of the amount of trapping pressure on harvests during the 1970’s and 1980’s habitat, although most states provide the lynx populations. Records indicate that (indicating that lynx populations were Canada lynx with protection from the price of pelts influenced the being over exploited), Washington, hunting and trapping. trapping effort. The average number of Montana, Minnesota, Alberta, British Lynx are classified as endangered by licensed lynx and bobcat trappers from Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, 4 of the 16 States in the contiguous United States where the Canada lynx 1972–73 through 1974–75 was 1,600 (B. and Alaska severely restricted or closed was considered to be a resident species, Giddings, in litt. 1994). After the record their lynx harvest seasons (Bailey et al. Vermont (1972), New Hampshire (1980), high pelt prices in 1978–79, a total of 1986; Hatler 1988; Hash 1990; Michigan (1987), and Colorado (1976). nearly 5,000 trappers were licensed for Washington Department of Wildlife Lynx are classified as threatened by the next season. Although information 1993; S. Conn, in litt. 1990; M. Washington (1993). Utah has classified on licenses was not available after 1982, DonCarlos, in litt. 1994; B. Giddings, in the lynx as a sensitive species. The lynx trapper effort likely remained high as litt. 1994; R. McFetridge, Alberta is classified as a species of special long as pelt prices were high and lynx Environmental Protection, in litt. 1994; concern in Maine (1997) and in were being trapped. Records for other I. McKay, in litt. 1994; M. Novak, pers. regions during this period demonstrate Wisconsin it is protected (1997). Two comm. 1994). Because of continued States officially classify them as the same trend (Brand and Keith 1979; concern for lynx populations, none of Todd 1985; Bailey et al. 1986; Hatler extirpated: Pennsylvania (J. Belfonti, in the States have relaxed their litt. 1994) and Massachusetts (J. 1988; Washington Department of restrictions, and many Canadian Wildlife 1993; M. DonCarlos, in litt. Cardoza, in litt. 1994). Five States provinces still maintain careful control classify lynx as small game or furbearers 1994; I. McKay, in litt. 1994; Quebec of lynx harvest (Alberta Environmental Department of Recreation, Fish, and with closed seasons: Idaho (1997), New Protection 1993; Washington York (1967), Minnesota (1984), Game, in litt. 1994). Department of Wildlife 1993; M. This period of intense trapping Wyoming (1973), and Oregon (1997). DonCarlos, in litt. 1994; B. Giddings, in pressure also occurred during a period A Canada lynx trapping season still litt. 1994; R. McFetridge, in litt. 1994; I. of naturally declining Canada lynx occurs in Montana, but the legal, State McKay pers. comm. 1997). numbers in Canada. Periods of wide quota is restricted to two animals. population decline are critical times As of 1993, the lynx population in In response to declining harvests, when trapping has a greater additive portions of Quebec apparently has not Montana has substantially reduced the impact on a population’s ability to yet fully recovered despite adequate, lynx quota since 1977 (when the lynx recover from periodic lows (Brand and increasing hare populations (Quebec was added to the Convention on Keith 1979; Bailey et al. 1986). Alberta’s Department of Recreation, Fish, and International Trade in Endangered lynx fur harvest during the 1975–76 Game, in litt. 1993). Because of concern Species (CITES) and Montana classified cyclic low was still nearly 2 to 3 times over a potentially declining lynx the species as a furbearer). Since 1991, higher than that during the preceding population, the British Columbia the quota has been two for the entire two cyclic lows (Todd 1985). In Quebec government closed the season on State, which has been met or slightly from 1976 to 1979, lynx harvest reached Canada lynx for a 3-year period in the exceeded annually (B. Giddings, pers. record highs for a period during a cyclic mid-1990’s (A. Fontana, British comm. 1998). low in hare and lynx populations Columbia Department of Wildlife, pers. Estimates of illegal harvest of Canada (Quebec Department of Recreation, Fish, comm. 1994). Manitoba closed its lynx lynx are unavailable for most areas. and Game, in litt. 1993). These harvest season Province-wide from 1995–1997 Illegal harvest has been a serious levels are linked to the highest pelt because of low lynx numbers (I. McKay, concern in localized areas in the past prices ever recorded there and to a pers. comm. 1997). (Washington Department of Wildlife continuous and sustained increase in States where lynx currently or 1993). the number of trappers during the historically occur declare harvest of On February 4, 1977, the Canada lynx preceding decade. lynx illegal, with the exception of was included in Appendix II of CITES. The additive trapping mortality of Montana, where legal harvest is set by The CITES is an international treaty Canada lynx during the 1970’s and a limited statewide quota of two. In all established to prevent international 1980’s depleted the breeding stock of States where the lynx was considered to trade that may be detrimental to the lynx populations in the United States be a resident species, lynx are included survival of plants and animals. A CITES and southern Canada, which limited the on the State’s lists of endangered, export permit must be issued by the ability for lynx populations to threatened, protected, or regulated game exporting country before an Appendix II subsequently recover and repopulate species. species may be shipped. The CITES areas of suitable habitat. Lynx permits may not be issued if the export C. Disease or Predation populations may have become so will be detrimental to the survival of the severely depleted that they cannot reach Disease and predation are not known species or if the specimens were not their former densities during the periods to be factors threatening Canada lynx. legally acquired. However, CITES does of abundant prey and maximum However, in areas with human not itself regulate take or domestic reproductive success (Quinn and Parker population centers, or high human trade. 1987; Hatler 1988). The lynx population densities in more rural areas, diseases of Regulatory mechanisms to protect of the 1980’s and 1990’s has reflected domestic animals may pose potential Canada lynx habitat are limited. the over exploitation of the previous threats to lynx (R. Brocke, State Although the U.S. Forest Service Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 / Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules 37005 classifies lynx as a sensitive species plans are or will be implemented and because of increasing human within the contiguous United States, monitored varies. populations and increased construction few national forests have developed Land use on private lands can have a of roads and trails and the growing population viability objectives or great impact on Canada lynx habitat. popularity of snowmobiles and offroad management guidelines required by the The majority of Canada lynx habitat in vehicles. In the interior Columbia River National Forest Management Act for the Northeast region occurs on private basin of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Canada lynx because of limited land, ranging from small residential lots and Montana, increased human access information about the species’ to large industrial ownerships (Harper et has decreased the availability of areas requirements. All national forests are al. 1990). All States in the region have with low human activities, which are obligated to protect biological diversity various laws and regulations regarding important to large forest carnivores, on Federal lands. environmental issues (Harper et al. including lynx (U.S. Forest Service and In the northeast region, the Green 1990). Indirectly these regulations may Bureau of Land Management 1997). Mountain National Forest Plan states promote the conservation of habitat; Lynx will use some types of roads for that the national forest will develop however, none are directed specifically hunting and travel (Koehler and Aubry management plans if and when an to Canada lynx habitat conservation. In 1994). Koehler and Aubry (1994) established Canada lynx population is the Northeast region, the Northern concluded road construction and detected (U.S. Forest Service 1986a). Forest Lands Council has a charter to maintenance are important components There are no specific regulations or maintain traditional patterns of of lynx habitat management because guidelines pertaining to lynx habitat. landownership and use; part of this they both destroy and create prey The White Mountain National Forest effort includes a forest inventory habitat, but also make lynx more Plan includes Canada lynx as an (Northern Forest Lands Council, in litt. vulnerable to human-caused mortalities. indicator species and limits recreational 1994). How this effort may affect the In the interior Columbia River basin of trail density in Canada lynx habitat. The conservation of Canada lynx habitat is Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and forest plan calls for consideration of the unknown. Montana, high road densities were needs of the species in planning found primarily in intensively managed E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors alternatives, the monitoring of lynx forest lands of both public and private Affecting Its Continued Existence populations, and for initiating or ownership (U.S. Forest Service and coordinating studies and/or recovery Loss of suitable habitat for Canada Bureau of Land Management 1997). efforts (U.S. Forest Service 1986b). lynx reduces the potential for Wide-ranging species are impacted by In the Great Lakes region, some population growth or recolonization of the increased road densities that often national forests apply standards for gray the lynx and further confines lynx to accompany human-caused forest wolf (Canis lupus) to guide Canada lynx smaller, more isolated habitat units fragmentation (Litvaitis 1993). The habitat management (M. Shedd, (Weaver 1993). Isolation increases the Loomis State Forest in Washington Superior National Forest, pers. comm. susceptibility of the lynx to human- plans to construct a total of 615 mi of 1994). It is unknown whether wolf caused threats, natural stochastic roads from 1996 to 2005 (Washington standards are appropriate for lynx. events, and effects of genetic bottlenecks Department of Natural Resources Washington Department of Wildlife (Andrews 1992; Weaver 1993). In the 1996b). According to the plan, the (1993) determined that habitat needs of Rocky Mountain/Cascades Region much density of roads in primary lynx habitat Canada lynx had not been considered of lynx habitat is naturally disjunct and will be 1.91 to 3.04 road mi per square adequately while planning for timber habitat connectivity is required across mile (sq mi) (Washington Department of harvest on national forest and State large geographic areas to facilitate Natural Resources 1996b). Even roads lands in some areas of the State. dispersal and genetic exchange (Roloff that are considered ‘‘closed’’ will Several lynx conservation plans exist 1995). The increased fragmentation of continue to be accessible to or are under development. Such plans forest lands and loss of connectivity snowmobiles, thereby allowing access to include the lynx habitat management within and among blocks of habitat in higher elevation lynx habitat by humans guidelines for Washington (Washington the interior Columbia River basin of and lynx competitors. Department of Fish and Wildlife 1993; Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and In the Pioneer Mountains of Montana, R. Naney, Okanogan National Forest, in Montana has reduced the ability of some a currently narrow, unpaved road is litt. 1994), the Idaho State conservation wildlife populations to move across the being paved and widened to further effort (Roloff 1995), Washington landscape, resulting in long-term loss of encourage already high recreational use Department of Natural Resources genetic interchange (U.S. Forest Service of the forest (Harding Lawson conservation strategy (Washington and Bureau of Land Management 1997). Associates Infrastructure, Inc. 1996). Department of Natural Resources Elevated levels of human access into The project area is occupied, high- 1996a), Boise-Cascade Timber forests are a significant threat to Canada quality lynx habitat, although lynx use Corporation lynx habitat management lynx because they increase the of the area is currently restricted plan in Washington (Whitwill and likelihood of lynx encountering people, because of intense recreational use of Roloff 1996), Kootenai National Forest which may result in displacement of the area (Harding Lawson Associates in Montana (Kootenai National Forest lynx from their habitats and/or possible Infrastructure, Inc. 1996). Completion of 1997), and the Southern Rocky injuries or deaths by intentional or this road project will impact lynx by Mountains, Draft strategy for the unintentional shooting, trapping, and causing further deterioration of lynx conservation and reestablishment of vehicle accidents (Hatler 1988; Thiel habitat, because increased human lynx and wolverine in the southern 1987; Brittell et al. 1989; Koehler and activity will sever lynx travel corridors Rocky Mountains (Colorado Division of Brittell 1990; Brocke et al. 1991; and mortalities from vehicle collisions Wildlife et al. 1997). At this time, there Andrew 1992; Washington Department will increase (Harding Lawson has been no comprehensive review of of Wildlife 1993; Brocke et al. 1993; M. Associates Infrastructure, Inc. 1996). these plans to determine whether the Hunter, University of Maine, pers. Blocks of suitable habitat, both public guidelines in these plans have the comm. 1994). Human access into and private, are often dissected by ability to maintain or increase lynx Canada lynx habitat in many areas has extensive networks of paved roads. populations. The degree to which these increased over the last several decades Traffic on highways has been shown to 37006 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 / Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules pose a considerable mortality risk to Canada lynx is at a competitive stressed, may be especially detrimental Canada lynx (Brocke et al. 1991; B. disadvantage against these other species to lynx (Koehler and Aubry 1994). Ruediger, U.S. Forest Service, pers. because it is a specialized predator, Snowmobile trails and roads that are comm. 1997). Highway densities are a whereas bobcat and coyotes are maintained for winter recreation and contributing factor in the decline of generalists that are able to feed on a forest management activities enable carnivores, including the lynx, in the wide variety of prey. Historically, coyotes and bobcats to access lynx contiguous United States (Ruediger bobcat and coyotes have not been able winter habitat (Koehler and Aubry 1996). Dispersing or transient lynx are to compete with lynx in areas that 1994). more vulnerable to traffic deaths than receive deep snow cover, where lynx are Snowmobile use in the Great Lakes resident lynx because their movements much more highly adapted. Where and Rocky Mountain/Cascades regions over large areas increase their exposure Canada lynx and bobcat or coyote has resulted in an increase in both to roads. In the Great Lakes States, ranges overlapped, their niches were human presence and the prevalence of recent records of lynx are from segregated by winter range conditions packed snow corridors in lynx habitat. mortalities due to vehicle collisions, (McCord and Cardoza 1982; Parker et al. The increased snowmobile use and the which could limit the potential for 1983; Quinn and Parker 1987). In increased area in which snowmobiles reestablishment of populations in Yukon, Canada, coyotes selected snow are used likely diminishes habitat Wisconsin or Michigan. that was shallower and harder than that quality for lynx, and also decreases the Increasing human access into Canada used by lynx (Murray et al. 1994). lynx’s competitive advantage in deep lynx habitat has increased the Some biologists believe competition snow. This results in an increased threat vulnerability of Canada lynx to both has played a significant role in the posed by competitors, as a result of the legal and illegal harvest in areas that, decline of Canada lynx (Brocke 1982; increase in hard-packed snow trails. historically, were relatively isolated Parker et al. 1983; E. Bangs, U.S. Fish Legal trapping activities for bobcat, from humans (Todd 1985; McKay 1991; and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. coyotes, and other furbearers create a Washington Department of Wildlife 1994). Murray et al. (1994) speculate potential for incidental capture of lynx. 1993; M. Hunter, pers. comm. 1994). In that, in Yukon, use of open spruce The threat to resident lynx from legal the Uinta Mountains of Utah, most of forests by lynx may have been to avoid trapping for other species may be the documented Canada lynx specimens areas where coyotes were present. In limited because most bobcat or coyote were shot during deer hunting season in Utah, where more habitat is suitable for trapping occurs in areas unlikely to an area easily accessed by hunters bobcat, it has been suggested that bobcat support lynx (M. DonCarlos, pers. (McKay 1991). In Washington, there is competition with Canada lynx resulted comm. 1994; K. Elowe, Maine concern that human access may reduce in the possible extirpation of Canada Department of Inland Fisheries and the number of Canada lynx emigrating lynx from Utah (B. Blackwell, pers. Wildlife, pers. comm. 1994; J. Lanier, from British Columbia, further comm. 1994). Research has detected pers. comm. 1994; D. Mech, pers. comm. increasing the vulnerability of the direct competition in certain areas, as 1994; Maine Department of Inland remaining small population on Cape Breton Island where, without Fisheries and Wildlife, in litt. 1997). (Washington Department of Wildlife changes in forest habitat, bobcats Where Canada lynx populations have 1993). The high degree of access into displaced Canada lynx from all areas been substantially reduced or extirpated Alberta’s forests created by petroleum except high elevations, where snow in the contiguous United States, natural development and logging was suggested accumulation limited the bobcat’s range recolonization of suitable habitat likely as an explanation for why Alberta (Parker et al. 1983). will require lynx migration from other produced a large proportion of the total Competition between Canada lynx areas in the contiguous United States or Canadian lynx harvest in the 1970’s and and other species may be facilitated Canada. However, because of the 1980’s (Todd 1985). through alteration of forests by timber unsuitable habitat isolating Colorado Human access is a particularly harvest or other human activities. and southeastern Wyoming from the important factor during periods when Modified habitat may be more suitable remainder of the Rocky Mountains/ Canada lynx populations are low and to Canada lynx competitors or may Cascades, recolonization through concentrated in localized refugia. Brand facilitate the establishment of a immigration is extremely unlikely. and Keith (1979) indicated that refugia competitor after local extirpation of the Winter navigation and associated ice may have supported only adult lynx lynx (McCord and Cardoza 1982; Quinn breaking on the St. Mary’s River during population lows. Refugia were and Parker 1987). In the Northeast between Ontario and Upper Michigan therefore critical for repopulating United States, extensive clearing of could be a potential threat to available range elsewhere when the forests for timber and agriculture reestablishment or maintenance of a population increased (Todd 1985). If improved conditions for white-tailed lynx population in that area. Presently, such refugia were accessible to humans, deer (Odocoileus virginianus) the St. Mary’s River shipping channel is local lynx populations could be easily populations, which subsequently may not kept open between January 15 and extirpated by trapping, particularly if have influenced a northward expansion March 25. Ice breaking before or after there are incentives such as high pelt of bobcats into the region (K. Gustafson, that period could reduce the amount of prices (Carbyn and Patriquin 1983; pers. comm. 1994). Additionally, mild time available for lynx to immigrate Ward and Krebs 1985; Bailey et al. 1986; weather in some regions for the past across the St. Mary’s shipping channel J. Weaver, pers. comm. 1994; Koehler decade has improved conditions and from Ontario to Michigan (Robinson and and Aubry 1994). habitat for bobcat and coyotes, Fuller 1980). The Canada lynx may be displaced or particularly by minimizing snow depth eliminated when competitors (e.g., (Quinn and Parker 1987; J. Weaver, pers. Distinct Population Segment bobcat, coyote) expand into its range (de comm. 1994). Coyotes have been For a species to be listable under the Vos and Matel 1952; Parker et al. 1983; colonizing Maine and New Hampshire Act, it must meet the definition of a Quinn and Parker 1987; M. DonCarlos, since the 1970’s (Litvaitis and Harrison ‘‘species’’ as provided in the Act. The pers. comm. 1994; D. Major, U.S. Fish 1989). Act defines ‘‘species’’ as a species, and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1994; Competition during late winter, a time subspecies, or distinct population J. Weaver, pers. comm. 1994). The when lynx are already nutritionally segment of a vertebrate species. On Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 / Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules 37007

February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722), the In Canada, management of forest fluctuations of the northern latitudes for Service and National Marine Fisheries lands and conservation of wildlife which Canada lynx are noted (Dolbeer Service published final policy guidance habitat varies depending on Provincial and Clark 1975; Brittell et al. 1989; concerning recognition of Distinct regulations. In Alberta, there is no law Wolff 1980; Buehler and Keith 1982; Vertebrate Population Segments for regulating forest practices and the status Koehler 1990; Koehler and Aubry 1994) consideration under the Act. It is of Canada lynx in Alberta is of concern (see Background section). This less necessary for the Service to use this because of habitat-related threats as a cyclic population has been attributed to Vertebrate Population Policy when it is result of logging (B. Triechel, Alberta the lower quality and quantity of considering listing a vertebrate species Environmental Protection, pers. comm. snowshoe hare habitat available in or species as endangered or threatened 1997). There is no overarching forest southern latitudes and/or the presence in only a portion of its range. In practices legislation in Canada, such as of additional snowshoe hare predators developing this proposed rule the the United States’ National Forest (Buehler and Keith 1982, Wolff 1982 in Service evaluated whether Canada lynx Management Act, governing Koehler and Aubry 1994, Koehler 1990, in the contiguous United States management of national lands and/or Koehler and Aubry 1994). constitutes a distinct population providing for consideration of wildlife Extirpation of the contiguous United segment under the population policy. habitat requirements. Additionally, in States population of the Canada lynx While application of the vertebrate Canada, lynx harvest regulations vary, would result in a significant gap in the population policy may result in the being regulated by individual Province range of the taxon. Canada lynx would identification of a greater number of or, in some cases, individual trapping not only be lost throughout a broad potentially listable entities, the policy district. region of the United States, but a was developed specifically to allow for According to the Vertebrate number of ecosystems would lose a top- more refined application of the Act that Population policy, a population segment level carnivore from their representative better reflects the biological needs of the can be considered significant based on fauna. taxon being considered and avoids the information such as the following: (1) After review and consideration of inclusion of entities that may not ‘‘Persistence of the discrete population Canada lynx status and management in require the considerable protections of segment in an ecological setting unusual the contiguous United States and the Act. This approach better serves or unique for the taxon’’; (2) ‘‘Evidence Canada, contacts with recognized Congress’s intent that listing of distinct that loss of the discrete population experts, lynx life history, habitat, and population segments be conducted segment would result in a significant population dynamics, the Service has ‘‘sparingly.’’ gap in the range of the taxon’’; (3) determined that the Canada lynx in the Under the vertebrate population ‘‘Evidence that the discrete population contiguous United States is discrete and policy, two elements, discreteness and segment represents the only surviving significant and, therefore, qualifies as a significance, must be considered to natural occurrence of a taxon that may distinct population segment to be determine whether a species’ be more abundant elsewhere as an considered for listing under the Act. population meets the definition of a introduced population outside its Finding distinct population segment. If a historic range;’’ and (4) ‘‘Evidence that population is discrete and significant, the discrete population segment differs Based on historic observations, its status is evaluated using the five markedly from other populations of the trapping records and other evidence listing factors described in section species in its genetic characteristics.’’ available to the Service at this time, the 4(a)(1) of the Act to determine if it meets In a general sense, Canada lynx in the Service finds that, historically, Canada the definition of either threatened or contiguous United States might be lynx were resident in 16 of the endangered. considered biologically and/or contiguous United States. The overall A species’ population segment can be ecologically significant simply because numbers and range of Canada lynx in considered discrete from the remainder they represent the southern extent of the the contiguous United States are of the taxon if it satisfies either one of species’ overall range. There are substantially reduced from historic the following conditions: (1) ‘‘it is climatic and vegetational differences levels. Currently, resident populations markedly separated from other between Canada lynx habitat in the of lynx likely exist in Maine, Montana, populations of the same taxon as a contiguous United States and that in Washington, and possibly Minnesota. consequence of physical, physiological, northern latitudes in Canada and Alaska States with recent records of individual ecological, or behavioral factors,’’ or (2) (Kuchler 1965). In the contiguous lynx sightings, but possibly no longer ‘‘it is delimited by international United States, Canada lynx inhabit a sustaining self-supporting populations, governmental boundaries within which mosaic between boreal forests and include Wisconsin, Michigan, Oregon, differences in control of exploitation, sublpine coniferous forests or northern Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. management of habitat, conservation hardwoods, whereas in more northern Lynx may be extirpated from New status, or regulatory mechanisms exist latitudes, Canada lynx habitat is the Hampshire, Vermont, New York, that are significant in light of section boreal forest ecosystem (Barbour et al. Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.’’ Given that the 1980; McCord and Cardoza 1982; At present, lynx numbers in the Service has determined that resident, Koehler and Aubry 1994; M. Hunter, contiguous United States have not viable numbers of Canada lynx exist in University of Maine, pers. comm. 1994; recovered from the overexploitation by the contiguous United States (see Colorado Division of Wildlife et al. both unregulated and regulated trapping Background section), the Service 1997) (see Background section). that occurred in the 1970’s and 1980’s. concludes that the contiguous United Canada lynx and snowshoe hare As a result, the other threats to the lynx States population of the Canada lynx is population dynamics in portions of the described earlier under the ‘‘Summary discrete based on the international contiguous United States are different of Factors Affecting the Species’’ section boundary between Canada and the from those in northern Canada. have a serious effect on the remaining contiguous United States because of Historically, Canada lynx and snowshoe population. Where Canada lynx differences in status and management of hare populations in some areas of the numbers have been substantially Canada lynx between the United States contiguous United States have not reduced or extirpated, natural and Canada. exhibited the extreme cyclic population recolonization of suitable habitat likely 37008 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 / Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules will require lynx migration from other the foreseeable future throughout all or consider those physical and biological areas in the contiguous United States or a significant portion of its range. features that are essential to the Canada. In Maine, there is evidence that Based on the preceding discussions conservation of the species and that may lynx move back and forth across the and analyses, using the best available require special management Canadian border, indicating that Maine scientific and commercial information considerations or protection. Such lynx habitat is contiguous with available, the Service finds that listing requirements include, but are not occupied habitat in Quebec and of the Canada lynx within the limited to—(1) space for individual and possibly, New Brunswick (M. Amaral, contiguous United States is warranted. population growth, and for normal in litt. 1998). The Service proposes to list the behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, Forest management practices that contiguous United States Canada lynx minerals, or other nutritional or result in the loss of diverse age population segment (consisting of the physiological requirements; (3) cover or structure, roading, urbanization, States of Maine, New Hampshire, shelter; (4) sites for breeding, agriculture, recreational developments, Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania, reproduction, rearing of offspring, and unnatural fire frequencies have Massachusetts, Michigan, Wisconsin, germination, or seed dispersal; and, altered suitable lynx habitat in many Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, generally, (5) habitats that are protected areas throughout the contiguous United Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and from disturbance or are representative of States. As a result, many states may Colorado) as threatened. the historic geographical and ecological have insufficient habitat quality and/or Critical Habitat distributions of a species. quantity to sustain lynx or their prey. Potential benefits of critical habitat Critical habitat is defined in section The likelihood of lynx encountering designation derive from section 7(a)(2) 3(5)(a) of the Act as— (i) the specific people has dramatically increased over of the Act, which requires Federal areas within the geographical area the last few decades as a result of agencies, in consultation with the occupied by a species, at the time it is Service, to ensure that their actions are elevated levels of human access into listed in accordance with the Act, on lynx habitat. Roads and trails, not likely to jeopardize the continued which are found those physical or existence of listed species or to result in snowmobiles, offroad vehicles, and ski biological features (I) essential to the area developments enable human access the destruction or adverse modification conservation of the species and (II) that of critical habitat of such species. into historically remote forests, thereby may require special management increasing the likelihood of lynx being Critical habitat, by definition, applies considerations or protection and; (ii) only to Federal agency actions. The 50 displaced from otherwise suitable specific areas outside the geographical habitats and increasing the vulnerability CFR 402.02 defines ‘‘jeopardize the area occupied by a species at the time continued existence of’’ as meaning to of lynx to human-induced mortality. it is listed, upon a determination that engage in an action that would Although the legal taking of lynx is such areas are essential for the reasonably be expected, directly or highly restricted in the contiguous conservation of the species. The term indirectly, to reduce appreciably the United States, existing regulatory ‘‘conservation’’ as defined in section likelihood of both the survival and mechanisms may be inadequate to 3(3) of the Act means ‘‘to use and the recovery of a listed species in the wild protect the small, remnant lynx use of all methods and procedures by reducing the reproduction, numbers, populations or to conserve Canada lynx necessary to bring any endangered or or distribution of that species. habitat. threatened species to the point at which ‘‘Destruction or adverse modification’’ is The cumulative effect of these habitat the measures provided pursuant to this defined as a direct or indirect alteration changes has been the creation of Act are no longer necessary,’’ i.e., the that appreciably diminishes the value of habitats and prey bases that are better species is recovered and can be removed critical habitat for both the survival and able to support lynx competitors, such from the list of endangered and recovery of a listed species. Such as bobcats and coyotes, rather than lynx. threatened species. alterations include, but are not limited Bobcats are able to outcompete lynx Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as to, alterations adversely modifying any except in habitats with excessive snow amended, and implementing regulations of those physical or biological features depths. Roads and packed snow trails (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the that were the basis for determining the have allowed bobcats and coyotes to maximum extent prudent and habitat to be critical. Thus, in the access the winter habitats for which determinable, the Secretary designate section 7(a)(2) consultation process, the lynx are highly specialized. critical habitat at the time the species is jeopardy analysis focuses on potential Recently, some States, Federal determined to be endangered or effects on the species’ populations, agencies, and other entities have threatened. The Service finds that whereas the destruction or adverse initiated survey and research efforts to designation of critical habitat is not modification analysis focuses on habitat better evaluate the status of the Canada prudent for the Canada lynx at this time. value. lynx within the contiguous United Service regulations (50 CFR Common to both a jeopardy and the States. Additionally, some States such 424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of destruction or adverse modification of as Washington, Colorado, and Idaho are critical habitat is not prudent when one critical habitat is the requirement that in the process of developing strategies to or both of the following situations the Service find an appreciable effect on conserve and restore lynx in their states. exist—(1) the species is threatened by both the species’ survival and recovery. Resident lynx populations still occur taking or other human activity, and This is in contrast to the public in Montana, Washington, Maine and, identification of critical habitat can be perception that the adverse modification possibly, Minnesota. According to expected to increase the degree of threat standard sets a lower threshold for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, to the species, or (2) such designation of violation of section 7 than that for Montana’s lynx numbers are fairly critical habitat would not be beneficial jeopardy. Thus, Federal actions stable. Therefore, the Service concludes to the species. satisfying the standard for adverse that a designation as threatened is In accordance with the definition of modification are nearly always found to appropriate. A threatened species is critical habitat provided by section also jeopardize the species concerned, defined in the Act as a species likely to 3(5)(A)(I) of the Act, the Service’s and the existence of critical habitat become an endangered species within regulations require the Service to designation does not materially affect Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 / Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules 37009 the outcome of consultation. Biological denning habitat will always shift conferencing and consultation strategy opinions that conclude that a Federal spatially and temporally across the to conserve lynx on the 56 National agency action is likely to adversely landscape as a result of natural (e.g., Forests and numerous Bureau of Land modify critical habitat but is not likely fire, forest maturation, seasonal) and Management districts within its historic to jeopardize the species for which it is human-caused changes (e.g., logging, range in the contiguous United States designated are extremely rare thinning). Canada lynx would (B. Ruediger, in litt. 1998). historically; none have been issued in reasonably be expected to relocate in Designation of critical habitat recent years. Thus, the Service believes response to the natural dynamics of provides no limitations or constraints that, from a section 7 consultation lynx population levels, prey availability, on private landowners if there is no perspective, no additional conservation and habitat conditions, thereby making Federal involvement and, as such, benefit would be achieved for the little use of specific areas designated as provides the species no conservation contiguous United States Canada lynx critical habitat. benefit. The amount of Federal land in population by the designation of critical Attempting to encompass lynx the northeastern United States range of habitat. movements or the spatial shifts in lynx the lynx is small (primarily the White Currently, in the contiguous United foraging or denning habitat that will Mountain and Green Mountain National States, legal harvest of lynx is not a occur over time by designating critical Forests in parts of Vermont, New threat to the population because all habitat on a large-scale (e.g., an entire Hampshire, and Maine) compared to the States, except Montana, have closed national forest or wilderness area) amount of non-Federal land. Because seasons on the harvest of lynx. Montana would not be beneficial to the species. few Federal actions occur in the has an extremely low quota, allowing Under such a designation, it would be northeastern United States range of the two lynx to be harvested per season. impracticable to assert that a single lynx, project review under section 7 of Additionally, current prices for lynx Federal action would appreciably the Act would be rarely required (M. pelts are relatively low so there is little diminish the value of critical habitat for Amaral, pers. comm. 1998). incentive to trap lynx. However, should both the survival and recovery of a In the Rocky Mountain/Cascades, pelt prices increase again in the future, listed species or that the entire Great Lakes, and Northeast regions of there will be strong incentive to trap expansive area requires special the lynx range, there are large parcels of lynx as evidenced by trapping records management or protection (the purpose land in corporate ownership. Actions on from the 1970’s and 1980’s (see Factor of a critical habitat designation) for these lands will either have no Federal B, above). Designation of critical habitat lynx. Additionally, Forest Plans that nexus or will require review under would increase the vulnerability of lynx dictate how an entire national forest section 7 of the Act. to poaching; therefore, the Service would be managed are already subject to Protection of lynx habitat can be concludes it would not be prudent to review under section 7. addressed in habitat conservation plans designate critical habitat. A large-scale designation would be voluntarily developed by landowners In the contiguous United States, over inclusive because it would contain under the section 10 permitting process. Canada lynx inhabit a mosaic between many areas that never were or will be In the State of Washington, Canada lynx boreal forests and subalpine coniferous lynx habitat and areas that, although are covered under a multispecies forests or northern hardwoods, as they may be used by lynx, would not Habitat Conservation Plan on forest described earlier in the Background require special management or lands owned by Plum Creek Timber section. Canada lynx are highly protection for lynx. For example, in Company in the central Cascades dependent on snowshoe hares to supply 1994, nearly 60 percent of the mountain range. an adequate food source. Canada lynx approximately 17 million acres of Therefore, because of the increased concentrate their foraging activities in national forests in Montana were vulnerability of the lynx, the spatial and areas where hare activity is high. classified as roadless or designated temporal changes in lynx foraging and Snowshoe hares prefer structurally wilderness areas (J. Gatchell, Montana denning habitats, the high mobility of diverse forests, often early successional Wilderness Association, pers. comm. individual lynx, the inability to control stages, with stands of conifers and 1994). However, a large proportion of lynx habitat in Canada, and the fact that shrubby understories that provide for these areas are not suitable lynx habitat designation of critical habitat would feeding, escape from predators, and because they consist of rock- and ice- provide little different or greater benefit protection during extreme weather. For covered mountaintops. than that provided by the jeopardy denning, it is believed Canada lynx A substantial amount of Federal land standard under section 7 regulations, require late successional forests that exists in the Western and Great Lakes the Service has determined that the provide downed logs and windfalls for regions of the contiguous United States designation of critical habitat for the cover. Additionally, Canada lynx are lynx population segment in contiguous United States population of highly mobile and can move long Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, the Canada lynx is not prudent. distances in search of prey (see Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Minnesota, Background section, above). Home range Wisconsin, and Michigan. Actions on Available Conservation Measures sizes vary widely (12 to 243 sq km (5– these Federal lands are ensured of the Conservation measures provided to 94 sq mi) depending primarily on the benefit of review under section 7 of the species listed as endangered or density of lynx and availability of prey Act, regardless of whether or not critical threatened under the Act include in an area. For example, the estimated habitat is designated. Potential and recognition, recovery actions, range of one male lynx would occupied Canada lynx habitat exists requirements for Federal protection, and encompass all protected lands in the primarily on Federal lands managed by prohibitions against certain practices. White Mountain National Forest in New the U.S. Forest Service. Additional Recognition through listing results in Hampshire and Maine (Brocke et al. Federal land managers include but are public awareness and conservation 1993). not limited to the National Park Service actions by Federal, State, and local The Service concludes it would not be and Bureau of Land Management. agencies, private organizations, and beneficial to designate specific Currently, the U.S. Forest Service, individuals. The Act provides for geographic locations as critical habitat Bureau of Land Management, and the possible land acquisition and because snowshoe hare habitat and lynx Service are developing a section 7 cooperation with the States and requires 37010 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 / Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules that recovery actions be carried out for Permits may be issued to carry out but not limited to forest management all listed species. The protection otherwise prohibited activities (e.g., logging, road construction and required of Federal agencies and the involving endangered or threatened maintenance, prescribed fire), and prohibitions against taking and harm are wildlife under certain circumstances. recreational, urban, or agricultural discussed, in part, below. Regulations governing permits are development, to the point that it results Section 7(a) of the Act requires codified at 50 CFR 17.32. Such permits in death or injury by significantly Federal agencies to evaluate their are available for scientific purposes, to impairing essential behavioral patterns, actions with respect to any species that enhance the propagation or survival of including breeding, feeding, or is proposed or listed as endangered or the species, and/or for incidental take in sheltering. threatened and with respect to its the course of otherwise lawful activities. Requests for copies of the regulations critical habitat, if any is being For threatened species, permits also are regarding listed wildlife and inquiries designated. Regulations implementing available for zoological exhibition, about prohibitions and permits may be this interagency cooperation provision educational purposes, or special addressed to U.S. Fish and Wildlife of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part purposes consistent with the purposes Service, P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal 402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal of the Act. Regulations governing Center, Denver, Colorado 80225. agencies to confer with the Service on permits for species listed as threatened Special Rule any action that is likely to jeopardize due to similarity of appearance are the continued existence of a species codified at 50 CFR 17.52 and regulation The implementing regulations for proposed for listing or result in implementing CITES are codified at 50 threatened wildlife under the Act destruction or adverse modification of CFR part 23. incorporate the section 9 prohibitions proposed critical habitat. If a species is It is the policy of the Service (59 FR for endangered wildlife (50 CFR 17.31), listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) 34272; July 1, 1994) to identify to the except when a special rule promulgated requires Federal agencies to ensure that maximum extent practicable at the time pursuant to section 4(d) applies (50 CFR activities they authorize, fund, or carry a species is listed those activities that 17.31(c)). Section 4(d) of the Act out are not likely to jeopardize the would or would not constitute a provides that whenever a species is continued existence of the species or violation of section 9 of the Act. The listed as a threatened species, the destroy or adversely modify its critical intent of this policy is to increase public Service shall issue regulations deemed habitat. If a Federal action may affect a awareness of the effect of this listing on necessary and advisable to provide for listed species or its critical habitat, the proposed and ongoing activities within the conservation of the species. responsible Federal agency must enter the species’ range. Conservation means the use of all into formal consultation with the For the contiguous United States methods and procedures necessary to Service. population of the Canada lynx, the bring the species to the point at which The contiguous United States Service believes the following actions the protections of the Act are no longer population of the Canada lynx occurs on would not likely result in a violation of necessary. Section 4(d) also states that lands administered by the U.S. Forest section 9: the Service may, by regulation, extend Service, National Park Service, Bureau (1) Actions that may affect Canada to threatened species, prohibitions of Land Management; Tribal lands, State lynx in the contiguous United States provided for endangered species under lands, and private lands. Examples of that are authorized, funded or carried Section 9. Federal agency actions that may require out by a Federal agency when the action This special rule will provide for the conference and/or consultation as is conducted in accordance with an take of captive-bred Canada lynx described in the preceding paragraph incidental take statement issued by the without permit, allow the continuation include timber, silviculture/thinning, Service pursuant to section 7 of the Act; of the export of captive-bred Canada road construction, fire, and recreation (2) Actions that may result in take of lynx under CITES export permits, and management activities or plans by the Canada lynx in the contiguous United provide for the transportation of lynx Forest Service, Bureau of Land States when the action is conducted in skins in commerce within the United Management, and National Park Service; accordance with a permit under section States. The export of properly tagged Federal highway projects, and U.S. 10 of the Act; For the contiguous United (with valid CITES export tag) skins from Housing and Urban Development States population of the Canada lynx, lynx documented as captive-bred will projects. the following actions likely would be be permitted in accordance with part 23 The Act and implementing considered a violation of section 9: of this chapter. Properly tagged skins regulations set forth a series of general (1) Actions that take Canada lynx that may be transported in interstate trade prohibitions and exceptions that apply are not authorized by either a permit without permits otherwise required to all threatened wildlife. The under section 10 of the Act, or an under part 17.32. prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21 incidental take permit under section 7 Public Comments Solicited and 17.31, in part, make it illegal for any of the Act; the term ‘‘take’’ includes person subject to the jurisdiction of the harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, The Service intends that any final United States to take (includes harass, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, action resulting from this proposal will harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, capturing, or collecting, or attempting be as accurate and as effective as trap, capture, or collect; or attempt any any of these actions; possible. Therefore, comments, or of these), import or export, ship in (2) Possess, sell, deliver, carry, suggestions from the public, other interstate commerce in the course of transport, or ship illegally taken Canada concerned governmental agencies, the commercial activity, or sell or offer for lynx; scientific community, industry, or any sale in interstate or foreign commerce (3) Interstate and foreign commerce other interested party concerning this any listed species. It also is illegal to (commerce across State and proposed rule are hereby solicited. possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or international boundaries) without the Comments particularly are sought ship any such wildlife that has been appropriate permits under section concerning: taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply 10(a)(1)(a), 50 CFR 17.32 and/or CITES. (1) Biological, commercial trade, or to agents of the Service and State (4) Significant lynx habitat other relevant data concerning any conservation agencies. modification or degradation, including threat (or lack thereof) to this species; Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 / Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules 37011

(2) Additional information concerning The Canada lynx is included in negative effect on the species in the the range, distribution, and population Appendix II of the Convention on wild. size of the species; International Trade in Endangered Current prices for lynx pelts are (3) Current or planned activities in the Species of Wild Fauna and Flora relatively low so there is little present subject area and their possible impacts (CITES). CITES is an international treaty incentive to trap lynx. However, should on this species; that regulates international trade in pelt prices increase again in the future, (4) Additional information pertaining certain animal and plant species. there could be strong incentive to trap to the promulgation of a special rule to Exports of animals and plants listed on wild lynx and export their pelts. Lynx provide States and Tribes the CITES Appendix II as a similarity of are easy to trap and the illegal take of opportunity to maintain the lead role in appearance species may occur only if lynx may present an enforcement and protection, management, and recovery the Scientific Authority has advised the inspection problem for Service of the species through the voluntary Management Authority that such personnel. Captive-bred Canada lynx development and implementation of a exports will not be detrimental to the cannot be effectively differentiated from conservation plan. Such conservation wild Canada lynx by Service law survival of the look alike species, and if plans would address activities having enforcement and inspection personnel the Management Authority is satisfied the potential to adversely impact lynx or without proper tagging. For these that the animals or plants were not lynx habitat, including activities that reasons, the Service is listing the captive may result in the take of lynx incidental obtained in violation of laws for their populations of Canada lynx within the to otherwise lawful activities; protection. The Canada lynx was United States as threatened due to provisions to avoid and minimize those included in CITES Appendix II on similarity of appearance. However, impacts; and existing or planned February 4, 1977, as a part of the listing under the latitude for threatened species conservation measures that will be of all Felidae that were not already afforded by the Act and 50 CFR 17.31(c) implemented to result in a net recovery included in the appendices. A CITES the Service is proposing to issue permits benefit for lynx. Potential activities to be export permit pursuant to 50 CFR part for captive-bred Canada lynx to addressed in such a plan may include 23 must be issued by the exporting facilitate the lawful export of Canada trapping and hunting programs that country before an Appendix II species lynx. The listing of the captive target species other than lynx; forest may be shipped. All Felidae were populations of Canada lynx within the management; road construction, included in Appendix II to enable better United States as threatened due to maintenance and use; and recreational protection of look alike species that similarity of appearance eliminates the development. Approved conservation were or could be threatened with ability of persons to misrepresent plans would authorize the non extinction without strict regulation of illegally taken wild Canada lynx as deliberate or non purposeful take of trade. After inclusion of the lynx (as captive-bred Canada lynx for lynx incidental to otherwise lawful well as the bobcat and river otter) in commercial purposes. State or Tribal activities. CITES Appendix II, the Service worked This proposed rule would, in addition The final decision on this proposal with the States to develop guidelines for to the export under 50 CFR part 23 of will take into consideration the State programs that would provide the live captive-bred Canada lynx, allow the comments and any additional information needed to satisfy CITES export of skins derived from captive- information received by the Service, and export requirements. Under the State bred populations of Canada lynx if the such communications may lead to a CITES export programs, all skins to be specimens are tagged with a CITES final regulation that differs from this exported are required to be tagged with export tag and accompanied by a valid proposal. a permanently attached, serially CITES export permit. The import of The Act provides for at least one numbered tag that identified the lawfully obtained Canada lynx pelts public hearing on this proposal, if species, State of origin, and season of originating in the nation of Canada requested. However, given the high taking. The tags are provided to the would continue to require the necessary likelihood of several requests States by the Service. The States that CITES export permits, but no additional throughout the species’ range, the were approved for export of lynx are Endangered Species Act import permit Service has scheduled hearings in Alaska, Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, and would be required. Interstate transport advance of any request. For additional Washington. Canada lynx in Alaska are and/or commerce in skins that are information on public hearings, see the not encompassed by this listing, all properly tagged with valid CITES export SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. existing CITES requirements remaining tags would be allowed without permits otherwise required under 50 CFR 17.32. Similarity of Appearance the same. Of the 48 contiguous States, Montana is the only State that still has The export or interstate transport of Section 4(e) of the Act authorizes the a wild lynx harvest with a quota of two. skins of Canada lynx taken incidental to treatment of a species (or subspecies or otherwise lawful trapping for species population segment) as an endangered Currently there are facilities in Idaho, other than Canada lynx will not be or threatened species even though it is Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, and permitted under the special rule. The not otherwise listed as endangered or Utah that raise captive-bred Canada import of live specimens would require threatened if: (a) The species so closely lynx for commercial purposes. At least permits under the Act. resembles in appearance an endangered some of the farms report that their Regulations implementing the or threatened species that enforcement initial stock was obtained from Canada. Endangered Species Act are set forth at personnel would have substantial From 1992 through 1997, Minnesota 50 CFR part 17. Any person intending difficulty in differentiating between and Montana reported that a total of 139 to engage in an activity for which a listed and unlisted species; (b) the effect lynx pelts were tagged for export under permit is required such as exporting of this substantial difficulty is an the CITES program and these primarily lawfully obtained Canada lynx must, additional threat to the endangered or originated from farmed animals. The before commencing such activity, obtain threatened species; and (c) that such Service currently has an application a valid permit authorizing such activity. treatment will substantially facilitate the pending for the export of 254 captive- Permit requirements for threatened enforcement and further the policy of bred lynx from Utah. These captive-bred species are set forth at 50 CFR 17.31 and the Act. specimens have neither a positive or 17.32. Permit requirements for species 37012 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 / Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules listed by similarity of appearance are set requirements for which Office of upon request from the Montana Field forth at 50 CFR 17.52, with exceptions Management and Budget (OMB) Office (see ADDRESSES section). to permit requirements provided by approval is required. Persons exporting special rule as proposed herein. The captive-bred Canada lynx may continue Author Service’s general permit procedures are to obtain permits which are already The primary author of this document set forth at 50 CFR part 13. Uniform authorized under 50 CFR part 23 as is Lori H. Nordstrom, Montana Field rules and procedures for the approved by OMB and assigned Office (see ADDRESSES section). importation, exportation and clearance number 1018–0022. transportation of wildlife are set forth at The Service invites comments on the List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 50 CFR part 14. anticipated direct and indirect costs and In summary, CITES/Endangered benefits or cost savings associated with Endangered and threatened species, Species Act permits will be required for the special rule for the captive Canada Exports, Imports, Reporting and U.S. captive-bred lynx being sold lynx population. In particular the recordkeeping requirements, abroad. No U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is interested in obtaining Transportation. permits will be required for the information on any significant economic Proposed Regulation Promulgation importation of lynx products into the impacts of the proposed rule on small U.S., and permits will not be required public and private entities. Once we Accordingly, the Service hereby for interstate transport and commerce in have reviewed the available proposes to amend Part 17, Subchapter skins that are properly tagged with valid information, we will prepare an initial B of Chapter I, Title 50 of the U.S. Code CITES export tags. regulatory flexibility analysis for the of Federal Regulations, as set forth special rule and make this available for below: National Environmental Policy Act public review. This analysis will be The Fish and Wildlife Service has revised as appropriate and incorporated PART 17Ð[AMENDED] determined that Environmental into the record of compliance (ROC) Assessments and Environmental Impact certifying that the special rule complies 1. The authority citation for part 17 Statements, as defined under the with the various applicable statutory, continues to read as follows: authority of the National Environmental Executive Order, and Departmental Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. Policy Act of 1969, need not be Manual requirements. Pursuant to the 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– prepared in connection with regulations Endangered Species Act, the ROC is not 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the applicable to the listing of the Canada Act. A notice outlining the Service’s lynx. In accordance with the criteria in 2. Amend 17.11(h) by adding the reasons for this determination was Executive Order 12866, neither the following, in alphabetical order under published in the Federal Register on listing nor the special rule are ‘‘MAMMALS,’’ to the List of October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). significant regulatory actions subject to Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to review by the Office of Management and read as follows: Required Determinations Budget. § 17.11 Endangered and threatened The Service has examined this wildlife. regulation under the Paperwork References Cited Reduction Act of 1995 and found it to A complete list of all references cited * * * * * contain no information collection herein, as well as others, is available (h) * * *

Species Vertebrate population Historic range where endangered or Status When listed Critical Special Common name Scientific name threatened habitat rules

MAMMALS

******* Lynx, Canada .... Lynx USA (WA, OR, WA, OR, (Unless bred in captivity) T N/A N/A canadensis. ID, MT, ID, 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 with- T(S/A) N/A 17.40(k) in the coterminous U.S.A. (lower 48 States), activities as prohibited or allowed under 17.31, 17.32, 17.40(k), 17.52, and part 23.

*******

3. Amend § 17.40 by adding § 17.40 Special rulesÐmammals. (k) Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) paragraph (k) to read as follows: * * * * * population—(1) Prohibitions. (i) Except as noted in paragraph (k)(2) of this Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 / Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules 37013 section, all prohibitions of 50 CFR 17.31 exhibition, and other conservation tagged with a valid CITES export tag and exemptions of 50 CFR 17.32 and purposes consistent with the Act in would be allowed without a permit. The 17.52 apply to the captive Canada lynx accordance with 50 CFR 17.52 and export or interstate transport of skins of population within the coterminous pursuant to a section 6 cooperative Canada lynx taken incidental to United States (lower 48 States). agreement with a State, if applicable. otherwise lawful trapping for species other than Canada lynx will not be (2) Exceptions. (i) The Service may (ii) No permit will be required for permitted. issue incidental take permits or permits taking of lawfully obtain captive-bred authorizing activities that would lynx. The Service may issue CITES Dated: June 26, 1998. otherwise be unlawful under paragraph export permits for captive-bred Canada Donald Barry, (k)(1) of this section for education lynx and properly tagged captive-bred Acting Assistant Secretary, Fish and Wildlife purposes, scientific purposes, the Canada lynx skins in accordance with and Parks. enhancement or propagation for 50 CFR part 23. Interstate transport and [FR Doc. 98–17771 Filed 6–30–98; 11:22 am] survival of Canada lynx, zoological or commerce in skins that are properly BILLING CODE 4310±55±P