Wednesday, November 9, 2005

Part V

Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx; Proposed Rule

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:03 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\09NOP2.SGM 09NOP2 68294 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR appropriateness of excluding lands from in the preparation of this proposed rule, this designation that are covered by will be available for public inspection, Fish and Wildlife Service management plans that provide for the by appointment, during normal business conservation of lynx and our hours at the Montana Ecological 50 CFR Part 17 determination as to whether existing Services Office at the above address. RIN 1018–AU52 management plans provide special FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lori management and protection for lynx Nordstrom, Montana Ecological Services Endangered and Threatened Wildlife habitat. In addition, depending on Office (address above), telephone 406– and Plants; Proposed Designation of public comment and our analysis at the 449–5225; facsimile 406–449–5339. Critical Habitat for the Contiguous time of the final designation, any or all SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public United States Distinct Population of these Forest Service lands described hearings and informational sessions on Segment of the Canada Lynx above may be included in the final this proposal will be held in the designation, and we are specifically AGENCY: following locations: Fish and Wildlife Service, seeking comment on whether these Interior. lands are covered by the definition of Maine ACTION: Proposed rule. critical habitat and should be included Wednesday, December 14, 2005, from SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and in the final designation. 8 to 9 p.m. at the Black Bear Inn and In the development of our final Wildlife Service (Service), propose to Conference Center, 4 Godfrey Drive, designation, we will incorporate or designate critical habitat for the Orono, Maine. The hearing will be address any new information received contiguous United States distinct preceded by an informational session during the public comment period, or population segment of the Canada lynx from 7 to 8 p.m. (Lynx canadensis) (lynx) pursuant to the from our evaluation of the potential Endangered Species Act of 1973, as economic impacts of this proposal. We Minnesota amended (Act). The lynx generally may revise this proposal to address new Wednesday, December 7, 2005, from inhabits cold, moist boreal forests in the information, to exclude areas that may 7:30 to 9 p.m. at The Inn on Lake contiguous United States. In total, warrant exclusion pursuant to section Superior, 350 Canal Park Drive, Duluth, approximately 26,935 square miles (mi2) 4(b)(2) of the Act, or to add in those Minnesota. The hearing will be (69,760 square kilometers (km2)) fall areas determined to be essential to preceded by an informational session within the boundaries of the proposed conservation of the species, but not from 6 to 7:30 p.m. critical habitat designation, in four units included in this proposal. in the States of Idaho, Maine, DATES: We will accept comments from Montana Minnesota, Montana, and Washington. all interested parties until February 7, Tuesday, January 10, 2006, from 6 to However, we are not proposing to 2006. We will hold public hearings and 8 p.m. at Westcoast Kalispell Center, 20 designate all of the area with the informational sessions on the following North Main Street, Kalispell, Montana. boundaries. In particular, we are not dates: December 7, 2005, (Minnesota); The hearing will be preceded by an including lands within Lynx Analysis December 14, 2005, (Maine); January 10, informational session from 4:30 to 6 Units in the Superior National Forest in 2006, (Montana); and January 18, 2006, p.m. Minnesota, because they do not meet (Washington) (see SUPPLEMENTARY Washington the definition of critical habitat INFORMATION section, below, for pursuant to section 3(5)(A) of the Act as locations and times). Wednesday, January 18, 2006, from 7 a consequence of the Superior National ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, to 8:30 p.m. at Methow Valley Forest having amended its Forest Plan you may submit your comments and Community Center, 201 South Methow to adopt the Lynx Conservation materials concerning this proposal by Valley, Hwy 20, Twisp, Washington. Assessment and Strategy. These lands any one of several methods: The hearing will be preceded by an are not included in the estimated square 1. You may submit written comments informational session from 5 to 6:30 miles of the proposed designation. In and information by mail or hand- p.m. addition, we are not proposing to delivery to Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish Public Comments Solicited designate critical habitat on the Federal and Wildlife Service, Montana lands within seven National Forests in Ecological Services Office, 100 N. Park We intend that any final action Idaho, Montana, and Washington that Avenue, Suite 320, Helena, Montana resulting from this proposal will be as are covered by the May 2005 59601. accurate and as effective as possible. Conservation Agreement and therefore 2. You may submit oral and/or written Therefore, comments or suggestions do not meet the definition of critical comments and information at the public from the public, concerned habitat. These lands, however, are hearings (see SUPPLEMENTARY governmental agencies, the scientific included in the estimated square miles INFORMATION, below, for locations and community, industry, or any other of the proposed designation owing to times). interested party concerning this difficulties in obtaining accurate 3. You may send comments by proposed rule are hereby solicited. estimates of the area of Federal land electronic mail (e-mail) to Maps of the proposed critical habitat are within each national forest boundary in [email protected]. Please see the Public available for viewing by appointment a timely manner. This will be corrected Comments Solicited section below for during regular business hours at (1) The in the final designation. file format and other information about Montana Ecological Services Office (see We hereby solicit data and comments electronic filing. ADDRESSES); (2) the Service offices from the public on all aspects of this 4. You may fax your comments to identified in the Section 7 Consultation proposal, including data on economic Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife section below (Maine Field Office (Old and other potential impacts of the Service, Montana Ecological Services Town, ME), Twin Cities Field Office designation. We are also soliciting Office at 406–449–5339. (Bloomington, MN), and the Upper public comments on inclusion of certain Comments and materials received, as Columbia River Basin Office (Spokane, lands in the designation and on the well as supporting documentation used WA)); or (3) the Internet at http://

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:03 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP2.SGM 09NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68295

mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/ Plans (LRMP) to provide measures for accurate, detailed vegetation maps were mammals/lynx/. lynx conservation. It is anticipated that available, we were unsure how to On the basis of public comment, all of these plans will be complete prior delineate and describe critical habitat during the development of the final rule to promulgation of the final critical boundaries that solely encompassed we may find, among other things, that habitat designation. As a result, all lands containing the features essential areas proposed are not essential to the National Forest and BLM plans would to the conservation of the lynx. conservation of the species or do not have measures that provide for (10) Whether our approach to require special management conservation of lynx, and consequently designating critical habitat could be considerations or protection, are will not be in need of special improved or modified in any way to appropriate for exclusion under section management or protection. provide for greater public participation 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate Currently, National Forests that have and understanding, or to assist us in for exclusion, and in all of these cases, not revised or amended their LRMPs accommodating public concerns and this information will be incorporated operate under a Conservation comments. into the final designation. Final Agreement with the Service in which If you wish to comment, you may management plans and data supporting the parties agree to take measures to submit your comments and materials their effectiveness that address the reduce or eliminate adverse effects or concerning this proposal by any one of conservation of the lynx must be risks to lynx and its occupied habitat several methods (see ADDRESSES submitted to us during the public pending amendments to LRMPs. The section). Please submit Internet comment period so that we can take LCAS is a basis for implementing this comments to [email protected] in ASCII them into consideration when making Agreement. file format and avoid the use of special our final critical habitat determination. In addition, we will be evaluating the characters or any form of encryption. adequacy of existing management plans Please also include ‘‘Attn: lynx Comments Are Invited Specifically to conserve lynx on lands that are comments’’ in your e-mail subject Concerning designated wilderness areas or National header and your name and return (1) The reasons any habitat should or Parks, as discussed in this proposed address in the body of your message. If should not be determined to be critical rule. you do not receive a confirmation from habitat as provided by section 4 of the We specifically solicit comment on the system that we have received your Act, including, but not limited to, whether such areas meet the definition Internet message, contact us directly by whether the benefit of designation will of critical habitat based on: calling our Montana Ecological Services outweigh any threats to the species due (A) Whether these areas contain Office at telephone number 406–449– to designation; features essential to the conservation of 5225. (2) Specific information on the the lynx; Our practice is to make comments, amount and distribution of lynx habitat (B) The adequacy of these including names and home addresses of in the contiguous United States, and management plans or the Conservation respondents, available for public review what occupied habitat has features that Agreement to provide special during regular business hours. are essential to the conservation of the management and protection to lynx Individual respondents may request that species and why and what unoccupied habitat; we withhold their home addresses from habitat is essential to the conservation Any of these lands identified above the rulemaking record, which we will of the species and why; may, if appropriate, be included in the honor to the extent allowable by law. (3) Comments or information that may final critical habitat designation, even if There also may be circumstances in assist us with identifying or clarifying not proposed for designation in this which we would withhold from the the Primary Constituent Elements notice. rulemaking record a respondent’s (PCEs); (7) Our proposal to not include tribal identity, as allowable by law. If you (4) Land use designations and current lands in the Maine and Minnesota units wish us to withhold your name and/or or planned activities in areas proposed under the Secretarial Order Number address, you must state this as critical habitat and their possible 3206. The size of the individual prominently at the beginning of your impacts on proposed critical habitat; reservation lands in the Maine and comment. However, we will not (5) Any foreseeable economic, Minnesota units is relatively small. As consider anonymous comments. We national security, or other potential a result, we believe conservation of the will make all submissions from impacts resulting from the proposed lynx can be achieved by limiting the organizations or businesses, and from designation and, in particular, any designation to the other lands in the individuals identifying themselves as impacts on small entities; proposed units (see ‘‘Relationship of representatives or officials of (6) As discussed in this proposed rule, Critical Habitat to Tribal Lands’’ below). organizations or businesses, available we are considering whether some of the (8) Whether lands in three areas are for public inspection in their entirety. lands we have identified as having essential for the conservation of the Comments and materials received will features essential for the conservation of species and the basis for why they might be available for public inspection, by the lynx should not be included in the be essential. These areas are: (a) The appointment, during normal business final designation of critical habitat if, Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem hours at the above address. prior to the final critical habitat (Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho); (b) the designation, they are covered by final ‘‘Kettle Range’’ in Ferry County, Designation of Critical Habitat Provides management plans that incorporate the Washington; and (c) the Southern Rocky Little Additional Protection to Species conservation measures for the lynx (i.e., Mountains. In 30 years of implementing the Act, the Lynx Conservation Assessment and (9) How the proposed boundaries of the Service has found that the Strategy (LCAS) (Ruediger et al. 2000), critical habitat units could be refined to designation of statutory critical habitat or comparable). In particular, seven more closely conform to the boreal provides little additional protection to National Forests and one Bureau of forest types occupied by lynx. Maps that most listed species, while consuming Land Management (BLM) district are in accurately depict the specific vegetation significant amounts of available the process of revising or amending types on all land ownerships were not conservation resources. The Service’s their Land and Resource Management readily available. Additionally, even if present system for designating critical

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:03 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP2.SGM 09NOP2 68296 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules

habitat has evolved since its original Procedural and Resource Difficulties in proposed rule. For more information on statutory prescription into a process that Designating Critical Habitat the lynx, refer to the final listing rule provides little real conservation benefit, We have been inundated with published in the Federal Register on is driven by litigation and the courts lawsuits for our failure to designate March 24, 2000 (65 FR 16052), and the rather than biology, limits our ability to critical habitat, and we face a growing clarification of findings published in the fully evaluate the science involved, number of lawsuits challenging critical Federal Register on July 3, 2003 (68 FR consumes enormous agency resources, habitat determinations once they are 40076). Canada lynx are medium-sized cats, and imposes huge social and economic made. These lawsuits have subjected the generally measuring 75 to 90 costs). The Service believes that Service to an ever-increasing series of centimeters (cm) (30 to 35 inches (in)) additional agency discretion would court orders and court-approved long and weighing 8 to10.5 kilograms allow our focus to return to those settlement agreements, compliance with (18 to 23 pounds) (Quinn and Parker actions that provide the greatest benefit which now consumes nearly the entire 1987). They have large, well-furred feet to the species most in need of listing program budget. This leaves the and long legs for traversing snow; tufts protection. Service with little ability to prioritize its on the ears; and short, black-tipped activities to direct scarce listing tails. Role of Critical Habitat in Actual resources to the listing program actions Practice of Administering and Lynx are highly specialized predators with the most biologically urgent of snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) Implementing the Endangered Species species conservation needs. (McCord and Cardoza 1982; Quinn and Act The consequence of the critical Parker 1987; Aubry et al. 2000). Lynx habitat litigation activity is that limited and snowshoe hares are strongly While attention to and protection of listing funds are used to defend active habitat is paramount to successful associated with what is broadly lawsuits, to respond to Notices of Intent described as boreal forest (Bittner and conservation actions, we have to sue relative to critical habitat, and to consistently found that, in most Rongstad 1982; McCord and Cardoza comply with the growing number of 1982; Quinn and Parker 1987; Agee circumstances, the designation of adverse court orders. As a result, listing 2000; Aubry et al. 2000; Hodges 2000a, critical habitat is of little additional petition responses, the Service’s own b; McKelvey et al. 2000b). The value for most listed species, yet it proposals to list critically imperiled predominant vegetation of boreal forest consumes large amounts of conservation species, and final listing determinations is conifer trees, primarily species of resources. Sidle (1987) stated, ‘‘Because on existing proposals are all spruce (Picea spp.) and fir (Abies spp.) the Act can protect species with and significantly delayed. (Elliot-Fisk 1988). In the contiguous without critical habitat designation, The accelerated schedules of court United States, the boreal forest types critical habitat designation may be ordered designations have left the transition to deciduous temperate forest redundant to the other consultation Service with almost no ability to in the Northeast and Great Lakes, and to requirements of section 7.’’ Currently, provide for adequate public subalpine forest in the West (Agee only 466 species or 35 percent of the participation or to ensure a defect-free 2000). Lynx habitat can generally be 1,268 listed species in the United States rulemaking process before making described as moist boreal forests that under the jurisdiction of the Service decisions on listing and critical habitat have cold, snowy winters and a have designated critical habitat. proposals due to the risks associated snowshoe hare prey base (Quinn and with noncompliance with judicially- Parker 1987; Agee 2000; Aubry et al. We address the habitat needs of all imposed deadlines. This in turn fosters 2000; Buskirk et al. 2000b; Ruggiero et 1,268 listed species through a second round of litigation in which al. 2000). conservation mechanisms such as those who fear adverse impacts from Snow conditions also determine the listing, section 7 consultations, the critical habitat designations challenge distribution of lynx (Ruggiero et al. section 4 recovery planning process, the those designations. The cycle of 2000). Lynx are morphologically and section 9 protective prohibitions of litigation appears endless, is very physiologically adapted for hunting unauthorized take, section 6 funding to expensive, and in the final analysis snowshoe hares and surviving in areas the States, and the section 10 incidental provides relatively little additional that have cold winters with deep, fluffy take permit process. The Service protection to listed species. snow for extended periods. These believes that it is these measures that The costs resulting from the adaptations provide lynx a competitive may make the difference between designation include legal costs, the cost advantage over potential competitors, extinction and survival for many of preparation and publication of the such as bobcats (Lynx rufus) or coyotes species. designation, the analysis of the (Canis latrans) (McCord and Cardoza 1982; Buskirk et al 2000a; Ruediger et We note, however, that the August 6, economic effects and the cost of requesting and responding to public al. 2000; Ruggiero et al. 2000). Bobcats 2004, Ninth Circuit judicial opinion, comment, and in some cases the costs and coyotes have a higher foot load (Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. United of compliance with the National (more weight per surface area of foot), States Fish and Wildlife Service) found Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). None which causes them to sink into the our definition of adverse modification of these costs result in any benefit to the snow more than lynx. Therefore, invalid. In response to the decision, the species that is not already afforded by bobcats and coyotes cannot efficiently Director has provided guidance to the the protections of the Act enumerated hunt in fluffy or deep snow and are at Service based on the statutory language. earlier, and they directly reduce the a competitive disadvantage to lynx. In this rule, our analysis of the funds available for direct and tangible Long-term snow conditions presumably consequences and relative costs and conservation actions. limit the winter distribution of potential benefits of the critical habitat lynx competitors such as bobcats Background designation is based on application of (McCord and Cardoza 1982) or coyotes. the statute consistent with the 9th It is our intent to discuss only those Because of the patchiness and Circuit’s ruling and the Director’s topics directly relevant to the temporal nature of high-quality guidance. designation of critical habitat in this snowshoe hare habitat, lynx populations

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:03 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP2.SGM 09NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68297

require large boreal forest landscapes to management (Elliot-Fisk 1988, Agee stages because they have greater ensure that sufficient high-quality 2000). As a result, lynx habitat within understory structure than mature forests snowshoe hare habitat is available at the boreal forest landscape is typically (Buehler and Keith 1982; Wolfe et al. any point in time and to ensure that patchy because the boreal forest 1982; Koehler 1990; Hodges 2000b; lynx may move freely among patches of contains stands of differing ages and Homyack 2003; Griffin 2004). However, suitable habitat and among conditions, only some of which are snowshoe hares can be abundant in subpopulations of lynx. Populations suitable as lynx foraging or denning mature forests with dense understories that are composed of a number of habitat at any point in time (McKelvey (Griffin 2004). discrete subpopulations, connected by et al. 2000a; Hoving et al. 2004). Within the boreal forest, lynx den dispersal, are called metapopulations Snowshoe hares comprise a majority sites are located where coarse woody (McKelvey et al. 2000c). Individual lynx of the lynx diet (Nellis et al. 1972; Brand debris, such as downed logs and maintain large home ranges (reported as et al. 1976; Koehler 1990; Apps 2000; windfalls, provides security and thermal generally ranging between 31–216 km2 Aubry et al. 2000; Mowat et al. 2000; cover for lynx kittens (McCord and [12–83 mi2]) (Koehler 1990; Aubry et al. von Kienast 2003; Squires et al. 2004b). Cardoza 1982; Koehler 1990; Slough 2000; Squires and Laurion 2000; Squires When snowshoe hare populations are 1999; Squires and Laurion 2000; J. et al. 2004b; Vashon et al. 2005a). The low, female lynx produce few or no Organ, Service, in litt. 2001). The size of lynx home ranges varies kittens that survive to independence amount of structure (e.g., downed, large depending on the abundance of prey, (Nellis et al. 1972; Brand et al. 1976; woody debris) appears to be more the animal’s gender and age, season, and Brand and Keith 1979; Poole 1994; important than the age of the forest the density of the lynx population Slough and Mowat 1996; O’Donoghue et stand for lynx denning habitat (Mowat (Koehler 1990; Poole 1994; Slough and al. 1997, Aubry et al. 2000; Mowat et al. et al. 2000). 2000). Lynx prey opportunistically on Mowat 1996; Aubry et al. 2000; Mowat Previous Federal Actions et al. 2000; Vashon et al. 2005a). When other small mammals and birds, densities of snowshoe hares decline, for particularly during lows in the For more information on previous example, lynx enlarge their home ranges snowshoe hare population, but alternate Federal actions concerning the lynx, to obtain sufficient amounts of food to prey species may not sufficiently refer to the final listing rule published survive and reproduce. compensate for low availability of in the Federal Register on March 24, In the contiguous United States, the snowshoe hares, resulting in reduced 2000 (65 FR 16052), and the boreal forest landscape is naturally lynx populations (Brand et al. 1976; clarification of findings published in the patchy and transitional because it is the Brand and Keith 1979; Koehler 1990; Federal Register on July 3, 2003 (68 FR southern edge of the boreal forest range. Mowat et al. 2000). 40076). As a result of litigation from This generally limits snowshoe hare In northern Canada, lynx populations Defenders of Wildlife, et al., the U.S. populations in the contiguous United fluctuate in response to the cycling of District Court for the District of States from achieving densities similar snowshoe hare populations (Hodges Columbia instructed us to propose to those of the expansive northern 2000a; Mowat et al. 2000). Although critical habitat by November 1, 2005, boreal forest in Canada (Wolff 1980; snowshoe hare populations in the and to issue a final rule for critical Buehler and Keith 1982; Koehler 1990; northern portion of their range show habitat by November 1, 2006. This Koehler and Aubry 1994). Additionally, strong, regular population cycles, these proposal has been completed in the presence of more snowshoe hare fluctuations are generally much less compliance with the Court order. pronounced in the southern portion of predators and competitors at southern Critical Habitat latitudes may inhibit the potential for the range in the contiguous United high-density hare populations (Wolff States (Hodges 2000b). In the contiguous Critical habitat is defined in section 3 1980). As a result, lynx generally occur United States, the degree to which of the Act as—(i) the specific areas at relatively low densities in the regional local lynx population within the geographical area occupied contiguous United States as compared fluctuations are influenced by local by a species, at the time it is listed in to the high lynx densities in the snowshoe hare population dynamics is accordance with the Act, on which are northern boreal forest of Canada (Aubry unclear. However, it is anticipated that found those physical or biological et al. 2000) or the densities of a species because of natural fluctuations in features (I) essential to the conservation such as the bobcat, which is a habitat snowshoe hare populations, there will of the species and (II) that may require and prey generalist. be periods when lynx densities are special management considerations or Lynx are highly mobile; long-distance extremely low. protection; and (ii) specific areas movements (greater than 100 km (60 Because lynx population dynamics, outside the geographical area occupied mi)) are characteristic (Aubry et al. survival and recruitment are closely tied by a species at the time it is listed, upon 2000; Mowat et al. 2000). Lynx disperse to snowshoe hare availability, snowshoe a determination that such areas are primarily when snowshoe hare hare habitat is a component of lynx essential for the conservation of the populations decline (Ward and Krebs habitat. Lynx generally concentrate their species. ‘‘Conservation’’ means the use 1985; O’Donoghue et al. 1997; Poole foraging and hunting activities in areas of all methods and procedures that are 1997). Subadult lynx also disperse even where snowshoe hare populations are necessary to bring an endangered or a when prey is abundant (Poole 1997), high (Koehler et al. 1979; Ward and threatened species to the point at which presumably to establish new home Krebs 1985; Murray et al. 1994; listing under the Act is no longer ranges. Lynx also make exploratory O’Donoghue et al. 1997, 1998). necessary. movements outside their home ranges Snowshoe hares are most abundant in Critical habitat receives protection (Aubry et al. 2000; Squires et al. 2001). forests with dense understories that under section 7 of the Act through the The boreal forest landscape is provide forage, cover to escape from prohibition against destruction or naturally dynamic. Forest stands within predators, and protection during adverse modification of critical habitat the landscape change as they undergo extreme weather (Wolfe et al. 1982; with regard to actions carried out, succession after natural or human- Litvaitis et al. 1985; Hodges 2000a, b). funded, or authorized by a Federal caused disturbances such as fire, insect Generally, hare densities are higher in agency. Section 7 of the Act requires epidemics, wind, ice, disease, and forest regenerating, earlier successional forest consultation on Federal actions that are

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:03 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP2.SGM 09NOP2 68298 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules

likely to result in the destruction or opinion or personal knowledge. All Service staff experienced in lynx adverse modification of critical habitat. information is used in accordance with conservation and/or recovery planning The designation of critical habitat does the provisions of Section 515 of the under the Act and two lynx experts not affect land ownership or establish a Treasury and General Government from the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 The lynx recovery outline presents other conservation area. Such (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 5658) and the current understandings of historical and designation does not allow government associated Information Quality current lynx distribution, ecology, and or public access to private lands. Guidelines issued by the Service. population dynamics. The outline To be included in a critical habitat Section 4 of the Act requires that we introduces concepts regarding the designation, the habitat within the area designate critical habitat on the basis of relative importance of different occupied by the species at the time of the best scientific data available. Habitat geographic areas to the persistence of listing must first have features that are is often dynamic, and species may move lynx in the contiguous United States, ‘‘essential to the conservation of the from one area to another over time. identifying areas as either core, species.’’ Critical habitat designations Furthermore, we recognize that provisional core, secondary or identify, to the extent known using the designation of critical habitat may not peripheral based on lynx records over best scientific data available, habitat include all of the habitat areas that may time and evidence of reproduction. areas that provide essential life cycle eventually be determined to be Additionally, the outline describes needs of the species (i.e., areas on which necessary for the recovery of the preliminary recovery objectives and are found the primary constituent species. For these reasons, critical actions. element, as defined at 50 CFR habitat designations do not signal that We also reviewed available 424.12(b)). habitat outside the designation is information that pertains to the habitat Habitat occupied at the time of listing unimportant or may not be required for requirements of this species and its may be included in critical habitat only recovery. principal prey, the snowshoe hare. This if the essential features thereon may Areas that support populations, but included data in reports submitted by require special management or are outside the critical habitat researchers holding recovery permits protection. Thus, we do not include designation, will continue to be subject under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act; areas where existing management is to conservation actions implemented research published in peer-reviewed sufficient to conserve the species. (As under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to articles, presented in academic theses, discussed below, such areas may also be the regulatory protections afforded by agency reports and unpublished data; excluded from critical habitat pursuant the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as and various Geographic Information to section 4(b)(2).) Accordingly, when determined on the basis of the best System (GIS) coverages (e.g., land cover the best available scientific data do not available information at the time of the type information, land ownership demonstrate that the conservation needs action. Federally funded or permitted information, snow depth information, of the species so require, we will not projects affecting listed species outside topographic information, locations of designate critical habitat in areas their designated critical habitat areas lynx obtained from radio- or GPS-collars outside the geographic area occupied by may still result in jeopardy findings in and locations of lynx confirmed via the species at the time of listing. some cases. Similarly, critical habitat DNA analysis or other verified records). The Service’s Policy on Information designations made on the basis of the In evaluating areas to propose as Standards Under the Endangered best scientific information available at critical habitat we first determined the Species Act, published in the Federal the time of designation will not control geographic area occupied by the species. Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), the direction and substance of future We utilized data providing verified and Section 515 of the Treasury and recovery plans, habitat conservation evidence of the occurrence of lynx and General Government Appropriations plans, or other species conservation evidence of the presence of breeding Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106– planning efforts if new information lynx populations as represented by 554; H.R. 5658) and the associated available to these planning efforts calls records of lynx reproduction. We Information Quality Guidelines issued for a different outcome. utilized records since 1995 to ensure by the Service, provide criteria, that this proposed critical habitat establish procedures, and provide Methods designation is based on the data that guidance to ensure that decisions made As required by section 4(b)(2) of the most closely represents the current by the Service represent the best Act, we use the best scientific data status of lynx in the contiguous United scientific and commercial data available in determining critical habitat. States and the geographic area occupied available. They require Service We have reviewed the approach to the by the species. Data that define the biologists to the extent consistent with conservation of the lynx provided in a historic and current range of the lynx the Act and with the use of the best recovery outline (Service 2005); (e.g., McKelvey et al. 2000b; Hoving et scientific and commercial data information from State, Federal and al. 2003) constitute the geographic area available, to use primary and original Tribal agencies; and information from that may be occupied by the species; sources of information as the basis for academia and private organizations that therefore, we determined that areas recommendations to designate critical have collected scientific data on lynx. outside the historic distribution are not habitat. When determining which areas The Service recently completed a essential to the conservation of the are critical habitat, a primary source of recovery outline for the lynx (Service species. Although the average life span information is generally the listing 2005). Recovery outlines are brief, of a wild lynx is not known, we have package for the species. Additional internally-developed documents assumed that a lynx born in 1995 could information sources include the intended as preliminary strategies for have been alive in 2000 or 2003, the recovery plan for the species, articles in conservation of listed species until a dates of publication of the final listing peer-reviewed journals, conservation formal recovery plan is completed (F. rule and the clarification of findings. plans developed by States and counties, Dunkle, USFWS, in litt. 1989). Furthermore, lynx-related research in scientific status surveys and studies, Development of a formal recovery plan the contiguous United States biological assessments, or other for lynx has not yet begun. The lynx substantially increased after the 1998 unpublished materials and expert recovery outline was prepared by proposal to list, providing additional

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:03 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP2.SGM 09NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68299

information on which to base this States seem to be influenced by lynx Primary Constituent Elements proposed critical habitat designation. population dynamics in Canada (Thiel In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) These recent verified records were 1987; McKelvey et al. 2000a, c). Many of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR provided by Federal research entities, of these populations in Canada are 424.12, in determining which areas to state wildlife agencies, academic directly interconnected with United propose as critical habitat, we are researchers, and private individuals or States populations, and are likely a required to base critical habitat organizations working on lynx (K. source of emigration into contiguous determinations on the best scientific Aubry, Pacific Northwest Research United States lynx populations. data available and to consider those Station, unpubl. data; S. Gehman, Therefore, we assume that retaining physical and biological features Wildthings Unlimited, unpubl. data; S. connectivity with larger lynx (primary constituent element) that are Gniadek, Glacier National Park, unpubl. populations in Canada is important to essential to the conservation of the data; S. Loch, Independent Scientist, ensuring long-term persistence of lynx species, and that may require special and E. Lindquist, Superior National populations in the United States. We management considerations or Forest, unpubl. data; K. McKelvey, assume that, regionally, lynx within the protection. The regulations indicate Rocky Mountain Research Station; contiguous United States and adjacent these may include, but are not limited unpubl. data; Minnesota Department of Canadian provinces interact as to: Space for individual and population Natural Resources 2005; R. Moen, metapopulations. Where available, data growth and for normal behavior; food, University of Minnesota, Natural on historic average snow depths and water, air, light, minerals, or other Resources Research Institute, unpubl. bobcat harvest provided additional nutritional or physiological data.; J. Squires, Rocky Mountain insight for refining and delineating requirements; cover or shelter; sites for Research Station, unpubl. data; J. appropriate boundaries. In Maine and Vashon, Maine Department of Inland breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or Minnesota, we used the international development) of offspring; and habitats Fisheries and Wildlife, unpubl. data). border with Canada and roads or By accepting only verified recent lynx that are protected from disturbance or township lines where possible for ease records, we restricted the available lynx are representative of the historic in description and clarity. In the North occurrence dataset because we wanted geographical and ecological Cascades and Northern Rockies, the reliable data for the purposes of distributions of a species. features essential to the conservation of evaluating areas and features for critical The area proposed for designation as lynx, the majority of lynx records, habitat designation. The reliability of critical habitat provides boreal forest lynx occurrence reports can be evidence of reproduction, and the boreal habitat for breeding, non-breeding, and questionable because the bobcat, a forest types are found above 4,000 feet dispersing lynx in metapopulations common species, can be confused with (ft) (1,219 meters [m]) in elevation across the species’ range in the the lynx, which is similar in (McKelvey et al. 2000b; K. McAllister et contiguous United States. No areas are appearance. Additionally, many surveys al. USFS, in litt. 2000). Thus we limited being proposed solely because they are conducted by snow tracking in the delineation of proposed critical provide habitat for dispersing animals. which correct identification of tracks habitat to lands above this elevation. At this time, the biological or physical can be difficult because of variable Additionally, in the North Cascades, features of habitats lynx choose for conditions affecting the quality of the features essential to the conservation of dispersal is not well-understood; while track and variable expertise of the the lynx and the majority of the lynx it is assumed lynx would prefer to travel tracker. Our definition of a verified lynx records and evidence of reproduction where there is forested cover, the record is modified from McKelvey et al. are from east of the crest of the Cascade literature contains many examples of (2000b)—(1) An animal (live or dead) in Mountains. Therefore, in the Cascades lynx crossing large, unforested openings hand or observed closely by a person we used the international border with (e.g., Roe et al. 2000). The areas being knowledgeable in lynx identification, Canada, the Cascade crest and the 4,000- proposed as critical habitat serve a (2) genetic (DNA) confirmation, (3) ft (1,219 m) elevation contour east of the variety of functions that include acting snow tracks only when confirmed by crest as the boundary. In the Northern as a source of dispersing animals and genetic analysis (see for example Rockies, the 4,000-ft (1,219 m) contour providing habitat that may serve as Murphy et al. 2004; McKelvey et al. in was used as the primary boundary west travel corridors to facilitate dispersal press) or (4) location data from radio- or of the Continental Divide. However, the and exploratory movements. The GPS-collared lynx. Documentation of climatic effects of the Continental features or habitat components essential lynx reproduction consists of lynx Divide cause the 4,000-ft (1,219 m) for the conservation of the species were kittens in hand, or observed with the elevation contour to be too broad east of determined from studies of lynx and mother by someone knowledgeable in the Continental Divide, such that it snowshoe hare ecology. lynx identification, or snow tracks includes substantial areas of grassland The specific biological and physical demonstrating family groups traveling habitats that do not contain features features, otherwise known as the together, as identified by a person essential to the conservation of the lynx primary constituent elements, essential highly knowledgeable in identification or important for snowshoe hares. to the conservation of the lynx are: of carnivore tracks. Therefore, east of the Continental Divide (1) Boreal forest landscapes The geographical area occupied by the in the Northern Rockies, we used USFS supporting a mosaic of differing species was then delineated to and National Park Service (NPS) successional forest stages and encompass areas containing features boundaries to circumscribe critical containing: essential to the conservation of the lynx, habitat boundaries to more closely (a) Presence of snowshoe hares and the majority of recent lynx records, encompass essential features, recent their preferred habitat conditions, evidence of breeding lynx populations, records of lynx, including records of which include dense understories of the boreal forest type that is currently reproduction, and boreal forest young trees or shrubs tall enough to occupied by lynx in that particular currently occupied by lynx. The protrude above the snow; and region and direct connectivity with lynx northern boundary for the Northern (b) Winter snow conditions that are populations in Canada. Lynx Rockies unit is the International border generally deep and fluffy for extended populations in the contiguous United with Canada. periods of time; and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:03 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP2.SGM 09NOP2 68300 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules

(c) Sites for denning that have eastern North America is most Reported home range size varies from 31 abundant coarse woody debris, such as influenced by snowfall, but within areas km2 (12 mi2) for females and 68 km2 (26 downed trees and root wads. of similarly deep snowfall, measures of mi2) for males in Maine (Vashon et al. A description of the primary forest succession become more 2005a) to much larger ranges of 88 km2 constituent elements are described important factors in determining lynx (34 mi2) for females and 216 km2 (83 below. distribution. mi2) for males in northwest Montana As described above (see Boreal Forest Landscapes (Space for (Squires et al. 2004b). ‘‘Background’’), boreal forests used by Individual and Population Growth and lynx are cool, moist and dominated by Forest Type Associations Normal Behavior) conifer tree species, primarily spruce Maine Lynx populations respond to biotic and fir (Elliot-Fisk 1988; Agee 2000; and abiotic factors at different scales. At Lynx were more likely to occur in 100 Aubry et al. 2000; Ruediger et al. 2000). 2 2 the regional scale, snow conditions, Boreal forest landscapes used by lynx km (40 mi ) landscapes with boreal forest, and competitors are a heterogeneous mosaic of vegetative regenerating forest, and less likely to (especially bobcat) influence the cover types and successional forest occur in landscapes with recent clearcut species’ range (Aubry et al. 2000; stages created by natural and human- or partial harvest, (Hoving et al. 2004). McKelvey et al. 2000b; Hoving et al. caused disturbances (McKelvey et al. Lynx in Maine select softwood (spruce 2005). At the landscape scale within 2000a). Periodic vegetation disturbances and fir) dominated regenerating stands each region, natural and human-caused stimulate development of dense (Vashon et al. 2005a). Regenerating disturbance processes (e.g., fire, wind, understory or early successional habitat stands used by lynx generally develop insect infestations and forest for snowshoe hares (Ruediger et al. 15–30 years after forest disturbance and management) influence the spatial and 2000). In Maine, lynx were positively are characterized by dense horizontal temporal distribution of lynx associated with landscapes altered by structure and high stem density within populations by affecting the distribution clearcutting 15 to 25 years previously a meter of the ground. These habitats of good habitat for snowshoe hares (Hoving et al. 2004). support high snowshoe hare densities (Agee 2000; Ruediger et al. 2000). At the The overall quality of the boreal forest (Homyack 2003; Fuller and Harrison stand-level scale, quality, quantity, and landscape matrix and juxtaposition of 2005; Vashon et al. 2005a). At the stand juxtaposition of habitats influence home stands in suitable condition within the scale, lynx in northwestern Maine range size, productivity, and survival landscape is important for both lynx selected older (11 to 26 year-old), tall (Aubry et al. 2000; Vashon et al. 2005a). and snowshoe hares in that it can (4.6 to 7.3 m (15 to 24 ft)) regenerating At the substand scale, spatial influence connectivity or movements clearcut stands and older (11 to 21 year- distribution and abundance of prey and between suitable stands, availability of old) partially harvested stands (A. microclimate influence movements, food and cover and spatial structuring of Fuller, University of Maine, unpubl. hunting behavior, den, and resting site populations or subpopulations (Hodges data). locations. 2000b; McKelvey et al. 2000a; Ricketts Minnesota All of the primary constituent 2001; Walker 2005). For example, lynx elements of critical habitat for lynx are foraging habitat must be near denning In Minnesota, lynx primarily occur in found in what is broadly described as habitat to allow females to adequately the Northern Superior Uplands the boreal forest landscape. In the provision dependent kittens, especially Ecological Section of the Laurentian contiguous United States, the boreal when the kittens are relatively Mixed Forest Province. Historically, this forest is more transitional rather than immobile. In north-central Washington, area was dominated by red pine (Pinus true boreal forest of northern Canada hare densities were higher in landscapes resinosa) and white pine (P. strobus) and Alaska (Agee 2000). This difference with an abundance of dense boreal mixed with aspen (Populus spp.), paper is because the boreal forest is at its forest interspersed with small patches of birch (Betula papyrifera), spruce, southern limits in the contiguous open habitat, in contrast to landscapes balsam fir (A. balsamifera) and jack pine United States, where it transitions to composed primarily of open forest (P. banksiana) (Minnesota Department deciduous temperate forest in the interspersed with few dense vegetation of Natural Resources [Minnesota DNR] northeast and Great Lakes and subalpine patches (Walker 2005). Similarly, in 2003). forest in the west (Agee 2000). We use northwest Montana, connectivity of Preliminary research suggests lynx in the term ‘‘boreal forest’’ because it dense patches within the forest matrix Minnesota generally use younger stands generally encompasses most of the benefited snowshoe hares (Ausband and (less than 50 years) with a conifer vegetative descriptions of the Baty 2005). In mountainous areas, lynx component in greater proportion than transitional forest types that comprise appear to prefer flatter slopes (Apps their availability (R. Moen, University of lynx habitat in the contiguous United 2000; McKelvey et al. 2000d; von Minnesota, unpubl. data). Lynx prefer States (Agee 2000). Kienast 2003; Maletzke 2004). predominantly upland forests At a regional scale, lynx habitat is Individual lynx require large portions dominated by red pine, white pine, jack within the areas that generally support of boreal forest landscapes to support pine, black spruce (P. mariana), paper deep snow throughout the winter and their home ranges and to facilitate birch, quaking aspen (P. tremuloides), or that support boreal forest vegetation dispersal and exploratory travel. The balsam fir (R. Moen, unpubl. data). types (see below for more detail). In size of lynx home ranges is believed to eastern North America, lynx be strongly influenced by the quality of Washington distribution was strongly associated the habitat, particularly the abundance In the North Cascades in Washington, with areas of deep snowfall (greater than of snowshoe hares, in addition to other the majority of lynx occurrences were 268 cm (105 in) of mean annual factors such as gender, age, season, and found above 1,250 m (4,101 ft) elevation snowfall) and 100 km2 (40 mi2) density of the lynx population (Aubry et (McKelvey et al. 2000b,d; von Kienast landscapes with a high proportion of al. 2000; Mowat et al. 2000). Generally, 2003; Maletzke 2004). In this area, lynx regenerating forest (Hoving 2001). females with kittens have the smallest selected Engelman spruce (P. Hoving et al. (2004) concluded that the home ranges while males have the engelmanii)-subalpine-fir (A. broad geographic distribution of lynx in largest home ranges (Moen et al. 2004). lasiocarpa) forest cover types in winter

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:03 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP2.SGM 09NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68301

(von Kienast 2003, Maletzke 2004). (lynx foraging) habitat within 10 to 25 structure, whereas in winter, snowshoe Lodgepole pine (P. contorta) is a years, depending on local conditions hare densities were as high or higher in dominant tree species in the earlier (Ruediger et al. 2000). Forest mature stands with dense understory successional stages of these climax management techniques that thin the forest structure (Griffin 2004). cover types. Seral lodgepole stands understory, however, may render the Snowshoe hare studies are just contained dense understories and habitat unsuitable for hares and, thus, underway in Minnesota (University of therefore received high use by snowshoe for lynx (Ruediger et al. 2000; Hoving et Minnesota Web site http:// hares and lynx (Koehler 1990; McKelvey al. 2004). Stands may continue to www.nrri.umn.edu/lynx/research.html); et al. 2000d). provide suitable snowshoe hare habitat therefore, results are not available at this for many years until woody stems in the time. Northern Rockies understory become too sparse, as a Habitats supporting abundant In the Northern Rocky Mountains, the result of undisturbed forest succession snowshoe hares must be present in a majority of lynx occurrences are or management (e.g., clearcutting or large proportion of the landscape to associated with the Rocky Mountain thinning). Thus, if the vegetation support a viable lynx population. Broad- Conifer Forest vegetative class (Kuchler potential of the stand is appropriate, a scale snowshoe hare density estimates 1964; McKelvey et al. 2000b) and occur stand that is not currently in a condition are not available for the areas being above 1,250 m (4,101 ft) elevation that is suitable to support abundant proposed as lynx critical habitat; (Aubry et al. 2000; McKelvey et al. snowshoe hares for lynx foraging or available snowshoe hare density 2000b). The dominant vegetation that coarse woody debris for den sites has estimates are only applicable for the constitutes lynx habitat in these areas is the capability to develop into suitable immediate area and time frame for subalpine fir, Engelman spruce and habitat for lynx and snowshoe hares which the study was conducted and lodgepole pine (Aubry et al. 2000; with time. cannot be extrapolated further. Ruediger et al. 2000). As in the As described previously, snowshoe b. Snow Conditions (Other Cascades, lodgepole pine is an earlier hares prefer boreal forest stands that Physiological Requirements) successional stage of subalpine fir and have a dense horizontal understory to Engelman spruce climax forest cover provide food, cover and security from As described in the ‘‘Background’’ types. predators. Snowshoe hares feed on above, snow conditions also determine the distribution of lynx. Deep, fluffy a. Snowshoe Hares (Food) conifers, deciduous trees and shrubs (Hodges 2000b). Snowshoe hare density snow conditions likely restrict potential Snowshoe hare density is the most is correlated to understory cover competitors such as bobcat or coyote important factor explaining the between approximately 1 to 3 m (3 to 10 from effectively encroaching on or persistence of lynx populations (Steury ft) above the ground or snow level hunting in winter lynx habitat. Snowfall and Murray 2004). A minimum (Hodges 2000b). Habitats most heavily was the strongest predictor of lynx snowshoe hare density necessary to used by snowshoe hares are stands with occurrence at a regional scale (Hoving et maintain a persistent, reproducing lynx shrubs, stands that are densely stocked, al. 2005). In addition to snow depth, population within the contiguous and stands at ages where branches have other snow properties, including surface United States has not been determined, more lateral cover (Hodges 2000b). In hardness or sinking depth, are although Ruggiero et al. (2000) Maine, unthinned stands supporting important factors in the spatial, suggested that at least 0.5 hares per 1.83 hares per ha (0.7 hares per ac) had ecological, and genetic structuring of the hectare (ha) (0.2 hares per acre (ac)) may average stem densities of 11,600 stems species (Stenseth et al. 2004). be necessary. Steury and Murray (2004) per ha (4700 stems per ac) (Homyack et In the northeastern United States, modeled lynx and snowshoe hare al. 2004). In northcentral Washington, lynx are most likely to occur in areas populations and predicted that a snowshoe hare density was highest in with a 10-year mean annual snowfall minimum of 1.1 to 1.8 hares per ha (0.4 20 year old lodgepole pine stands where greater than 268 cm (105 in) (Hoving to 0.7 hares per ac) was required for the average density of trees and shrubs 2001). The Northern Superior Uplands persistence of a reintroduced lynx was 15,840 stems per ha (6415 stems per section of Minnesota, which roughly population in the southern portion of ac) (Koehler 1990). Generally, earlier corresponds to the area proposed as the lynx range. successional forest stages support a critical habitat, receives more of its The boreal forest landscape must greater density of horizontal understory precipitation as snow than any section contain a mosaic of forest stand and more abundant snowshoe hares in the State, has the longest period of successional stages to sustain lynx (Buehler and Keith 1982; Wolfe et al. snow cover, and the shortest growing populations over the long term as the 1982; Koehler 1990; Hodges 2000b; season (Minnesota DNR 2003). Mean condition of individual stands changes Homyack 2003; Griffin 2004); however, annual snowfall from 1971 to 2000 in over time. If the vegetation potential (or sometimes mature stands also can have this area was generally greater than 149 climax forest type) of a particular forest adequate dense understory to support cm (55 in) (University of Minnesota stand is conducive to supporting abundant snowshoe hares (Griffin 2004). 2005). abundant snowshoe hares, it likely will In Maine, the highest snowshoe hare Information on average snowfall or also go through successional phases that densities were found in regenerating snow depths in mountainous areas such are unsuitable as lynx foraging softwood (spruce and fir) and as the Cascades or northwest Montana is (snowshoe hare habitat) or lynx denning mixedwood stands (Homyack 2003, limited because there are few weather habitat (Agee 2000; Buskirk et al. Fuller and Harrison 2005). In the north stations in these regions that have 2000b). For example, a boreal forest Cascades, the highest snowshoe hare measured snow fall or snow depth over stand where there has been recent densities were found in 20-year-old time. An important consideration is that disturbance, such as fire or timber seral lodgepole pine stands with a dense the topography strongly influences local harvest, resulting in little or no understory (Koehler 1990). In montane snow conditions. In the Cascades, at the understory structure is unsuitable as and subalpine forests in northwest Mazama station, average annual snowhoe hare habitat for lynx foraging. Montana, the highest snowshoe hare snowfall from 1948 to 1976 was 292 cm That temporarily unsuitable stand may densities in summer were generally in (115 in) (Western Regional Climate regenerate into suitable snowshoe hare younger stands with dense forest Center 2005). In Montana, at the Seeley

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:03 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP2.SGM 09NOP2 68302 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules

Lake Ranger Station, average annual lynx through reproduction; (2) act as a outline; in particular, for critical habitat snowfall from 1948 to 2005 was 315 cm possible source of lynx for more we focused closely on areas with (124 in), while at the Troy station the peripheral boreal forested areas; (3) reliable evidence of lynx occurrence and average total snowfall from 1961 to 1994 enable the maintenance of home ranges; reproduction since 1995. The recovery was 229 cm (90 in) (Western Regional (4) incorporate snow conditions for outline more broadly encompassed Climate Center 2005). which lynx are highly specialized that older records of lynx. For example, the give lynx a competitive advantage over c. Denning Habitat (Sites for core area in the northeastern United potential competitors; (5) provide Reproduction and Rearing of Offspring) States extends from northern Maine into denning habitat; and (6) provide habitat northern New Hampshire because of Lynx den sites are found in mature connectivity for travel within home historic records of lynx in New and younger boreal forest stands that ranges, exploratory movements, and Hampshire. However, because there is have a large amount of cover and dispersal. no verified evidence of lynx occupation downed, large woody debris. The or reproduction in New Hampshire or structural components of lynx den sites Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat western Maine since 1995, the critical are common features in managed habitat unit does not extend into these (logged) and unmanaged (e.g., insect To identify areas containing features areas. Furthermore, the preliminary damaged, wind-throw) stands. Downed that are essential to the conservation of boundaries for the recovery areas were trees provide excellent cover for den the lynx, we considered the concepts intended to be for representative sites and kittens and often are introduced in the recovery outline for purposes only so were drawn on a gross associated with dense woody stem the species (Service 2005) and the above scale compared to the proposed critical growth. analysis concerning occupancy, habitat boundaries. To simplify the Sub-stand characteristics were evidence of reproduction, connectivity mapping of the recovery area evaluated for 26 lynx dens from 1999 to with adjacent lynx populations in boundaries we often used highways or 2004 in northwest Maine. Dens were Canada and the primary constituent rivers or, as in Minnesota, general maps found in several stand types. Modeling elements. In summary, the area of average snowfall for the boundaries of den site variables determined that tip- occupied by the lynx in the contiguous although we knew that these recovery up mounds (exposed roots from fallen United States is broadly delineated by outline boundaries encompassed trees) alone best explained den site the distribution of the southern habitats that were not boreal forest selection (J. Organ, Service, unpubl. extensions of boreal forest, which occur habitat. In Minnesota, the recovery core data). Tip-up mounds may purely be an in the Northeast (portions of Maine, area boundary was drawn according to index of downed trees, which were New Hampshire, Vermont, New York); an approximate line where average abundant on the landscape. Horizontal the western Great Lakes (portions of snow fall was greater than 55 in (140 cover at 5 m (16 ft) alone was the next Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan); the cm). However, while subsequently best performing model (J. Organ, Northern Rocky Mountains/Cascades evaluating information for the critical unpubl. data). Dead downed trees were (portions of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, habitat proposal, we received bobcat sampled, but did not explain den site Montana, northwestern Wyoming, harvest data for Minnesota showing selection as well as tip-up mounds and Utah); and the Southern Rocky abundant bobcat harvest and reduced cover at 5 m (16 ft). Lynx essentially Mountains (portions of Colorado, lynx presence in the area west of the select dense cover in a cover-rich area. southeastern Wyoming) (Agee 2000; In the North Cascades, Washington, McKelvey et al. 2000b; Hoving et al. proposed critical habitat unit in lynx denned in mature (older than 250 2003). Within this broad distribution the Minnesota, which suggests the western years) stands with an overstory of recovery outline (Service 2005) portion of the area preliminarily Engelman spruce, subalpine fir and delineated core areas that contain delinated as core in Minnesota may not lodgepole pine with an abundance of consistent, verified records of lynx over be of high quality for lynx. The Montana downed woody debris (Koehler 1990). time and evidence of reproduction and north Cascades (Washington) core In this study, all den sites were located within the past 20 years. The long-term area boundaries were drawn primarily on north-northeast aspects (Koehler occupation of these general areas by along highways and rivers that occur 1990). In northwest Montana, the lynx supports the assumption that they below the 4,000 ft (1,219 m) elevation immediate areas around dens were in a contain habitats sufficient in quality and contour, which is below the elevation variety of stand ages but all contained quantity to continue to sustain lynx that supports lynx habitat. As a result, abundant woody debris including populations. An additional factor the proposed critical habitat units are downed logs, blowdowns, and strongly influencing most of these core subsets of four of the six areas rootwads, and dense understory cover areas is their connection with larger preliminarily delineated as core areas in (Squires et al. 2004b). ). Information on lynx populations in Canada. Each the lynx recovery outline. den site characteristics in Minnesota has proposed critical habitat unit occurs We did not propose critical habitat in not yet been reported (Moen et al. 2004). within one of these core areas. two areas the recovery outline defined The proposed critical habitat as core, the Kettle Range in northcentral Primary Constituent Elements Summary designation does not include all the Washington and the Greater The discussion above outlines those areas identified in the recovery outline Yellowstone Ecosystem. The Kettle physical and biological features as core areas. This is because the Range historically supported lynx essential to the conservation of the lynx recovery outline did not define areas populations (Stinson 2001). However, and provides a basis for their selection essential to the conservation of lynx as although boreal forest habitat within the as the primary constituent element for is necessary for this proposed critical Kettle Range appears of high quality for this proposed critical habitat. The habitat designation. The criteria we lynx, there is no evidence that the Kettle primary constituent elements comprise used for determining areas essential to Range is currently occupied by a lynx the essential features of boreal forest the conservation of lynx for the population (G. Koehler, Washington that (1) Provide adequate prey resources proposed critical habitat were more Department of Fish and Wildlife, pers. necessary for the persistence of local rigorous than those used for delineating comm. 2005). In particular, we have no populations and metapopulations of the recovery areas in the lynx recovery information to suggest a lynx population

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:03 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP2.SGM 09NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68303

has occupied the Kettle area since 1995. in Colorado and southern Wyoming. encompass the temporal and spatial Therefore, we did not propose the Kettle These animals are not designated as changes in habitat and snowshoe hare Range as critical habitat. experimental under section 10(j) of the populations to support interbreeding Although lynx currently occupy the Act. Although Colorado’s reintroduction lynx populations or metapopulations Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem effort is an important step toward the over time within each unit. Individual (Murphy et al. 2004; J. Squires, Rocky recovery of lynx, we are not proposing lynx maintain large home ranges; the Mountain Research Station, unpubl. to designate critical habitat in the areas proposed as critical habitat are data; S. Gehman, Wildthings Unlimited, Southern Rockies because of the current large enough to encompass multiple unpubl. data), their presence has been at uncertainty that a self-sustaining lynx home ranges. A secondary consideration a lower level compared to areas we are population will become established. is that, in addition to supporting proposing as critical habitat. In the Many areas within the contiguous breeding populations, these areas clarification of findings published in the United States have one or more provide connectivity among patches of Federal Register on July 3, 2003 (68 FR individual lynx records with no suitable habitat (e.g., patches containing 40076), we concluded this was because evidence of persistent, reproducing lynx abundant snowshoe hares), whose habitat in this area is less capable of populations. It is possible some of these locations in the landscape shift through supporting snowshoe hares because it is areas may support undocumented time. naturally marginal (more patchy and persistent populations of lynx. At the scale of the proposed units it drier forest types) and because the However, most of these records are was not feasible to completely avoid Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem is likely a result of wide-ranging dispersal encompassing waterbodies, including disjunct from likely source populations. events, occur in habitat that is less lakes, reservoirs and rivers, and Within Yellowstone National Park, few suitable for lynx than in the core areas, developed areas such as towns (see lynx were detected during recent and are mostly disjunct from areas that Proposed Regulation Promulgation surveys (Murphy et al. 2004) and contain persistent lynx populations. Our section below), or human-made snowshoe hare densities were very low recovery outline defines these areas as structures such as buildings, airports, (Hodges and Mills 2005). Murphy et al. secondary or peripheral and their role in paved and gravel roadbeds, active (2004) concluded that elevations and sustaining persistent lynx populations is railroad beds, and other structures that slope aspects cause lynx habitat in this unclear; such areas may provide habitat lack the PCEs for the lynx. Any such area to be naturally highly fragmented, to dispersing lynx, especially when developed areas and the land on which resulting in low lynx densities. Few populations are extremely high and such structures are located, inside lynx were documented in the Wyoming some of these animals may eventually proposed critical habitat boundaries, are Mountain Range in the southern portion settle in areas capable of supporting not considered part of the proposed of the ecosystem (Squires and Laurion lynx populations. unit. Therefore, section 7 consultation 2000; Squires et al. 2001). On study sites Areas delineated as secondary or would not be required for Federal on the western edge of the Greater peripheral in the lynx recovery outline actions that affect only these areas Yellowstone Ecosystem in Idaho, the are not included in our proposed critical because they would not affect critical subalpine fir vegetation series that habitat designation because they habitat or lynx, although any indirect comprises lynx and snowshoe hare support only periodic records of lynx effects of such actions must also be habitat was found only in small, over time and they lack evidence that considered when determining whether discontinuous patches (McDaniel and reproducing lynx populations occupy section 7 consultation is required. McKelvey 2004). In this study area, few any of the secondary or peripheral areas. Special Management Considerations or stands supported snowshoe hare Habitat suitability for lynx has not been Protection densities similar to areas known to assessed throughout the secondary and support lynx (McKelvey and McDaniel peripheral areas, but the relative lack of As we undertake the process of 2001). Therefore, because the habitat lynx records over time, and, in designating critical habitat for a species, appears to be of lower quality as particular the lack of evidence of in the geographical area occupied by the indicated by the low numbers of lynx reproducing populations, may suggest lynx at the time of listing we first records, we are not proposing to that habitat, in particular snowshoe hare evaluate lands defined by those physical designate critical habitat for lynx within densities, has not been adequate and biological features essential to the the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem historically, nor is it currently adequate, conservation of the species for inclusion although it is delineated as a core area to support reproducing lynx in the designation pursuant to section in the lynx recovery outline. populations. Additionally, some of the 3(5)(A) of the Act. We then evaluate The recovery outline identified one peripheral areas are naturally disjunct those lands to assess whether they, or area, the Southern Rocky Mountains, as and support few historical records of the features themselves, may require a ‘‘provisional core’’ because of the lynx. If unsuitable habitat conditions are special management considerations or current uncertainty that ongoing lynx the reason these areas have no record of protection. The areas proposed for reintroduction efforts will result in a supporting reproducing lynx designation as critical habitat will self-sustaining lynx population. Native populations, then these areas do not require some level of management to lynx were functionally extirpated from support the PCE for lynx. address the current and future threats to their historic range in Colorado and We propose to designate critical the lynx and to maintain the primary southern Wyoming in the Southern habitat on lands we have determined constituent elements essential to the Rocky Mountains by the time the lynx were occupied at the time of listing, conservation of the species. In all units, was listed in 2000. In 1999, the State of currently support the most abundant, special management will be required to Colorado began an intensive effort to reproducing lynx populations in the ensure that boreal forest landscapes reintroduce lynx. Although it is too contiguous United States, and contains provide a mosaic of forest stands of early to determine whether the the primary constituent element that is various ages to provide abundant prey introduction will result in a self- essential to the conservation of the lynx. habitat, denning habitat, and sustaining population, the reintroduced The focus of our strategy for proposed connectivity within the landscape. lynx have produced kittens and now are critical habitat is on boreal forest The designation of critical habitat distributed throughout the lynx habitat landscapes of sufficient size to does not imply that lands outside of

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:03 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP2.SGM 09NOP2 68304 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules

critical habitat do not play an important Proposed Critical Habitat Designation require special management role in the conservation of the lynx. We are proposing four units as critical considerations or protection. To further Federal activities that may affect areas habitat for the lynx. These areas occur understand the location of these outside of critical habitat, such as forest in northern Maine, northeastern proposed areas please see the associated management, development, and road Minnesota, the Northern Rocky maps found within this proposed rule construction, are still subject to review Mountains (northwestern Montana/ (also available at our Web site: http:// under section 7 of the Act if they may northeastern Idaho), and the Northern mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/ affect lynx because Federal agencies Cascades (north-central Washington). mammals/lynx/). must consider both effects to lynx and The areas are distributed across the The four critical habitat units are: (1) effects to critical habitat independently. known occupied range of the lynx in the Maine unit; (2) Minnesota unit; (3) The prohibitions of section 9 of the Act contiguous United States, and are Northern Rocky Mountains unit (e.g., harm, harass, capture, kill) also necessary to conserve the species. The (northwestern Montana/northeastern continue to apply both inside and critical habitat areas described below Idaho); and (4) Northern Cascades unit outside of designated critical habitat. constitute our best assessment at this (north-central Washington) (Table 1). time of the areas essential for the Proposed critical habitat by land conservation of the lynx and that ownership and State is in Table 2.

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

Critical Habitat Unit Miles 2 Kilometers 2

1. Maine ...... 10,633 27,539 2. Minnesota ...... 3,546 9,183 3. Northern Rocky Mountains (ID/MT)* ...... 10,760 27,869 4. Northern Cascades (WA)* ...... 1,996 5,169

Total* ...... 26,935 69,760 (Note U.S. Forest Service lands in Idaho, Montana, and Washington are not included in this proposal, although their area is reflected in the values in the table (*).)

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

Federal* State Private Tribal Other

Idaho ...... 0/0 1/3 0/0 0/0 0/0 Maine ...... 13/34 758/1,962 9,741/25,230 86/223 35/90 Minnesota ...... 440/1,139 1,355/3,510 1,661/4,303 74/192 15/39 Montana ...... * 365/946 1,691/4,381 0/0 63/162 Washington ...... * 164/426 5/13 0/0 0.5/1

Total ...... * 2,643/6,847 13,098/33,927 160/415 114/293 (Note U.S. Forest Service lands in Idaho, Montana, and Washington are not included in this proposal, although their area is reflected in the values in the table (*).)

We present brief descriptions of each United States that currently supports lynx from northeastern Minnesota (68 critical habitat unit below. breeding lynx populations, and likely FR 40076, July 3, 2003). Lynx are acts as a source or provides connectivity currently known to be distributed Unit 1: Maine for more peripheral portions of the throughout northeastern Minnesota, as Unit 1 is located in northern Maine in lynx’s range in the Northeast. Timber has been confirmed through DNA portions of Aroostook, Franklin, harvest and management is the analysis, radio- and GPS-collared Penobscot, Piscataquis and Somerset dominant land use within the unit, animals, and documentation of Counties. This area was occupied by the therefore, special management is reproduction (Moen et al. 2004; lynx at the time of listing and, since that required depending on the silvicultural Minnesota DNR 2005; S. Loch, time, lynx have been documented practices conducted (Service 2003). independent scientist, unpubl. data; throughout northern Maine. Research in Timber management practices that Minnesota Department of Natural northwestern Maine has documented provide for a dense understory are Resources, unpubl. data). This area high productivity of lynx; 91 percent (30 beneficial for lynx and snowshoe hares. contains the features essential to the of 33 potential litters) of available adult In this area, other habitat-related threats conservation of the lynx as it comprises females (greater than 2 years) produced to lynx are lack of an International extensive boreal forest supporting the litters and litters averaged 2.83 kittens conservation strategy for lynx, traffic primary constituent elements. This area (Vashon et al. 2005b). This area contains and development (Service 2003). is also important for lynx conservation the features essential to the conservation because it is the only area in the Great of the lynx as it is comprised of Unit 2: Minnesota Lakes region of the lynx’s range in the extensive boreal forest supporting the Unit 2 is located in northeastern contiguous United States for which we primary constituent element and its Minnesota in portions of Cook, have evidence of recent lynx components. This area is also important Koochiching, Lake, and St. Louis reproduction, and it likely acts as a for lynx conservation because it is the Counties. In 2003, when we last source or provides connectivity for more only area in the northeastern region of formally reviewed the status of the lynx, peripheral portions of the lynx’s range the lynx’s range within the contiguous there were numerous verified records of in the Great Lakes region. Timber

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:47 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP2.SGM 09NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68305

harvest and management is a dominant Powell and Teton Counties in Montana. adjacent to the Canadian border also land use (Service 2003). Therefore, This area was known to be occupied by appears to support few recent lynx special management is required lynx at the time of listing. Lynx are records; however, it is designated depending on the silvicultural practices currently known to be widely wilderness so access to survey this area conducted Timber management distributed throughout this unit and is difficult. This northern portion practices that provide for a dense breeding has been documented in supports extensive boreal forest understory are beneficial for lynx and multiple locations (Gehman et al. 2004; vegetation types and the components snowshoe hares. In this area, lack of an Squires et al. 2004a, 2004b). The Salish essential to the conservation of the lynx. international conservation strategy for Mountains appear to support few recent Additionally, lynx populations exist in lynx, fire suppression or fuels treatment, verified lynx records. However, survey British Columbia directly north of and traffic and/or development are other effort in the Salish Mountains has been likely continuous with this unit (E. habitat-related threats to lynx (Service limited, boreal forest conditions exist, Lofrothe, British Columbia Ministry of 2003). and the Salish Mountains likely provide the Environment, unpubl. data). This As described below, the lands (both east-west connectivity between the area contains the features essential to Superior National Forest and non-USFS Purcell Mountains and the Whitefish the conservation of the lynx as it is lands) encompassed in Lynx Analysis Mountains. This area contains the comprised of extensive boreal forest Units (LAUs) mapped by the Superior features essential to the conservation of supporting the primary constituent National Forest and lands the Forest the lynx as it is comprised of boreal element and its components. This area delineated as a Lynx Refugium are not forest supporting the primary is also important for lynx conservation included in this proposed designation constituent elements. This area is also because it is the only area in the because, although important to the important for lynx conservation because Cascades region of the lynx’s range that conservation of the lynx, the Superior it appears to support the highest density is known to support breeding lynx National Forest manages its lands lynx populations in the Northern Rocky populations. within the LAUs with measures to Mountain region of the lynx’s range. It The BLM lands in the Spokane conserve lynx and takes into likely acts as a source or provides District and Federal lands within the consideration habitat conditions for connectivity for other portions of the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest lynx throughout a LAU regardless of lynx’s range in the Rocky Mountains, are not included in this proposed land ownership. Therefore, no special particularly the Yellowstone area. designation because, although important management consideration or protection As described below, the Flathead to the conservation of the lynx, these of this area is necessary. Indian Reservation and Bureau of Land lands are sufficiently managed with Public Land Survey sections Management (BLM) lands in the Garnet measures to conserve lynx. Since no encompassing a mining district in Resource Area, and Federal lands special management considerations or Minnesota known as the Iron Range within the Flathead, Helena, Idaho protection is needed for lynx, the area were not included in the proposed Panhandle, Kootenai, Lewis and Clark, does not meet the definition of critical designation because they do not contain and Lolo National Forests are not habitat. the physical and biological features included in this proposed designation essential to the conservation of lynx. In because, although important to the Effects of Critical Habitat Designation much of the Iron Range, mining has conservation of the lynx, these lands are Section 7 Consultation removed all vegetation and much of this sufficiently managed with measures to area was subsequently flooded. Areas conserve lynx. Therefore, no special Section 7(a) of the Act requires that are still vegetated and not flooded management considerations or Federal agencies, including the Service, are extensively fragmented by the mined protection of these areas is needed. to evaluate their actions with respect to areas and haul roads. We used the ‘‘GAP any species that is proposed or listed as Land Cover—Tiled Raster’’ dataset Unit 4: North Cascades endangered or threatened and with (Minnesota Department of Natural Unit 4 is located in north-central respect to its critical habitat, if any is Resources 2002) to identify sections that Washington in portions of Chelan and proposed or designated. Regulations are heavily influenced by mining Okanogan Counties. This area was implementing this interagency activities. Areas described as ‘‘Barren’’ known to be occupied at the time lynx cooperation provision of the Act are and ‘‘Mixed Developed’’ in the GAP was listed. This unit supports the codified at 50 CFR part 402. We are dataset appeared to correspond to areas highest densities of lynx in Washington currently reviewing the regulatory that were mined or extensively (Stinson 2001). Evidence from limited definition of adverse modification in disturbed by mining related activities recent research and DNA shows lynx relation to the conservation of the (service roads, etc.), based on analyses distributed within this unit, with species. of aerial photos (National Agricultural breeding being documented (von Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Imagery Program 2003). Further Kienast 2003; K. Aubry, Pacific Federal agencies to confer with us on inspection of the aerial photos indicated Northwest Research Station, unpubl. any action that is likely to jeopardize that there were additional sections with data; B. Maletzke, Washington State the continued existence of a proposed extensive effects of mining, beyond that University, unpubl. data). Although species or result in destruction or indicated by the GAP data, which is there appear to be fewer records in the adverse modification of proposed based on 10–15 year-old satellite portion of the unit south of Highway 20, critical habitat. Conference reports imagery. few surveys have been conducted in this provide conservation recommendations portion of the unit. This area does to assist the agency in eliminating Unit 3: Northern Rocky Mountains support boreal forest habitat and the conflicts that may be caused by the Unit 3 is located in northwestern components essential to the proposed action. We may issue a formal Montana and a small portion of conservation of the lynx. Further, it is conference report if requested by a northeastern Idaho in portions of contiguous with the portion of the unit Federal agency. Formal conference Boundary County in Idaho and north of Highway 20, particularly in reports on proposed critical habitat Flathead, Glacier, Granite, Lake, Lewis winter when deep snows close Highway contain an opinion that is prepared and Clark, Lincoln, Missoula, Pondera, 20. The northern portion of the unit according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if critical

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:03 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP2.SGM 09NOP2 68306 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules

habitat were designated. We may adopt consultation on previously reviewed crucial factor in determining whether, the formal conference report as the actions in instances where critical in any instance, they would directly or biological opinion when the critical habitat is subsequently designated and indirectly alter critical habitat to the habitat is designated, if no substantial the Federal agency has retained extent that the value of the critical new information or changes in the discretionary involvement or control habitat for the survival and recovery of action alter the content of the opinion over the action or such discretionary lynx would be appreciably diminished: (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)). The involvement or control is authorized by (1) Actions that would reduce or conservation recommendations in a law. Consequently, some Federal remove understory vegetation within conference report are advisory. agencies may request reinitiation of boreal forest stands. Such activities If a species is listed or critical habitat consultation or conference with us on could include, but are not limited to, is designated, section 7(a)(2) requires actions for which formal consultation pre-commercial thinning or fuels Federal agencies to ensure that activities has been completed, if those actions treatment of forest stands. These they authorize, fund, or carry out are not may affect designated critical habitat or activities could significantly reduce the likely to jeopardize the continued adversely modify or destroy proposed quality of snowshoe hare habitat such existence of such a species or to destroy critical habitat. that the landscape’s ability to produce or adversely modify its critical habitat. Federal activities that may affect the adequate densities of snowshoe hares to If a Federal action may affect a listed lynx or its critical habitat will require support persistent lynx populations is at species or its critical habitat, the section 7 consultation. Activities on least temporarily diminished. responsible Federal agency (action private or State lands requiring a permit (2) Actions that would cause agency) must enter into consultation from a Federal agency, such as a permit permanent loss or conversion of the with us. Through this consultation, the from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers boreal forest. Such activities could action agency ensures that their actions under section 404 of the Clean Water include, but are not limited to, do not destroy or adversely modify Act, a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit from commercial, residential or recreational critical habitat. the Service, or some other Federal area developments; certain types of When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is likely to action, including funding (e.g., Federal mining activities and associated result in the destruction or adverse Highway Administration or Federal developments; and road building. Such modification of critical habitat, we also Emergency Management Agency activities would eliminate and fragment provide reasonable and prudent funding), will also continue to be lynx and snowshoe hare habitat. alternatives to the project, if any are subject to the section 7 consultation (3) Actions that would increase traffic identifiable. ‘‘Reasonable and prudent process. Federal actions not affecting volume and speed on roads that divide alternatives’’ are defined at 50 CFR listed species or critical habitat and lynx critical habitat. Such activities 402.02 as alternative actions identified actions on non-Federal and private could include, but are not limited to, during consultation that can be lands that are not federally funded, transportation projects to upgrade roads implemented in a manner consistent authorized, or permitted do not require or development of a new tourist with the intended purpose of the action, section 7 consultation. destination. These activities could that are consistent with the scope of the Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us reduce connectivity within the boreal Federal agency’s legal authority and to briefly evaluate and describe in any forest landscape for lynx and could jurisdiction, that are economically and proposed or final regulation that result in increased mortality of lynx technologically feasible, and that the designates critical habitat those within the critical habitat units as lynx Director believes would avoid activities involving a Federal action that are highly mobile and frequently cross destruction or adverse modification of may destroy or adversely modify such roads during dispersal, exploratory critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent habitat, or that may be affected by such movements or travel within their home alternatives can vary from slight project designation. Activities that may destroy ranges. modifications to extensive redesign or or adversely modify critical habitat may If you have questions regarding relocation of the project. Costs also jeopardize the continued existence whether specific activities may associated with implementing a of the lynx. Federal activities that when constitute destruction or adverse reasonable and prudent alternative are carried out may adversely affect critical modification of critical habitat, contact similarly variable. habitat for the lynx include, but are not the Supervisor of the appropriate Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require limited to, the following. Note that the Ecological Services Field Office (see list Federal agencies to reinitiate scale of these activities would be a below).

State Address Phone No.

Maine ...... 1168 Main Street, Old Town, Maine 04468 ...... (207) 827–5938 Minnesota ...... 4101 East 80th Street, Bloomington, Minnesota 55425 ...... (612) 725–3548 Montana ...... 100 N. Park Ave, Suite 320, Helena, Montana 59601 ...... (406) 449–5225 Idaho and Washington ...... 11103 E. Montgomery Drive, Spokane, Washington 99206 ...... (509) 893–8015

We consider each of the proposed proposed designation to contain the within the geographical area occupied critical habitat units to have been physical and biological features by the species at the time of listing on occupied by the species at the time we essential to the conservation of the lynx which are found those physical and last formally reviewed the status of the (i.e., the primary constituent element). biological features (I) essential to the species under the Act in 2003 based on Application of Section 3(5)(A) of the conservation of the species and (II) surveys and research documenting the Endangered Species Act which may require special management presence and reproduction of lynx (68 considerations or protection. Therefore, FR 40076, July 3, 2003). We consider Section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act defines areas within the geographical area each of these units included in this critical habitat as the specific areas occupied by the species at the time of

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:03 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP2.SGM 09NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68307

listing that do not contain the features Federal lands (Ruediger et al. 2000). The reduction of suitable condition shall essential for the conservation of the overall goals of the LCAS were to occur as a result of vegetation species are not, by definition, critical recommend lynx conservation management activities by Federal habitat. Similarly, those physical and measures, to provide a basis for agencies; (2) within an LAU, maintain biological features within the reviewing the adequacy of USFS and denning habitat in patches generally geographical area occupied by the BLM land and resource management larger than 5 acres, comprising at least species at the time of listing determined plans with regard to lynx conservation, 10 percent of lynx habitat; (3) maintain to be essential to the conservation of the and to facilitate conferencing and habitat connectivity within and between species that may not require special consultation under section 7 of the Act. LAUs; (4) management actions (e.g., management or protection also are not, The LCAS identifies an inclusive list of timber sales, salvage sales) shall not by definition, critical habitat. 17 potential risk factors for lynx or lynx change more than 15 percent of lynx In certain cases, we have determined habitat that may be addressed under habitat within an LAU to an unsuitable that management plans or programs programs, practices, and activities condition within a 10 year period; (5) afford adequate management within the authority and jurisdiction of pre-commercial thinning will only be considerations or protection to essential Federal land management agencies. The allowed when stands no longer provide features, such that the features no longer risks identified in the LCAS are based snowshoe hare habitat; (6) on Federal require special management or on effects to either individual lynx, lynx lands in lynx habitat, allow no net protection. We consider a current populations, both, or lynx habitat. increase in groomed or designated over- management program or plan to provide Potential risk factors the LCAS the-snow routes and snowmobile play adequate special management or addresses that may affect lynx areas by LAU (Ruediger et al. 2000). protection if it meets three criteria—(1) productivity include: timber With the listing of the lynx in 2000, The plan is complete and provides management, wildland fire Federal agencies across the contiguous special management or protection (i.e., management, recreation, forest/ United States range of the lynx were the plan must provide the species’ backcountry roads and trails, livestock required to consult with the Service on population, or the protection, grazing, and other human actions that may affect lynx. The LCAS enhancement or restoration of its habitat developments. Potential risk factors the assists Federal agencies in planning within the area covered by the plan); (2) LCAS addresses that may affect lynx activities and projects in ways that the plan provides assurances that the mortality include: trapping, predator benefit lynx or avoid adverse impacts to management and protection strategies control, incidental or illegal shooting, lynx or lynx habitat (Ruediger et al. will be implemented (i.e., those competition and predation as 2000). If projects are designed that fail responsible for implementing the plan influenced by human activities and to meet the standards in the LCAS, the are capable of accomplishing the highways. Potential risk factors the biologists using the LCAS would arrive objectives, and have an implementation LCAS addresses that may affect lynx at an adverse effect determination for schedule or adequate funding for movement include: highways, railroads lynx. A Conservation Agreement between implementing the management plan); and utility corridors, land ownership the USFS and the Service (U.S. Forest and (3) the plan provides assurances pattern, and ski areas and large resorts. Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife that the management and protection Other potential large-scale risk factors Service 2000) and a similar Agreement strategies will be effective (i.e., it for lynx addressed by the LCAS include: between the BLM and the Service identifies biological goals, has fragmentation and degradation of lynx provisions for reporting progress, and is (Bureau of Land Management and U.S. refugia, lynx movement and dispersal of a duration sufficient to implement the Fish and Wildlife Service 2000) across shrub-steppe habitats, and habitat plan and achieve the plan’s goals and committed the USFS and BLM to use degradation by non-native and invasive objectives). the LCAS in determining the effects of During development of this critical plant species. actions on lynx until Forest Plans were habitat proposal for the lynx, we first The LCAS ensures the appropriate amended or revised to adequately determined which physical and mosaic of habitat is provided for lynx on conserve lynx. A programmatic biological features are essential to the Federal lands. Although the LCAS was biological opinion pursuant to section 7 species’ conservation and delineated the written specifically for Federal lands, of the Act analyzed and confirmed the specific areas that contain those features many of the conservation measures are adequacy of the LCAS and its and recent verified records of lynx pertinent for non-Federal lands. To conservation measures to conserve lynx presence and reproduction. Next, we facilitate project planning and allow for and concluded that Forest and BLM refined the delineation of the the assessment of the potential effects of land management plans as implemented designation to include only those lands a project on an individual lynx, the in accordance with the Conservation that contained essential features that LCAS directs Federal land management Agreements would not jeopardize the require special management or agencies to delineate Lynx Analysis continued existence of lynx (U.S. Fish protection pursuant to the definition of Units (LAUs) (Ruediger et al. 2000). The and Wildlife Service 2000). critical habitat in 3(5)(A) of the Act. scale of an LAU approximates the size In 2005, the USFS and the Service During this process, we identified of area used by an individual lynx (25 renewed the conservation agreement several areas where land management to 50 mi2 (65 to 130 km2)) (Ruediger et (U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and plans have been amended or revised to al. 2000). The LCAS recognizes that Wildlife Service 2005) because the incorporate the lynx management LAUs will likely encompass both lynx original agreement had expired. In the strategy as outlined in the Lynx habitat and other areas (e.g., lakes, low 2005 agreement, the parties agree to take Conservation Assessment and Strategy elevation ponderosa pine (Pinus measures to reduce or eliminate adverse (LCAS) or comparable programs. The ponderosa) forest, and alpine tundra). effects or risks to lynx and its occupied USFS, BLM, NPS, and the Service Habitat-related standards the LCAS habitat pending amendments to Forest developed the LCAS using the best provides to address potential risks Plans. The LCAS is a basis for available science specifically to provide include: (1) If more than 30 percent of implementing this agreement (U.S. a consistent and effective approach to lynx habitat in an LAU is currently in Forest Service and U.S. Fish and conserve lynx and lynx habitat on unsuitable condition, no further Wildlife Service 2005). The 2005

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:03 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP2.SGM 09NOP2 68308 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules

agreement expires December 31, 2006, therefore, these lands do not meet the environmental conditions (U.S. Forest unless renewed. The BLM continues to definition of critical habitat pursuant to Service 2004a). adhere to their original agreement section 3(5)(A) of the Act. These lands, Within the proclamation boundaries although it expired in December 2004. described below, are not included in the of the Superior National Forest are Lynx conservation depends on proposed designation: numerous inholdings of non-USFS land supporting boreal forest landscapes of Superior National Forest (e.g., lands owned by State of sufficient size to encompass the Minnesota, private companies, etc.). The temporal and spatial changes in habitat The Superior National Forest located Superior National Forest may only and snowshoe hare populations to in northeastern Minnesota has revised control management on National Forest support interbreeding lynx populations its Land and Resource Management Plan lands, but the LRMP’s objectives, or metapopulations over time. We have (LRMP) to include specific measures to standards, and guidelines ensure that determined that management plans that conserve lynx, based on the LCAS National Forest actions may be incorporate the LCAS provide adequate (Ruediger et al. 2000; USFS 2004a, b; restricted based on the condition of non- management or protection for lynx Service 2004). Much of the boreal forest USFS lands in LAUs. For example, if because they meet the three criteria habitat in northeastern Minnesota is greater than 30 percent of lynx habitat identified above. Specifically—(1) The found on Superior National Forest within an LAU is in an unsuitable management plans have been finalized (Service 2004), and a large proportion of condition (e.g., very recent clearcuts), and incorporate the provisions of the the recent lynx records in Minnesota Superior National Forest would not take LCAS, which provides the best have been detected on the Superior any action to further increase the extent National Forest (Moen et al. 2004; scientifically-based conservation of unsuitable habitat, even if all of the Minnesota DNR 2005). The revised measures known for lynx at this time; at unsuitable habitat were on non-USFS LRMP went through stakeholder a minimum, the incorporation of the lands. Therefore, the LRMP is able to meetings, section 7 consultation with LCAS conservation measures to address affect the general condition of lynx the Service, and public review. The risk factors affecting lynx productivity habitat within LAUs, even where the LRMP will guide day-to-day into a management plan provides LAUs contain lands that are not owned management decisions for the next 15 adequate management and protection or directly controlled by the USFS. years, whereupon the LRMP will again for lynx and features essential to the However, most of the land within the undergo revision. (USFS 2004a). conservation of lynx; (2) where Federal LAUs is under USFS management. agencies and non-Federal entities The Superior LRMP adopted the (including Tribes) have amended or standards, guidelines, and objectives of On the basis of the conservation revised their management plans to the LCAS (Ruediger et al. 2000; K. benefits afforded the lynx from the incorporate provisions of the LCAS, McAllister, in litt. 2002) that the USFS measures in the approved, revised these provisions become the determined were appropriate and LRMP and the definition of critical management direction for that particular relevant to lynx conservation in habitat contained in section 3(5)(A) of land base; conservation measures in the Minnesota, in consultation with the the Act, we have not included those LCAS are designed to be implemented Service. To remove redundancies with lands (both Superior National Forest at the programmatic and project level other management direction, the LRMP and non-USFS lands within the scale; and (3) the land management excluded certain LCAS standards, proclamation boundary) encompassed entities have incorporated provisions of guidelines, and objectives and in LAUs mapped by the Superior the LCAS in order the provide for the reclassified some to increase their National Forest or delineated by the conservation of the lynx; the potential to benefit lynx, to avoid Forest as a Lynx Refugium in this conservation measures in the LCAS are confusion with terms found elsewhere proposed designation because we have intended to conserve lynx and to reduce in the LRMP, and to allow for determined that special management or or eliminate adverse effects from the management flexibility that would not protection of these lands and the spectrum of management activities on compromise lynx conservation. In features essential to the conservation of Federal lands (or other lands where the addition, it designated the Boundary the lynx is not required. Although conservation measures are applied), at Waters Canoe and Wilderness Area as a important to the conservation of the this time, there is no other scientifically- Lynx Refugium, in which natural lynx, the Superior National Forest based land management guidance processes will be the predominant manages its lands within the LAUs with available for lynx; these management determinant of lynx habitat conditions measures to conserve lynx and takes plans are in effect until future plan with some active management that into consideration habitat conditions for revisions or plan amendments would be ‘‘compatible with wilderness lynx throughout a LAU regardless of supercede the current plans. values’’ (USFS 2004a). land ownership. The Superior National Forest has We evaluated areas to determine if Garnet Resource Area, Bureau of Land delineated Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) they meet the definition of critical Management habitat by (1) containing features within which it applies the lynx essential to the conservation of the lynx, conservation measures prescribed in the The BLM’s Garnet Resource and (2) if the essential features may LRMP. The LAUs are the smallest Management plan has been amended to require special management or landscape scale analysis units upon incorporate all provisions of the LCAS protection. We determined that these which direct, indirect, and cumulative (State Director, BLM, in litt. 2004; R.M. lands did contain features essential to effects analyses for lynx will be Wilson, in litt. 2004). The Garnet the conservation of the lynx. However, performed (Ruediger et al. 2000; USFS Resource Area supports blocks of boreal based on the provisions in the LCAS 2004a). They encompass lynx habitat forest that currently support lynx beneficial to the lynx, we determined (on all ownerships) within the populations on the southern edge of the that the features on lands covered by administrative unit that has been Northern Rockies Unit. The amendment management programs or plans that mapped (in coordination with adjacent went through public review and have been revised or amended to adopt management agencies and the Service) consultation with us under section 7 of the LCAS do not require special using specific criteria to identify the Act; a finding of no significant management or protection and, appropriate vegetation and impact was issued by BLM in 2004

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:03 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP2.SGM 09NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68309

(R.M. Wilson, in litt. 2004; State unit in Washington. These lands Federal lands (or other lands where the Director, BLM, in litt. 2004). support boreal forest habitat but only conservation measures are applied); at On the basis of the conservation occur in extremely small areas within this time, there is no other scientifically- benefits afforded the lynx from the the proposed critical habitat boundary. based land management guidance measures in the amended Garnet The BLM Spokane District Resource available for lynx. Not including areas Resource Management Plan and the Management Plan was modified in 2003 in the proposed designation that are definition of critical habitat contained to incorporate all of the provisions of already being managed for lynx in section 3(5)(A) of the Act, we have the LCAS through what is called conservation encourages land managers not included those lands that are within ‘‘Resource Management Plan to proactively institute lynx the boundaries of the approved Garnet Maintenance’’ (BLM. 2003). conservation measures and reduces Resource Management Plan in this On the basis of the conservation administrative effort and costs proposed designation of critical habitat benefits afforded the lynx from the associated with engaging in for the lynx. These lands, and features measures in the approved Spokane consultations for critical habitat there on, are being adequately managed District Resource Management Plan pursuant to section 7 of the Act. for lynx and, as a result, do not meet the Maintenance and the definition of Maps included with this proposal definition of critical habitat. Because the critical habitat contained in section illustrate lands essential to the BLM already manages these lands, and 3(5)(A) of the Act, we have not included conservation of the lynx and that may features there on, consistent with lynx those lands that are within the require special management conservation, we have determined that boundaries of the BLM’s Spokane considerations or protection and no special management or protection District Resource Management Plan in delineated as proposed critical habitat. pursuant to section 3(5)(A) is required. this proposed designation of critical More detailed maps show lands Flathead Indian Reservation habitat for the lynx. The BLM already determined to be essential to the The tribal lands in the Northern manages this area, and features there on, conservation of the species, which are Rockies unit (portions of the Flathead consistent with lynx conservation; color coded to clearly show those lands Indian Reservation) are managed by the therefore, special management or proposed and those not included in this Confederated Salish and Kootenai protection pursuant to 3(5)(A) is not proposal, are available from the Tribes (CSKT) under their Forest required. Montana Ecological Services Office (see Management Plan that incorporates the In summary, we find that including ADDRESSES section) or from the Internet provisions of the LCAS (CSKT 2000). these lands addressed in management at http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/ On the basis of the conservation benefits plans protect essential lynx features and species/mammals/lynx/. afforded the lynx from the measures in habitat within their boundaries and National Forest Service Lands Within the CSKT’s Forest Management Plan provide appropriate management to Idaho, Montana, and Washington and the definition of critical habitat provide for the conservation of lynx and contained in section 3(5)(A) of the Act, features essential to its conservation Seven National Forests are currently we have not included lands that are over the life of the amendments, covered by the May 2005 Canada Lynx within the boundaries of the Flathead revisions or modifications. The Conservation Agreement are in the Indian Reservation in this proposed management plans have been finalized process of revising or amending their designation of critical habitat for the and incorporate the provisions of the LRMPs to provide measures for lynx lynx. These lands, and features there on, LCAS, which, as described above conservation under the LCAS. It is are being adequately managed for lynx provides the best, scientifically-based anticipated that all of these plans will and, as a result, do not meet the conservation measures for lynx known be complete prior to promulgation of the definition of critical habitat. Because the at this time. Federal land and resource final critical habitat designation. As a Tribes already manage these lands, and management plans provide the result, all Federal lands within the features there on, consistent with lynx overarching direction under which seven National Forests have conservation, no special management or Federal lands are managed until future conservation measures or protection for protection pursuant to section 3(5)(A) is plan revisions or plan amendments lynx and habitat features essential to the required. supercede the current plans. The conservation of the lynx. Therefore, Flathead Indian Reservation’s Forest Federal lands within these seven Spokane District, Bureau of Land Management Plan guides forest National Forests do not meet the Management management on the Reservation lands definition of critical habitat pursuant to Small portions of lands administered (CSKT 2000). The conservation section 3(5)(A) of the Act and thus we by the BLM’s Spokane District are measures in the LCAS are intended to are proposing that those areas not be encompassed in the proposed conserve lynx and to reduce or included in the final critical habitat boundaries delineated as proposed lynx eliminate adverse effects from the designation The specific National critical habitat in the North Cascades spectrum of management activities on Forests are presented in Table 3.

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

Critical Habitat Unit

North Cascades ...... Okanogan—Wenatchee National Forest. Northern Rocky Mountains ...... Flathead National Forest. Helena National Forest. Idaho Panhandle National Forests. Kootenai National Forest. Lewis and Clark National Forest. Lolo National Forest. Minnesota ...... None.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:03 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP2.SGM 09NOP2 68310 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules

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

Critical Habitat Unit

Maine ...... None.

Application of Exclusions Under currently no Habitat Conservation Plans critical habitat designation, these lands Section 4(b)(2) of the Act (HCPs) for the lynx in the areas we are are covered by final management plans proposing as critical habitat. We that incorporate conservation measures Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that anticipate no impact to national for the lynx (i.e., the LCAS (Ruediger et critical habitat shall be designated, and security, partnerships, or HCPs from al. 2000) or comparable). revised, on the basis of the best this critical habitat designation. Additionally, we are evaluating the available scientific data after taking into In a previous section of this rule, we consideration the economic impact, described how lands that had adequacy of existing management plans impact on national security, and any management plans containing adequate to conserve lynx on lands designated as other relevant impact of specifying any management and protection measures wilderness areas or National Parks. particular area as critical habitat. An for lynx and features essential to its Generally, designated wilderness areas area may be excluded from critical conservation were not included in the are managed to protect their wilderness habitat if it is determined that the proposed critical habitat designation. character and motorized equipment is benefits of exclusion outweigh the Several managed areas included in this prohibited. Under the The National Park benefits of specifying a particular area proposal have habitat with features Service Organic Act of 1916, as as critical habitat, unless the failure to essential to the conservation of the lynx, amended, the mission of the National designate such area as critical habitat but are in the process of amending or Park Service is to conserve the scenery will result in the extinction of the revising their management plans to and the natural and historic objects and species. incorporate the LCAS or similar the wildlife therein and to provide for Pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act, management. These lands could include the enjoyment of the same in such we must consider relevant impacts in State lands, Bureau of Land manner and by which means as will addition to economic ones. We have Management lands and National Parks. leave them unimpaired for the determined that no lands being We may consider areas for exclusion enjoyment of future generations. The proposed as critical habitat for the lynx from the final designation of critical specific wilderness areas and National are owned or managed by the habitat, based upon further analysis and Parks under evaluation are presented in Department of Defense, and there are public comment, if, prior to the final Table 4.

TABLE 4.—WILDERNESS AREAS OR NATIONAL PARKS FOR WHICH MANAGEMENT PLANS WILL BE EVALUATED TO DETERMINE THEIR ADEQUACY FOR CONSERVING LYNX

Critical Habitat Unit Wilderness Area or National Park

Maine ...... None. Minnesota ...... Voyageurs National Park. Northern Rocky Mountains ...... Glacier National Park. Hoodoo Mountain Wilderness Study Area. Wales Creek Wildernesses Study Area. North Cascades ...... Glacier Peak Wilderness. North Cascades National Park. Pasayten Wilderness. Stephen P. Mather Wilderness.

Relationship of Critical Habitat to (512 DM 2), we believe that fish, within the critical habitat units or with Tribal Lands wildlife, and other natural resources on the cooperation of Tribes. tribal lands are better managed under In accordance with Secretarial Order The amount of tribal lands in the tribal authorities, policies, and programs Maine and Minnesota units are 3206, ‘‘American Indian Tribal Rights, than through Federal regulation relatively small (approximately 86 and Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, wherever possible and practicable. Such 74 mi2, respectively [223 and 192 km2]) and the Endangered Species Act’’ (June designation is often viewed by tribes as 5, 1997); the President’s memorandum an unwanted intrusion into tribal self (Table 5). There are no tribal lands in of April 29, 1994, ‘‘Government-to- governance, thus compromising the the North Cascades unit. Therefore, the Government Relations with Native government-to-government relationship tribal lands in Maine and Minnesota are American Tribal Governments’’ (59 FR essential to achieving our mutual goals being considered for removal from final 22951); Executive Order 13175 of managing for healthy ecosystems designation as critical habitat pursuant ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with upon which the viability of threatened to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The Service Indian Tribal Governments;’’ and the and endangered species populations requests comments from Tribes relevant provision of the Departmental depend. We believe that conservation of regarding critical habitat that is being Manual of the Department of the Interior lynx can be achieved off of tribal lands proposed on their lands.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:03 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP2.SGM 09NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68311

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

Critical Habitat Unit Tribal Entity

Maine ...... Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians. Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians. Passamaquoddy Tribe. Penobscot Indian Nation. Minnesota ...... Grand Portage Indian Reservation. Vermillion Lake Indian Reservation. Northern Rocky Mountains ...... None. North Cascades ...... None.

Economic Analysis including answers to questions such as 2003). Pursuant to Circular A–4, once it An analysis of the potential economic the following—(1) Are the requirements has been determined that the Federal impacts of proposing critical habitat for in the proposed rule clearly stated? (2) regulatory action is appropriate, then the lynx is being prepared. We will Does the proposed rule contain the agency will need to consider announce the availability of the draft technical jargon that interferes with the alternative regulatory approaches. Since economic analysis as soon as it is clarity? (3) Does the format of the the determination of critical habitat is a completed, at which time we will seek proposed rule (grouping and order of statutory requirement pursuant to the public review and comment. At that the sections, use of headings, Endangered Species Act of 1973, as time, copies of the draft economic paragraphing, and so forth) aid or amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), analysis will be available for reduce its clarity? (4) Is the description we must then evaluate alternative SUPPLEMENTARY downloading from the Internet at of the notice in the regulatory approaches, where feasible, INFORMATION section of the preamble http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/ when promulgating a designation of helpful in understanding the proposed mammals/lynx/ or by contacting the critical habitat. rule? (5) What else could we do to make Montana Field Office directly (see In developing our designations of this proposed rule easier to understand? ADDRESSES section). critical habitat, we consider economic Send a copy of any comments on how impacts, impacts to national security, Peer Review we could make this proposed rule easier and other relevant impacts pursuant to In accordance with our joint policy to understand to—Office of Regulatory section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on the Affairs, Department of the Interior, published in the Federal Register on discretion allowable under this Room 7229, 1849 C Street NW., July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek provision, we may exclude any Washington, DC 20240. You may e-mail the expert opinions of at least three particular area from the designation of your comments to [email protected]. appropriate and independent specialists critical habitat providing that the regarding this proposed rule. The Required Determinations benefits of such exclusion outweigh the purpose of such review is to ensure that benefits of specifying the area as critical Regulatory Planning and Review our critical habitat designation is based habitat and that such exclusion would on scientifically sound data, In accordance with Executive Order not result in the extinction of the assumptions, and analyses. We will 12866, this document is a significant species. As such, we believe that the send these peer reviewers copies of this rule in that it may raise novel legal and evaluation of the inclusion or exclusion proposed rule immediately following policy issues, but it is not anticipated to of particular areas, or combination publication in the Federal Register. We have an annual effect on the economy thereof, in a designation constitutes our will invite these peer reviewers to of $100 million or more or affect the regulatory alternative analysis. comment, during the public comment economy in a material way. Due to the Within the specific areas identified in period, on the specific assumptions and tight timeline for publication in the this proposal, the types of Federal conclusions regarding the proposed Federal Register, the Office of actions or authorized activities that we designation of critical habitat. Management and Budget (OMB) has not have identified as potential concerns are We will consider all comments and formally reviewed this rule. We are listed in the SECTION 7 information received during the preparing a draft economic analysis of CONSULTATION section above. The comment period on this proposed rule this proposed action, which will be availability of the draft economic during preparation of a final available for public comment, to analysis will be announced in the rulemaking. Accordingly, the final determine the economic consequences Federal Register and in local decision may differ from this proposal. of designating the specific area as newspapers so that it is available for critical habitat. This economic analysis public review and comments. When it is Public Hearings also will be used to determine prepared, the draft economic analysis We have scheduled public hearings compliance with Executive Order will be available from the Internet at on this proposal. Dates, times, and 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act, Small http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/ locations of those hearings are listed in Business Regulatory Enforcement mammals/lynx/ or by contacting the the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, Fairness Act, and Executive Order Montana Ecological Services Office above. 12630 ‘‘Governmental Actions and directly (see ADDRESSES section). Interference with Constitutionally Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 Clarity of the Rule Protected Property Rights.’’ Executive Order 12866 requires each Further, Executive Order 12866 et seq.) agency to write regulations and notices directs Federal Agencies promulgating Our assessment of economic effect that are easy to understand. We invite regulations to evaluate regulatory will be completed prior to final your comments on how to make this alternatives (Office of Management and rulemaking based upon review of the proposed rule easier to understand, Budget, Circular A–4, September 17, draft economic analysis prepared

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:47 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP2.SGM 09NOP2 68312 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules

pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act Executive Order 13211 Child Support Enforcement. ‘‘Federal and Executive Order 12866. This On May 18, 2001, the President issued private sector mandate’’ includes a analysis is for the purposes of an Executive Order (Number 13211) on regulation that ‘‘would impose an compliance with the Regulatory regulations that significantly affect enforceable duty upon the private Flexibility Act and does not reflect our energy supply, distribution, and use. sector, except (i) a condition of Federal position on the type of economic Executive Order 13211 requires agencies assistance or (ii) a duty arising from analysis required by New Mexico Cattle to prepare Statements of Energy Effects participation in a voluntary Federal Growers Assn. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife when undertaking certain actions. This program.’’ The designation of critical habitat Service 248 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2001). proposed rule to designate critical Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not impose a legally binding duty habitat for the lynx is considered a (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the on non-Federal government entities or significant regulatory action under Small Business Regulatory Enforcement private parties. Under the Act, the only Executive Order 12866 as it may raise Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), regulatory effect is that Federal agencies whenever an agency is required to novel legal and policy issues. However, must ensure that their actions do not publish a notice of rulemaking for any this designation is not expected to destroy or adversely modify critical proposed or final rule, it must prepare significantly affect energy supplies, habitat under section 7. While non- and make available for public comment distribution, or use. Therefore, this Federal entities that receive Federal a regulatory flexibility analysis that action is not a significant energy action funding, assistance, or permits, or that describes the effects of the rule on small and no Statement of Energy Effects is otherwise require approval or entities (i.e., small businesses, small required. We will, however, further authorization from a Federal agency for organizations, and small government evaluate this issue as we conduct our an action, may be indirectly impacted jurisdictions). However, no regulatory economic analysis and, as appropriate, by the designation of critical habitat, the flexibility analysis is required if the review and revise this assessment as legally binding duty to avoid head of the agency certifies the rule will warranted. destruction or adverse modification of not have a significant economic impact Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 critical habitat rests squarely on the on a substantial number of small U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) Federal agency. Furthermore, to the entities. The SBREFA amended the extent that non-Federal entities are Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) to In accordance with the Unfunded indirectly impacted because they require Federal agencies to provide a Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501), receive Federal assistance or participate statement of the factual basis for the Service makes the following in a voluntary Federal aid program, the certifying that the rule will not have a findings: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would significant economic impact on a (a) This rule will not produce a not apply; nor would critical habitat substantial number of small entities. Federal mandate. In general, a Federal shift the costs of the large entitlement At this time, the Service lacks the mandate is a provision in legislation, programs listed above on to State available economic information statute or regulation that would impose governments. necessary to provide an adequate factual an enforceable duty upon State, local, (b) We do not believe that this rule basis for the required RFA finding. tribal governments, or the private sector will significantly or uniquely affect Therefore, the RFA finding is deferred and includes both ‘‘Federal small governments, because towns and until completion of the draft economic intergovernmental mandates’’ and developed areas are excluded from analysis prepared pursuant to section ‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ designation. As such, we do not believe 4(b)(2) of the Act and Executive Order These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. that a Small Government Agency Plan is 12866. This draft economic analysis will 658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental not required. We will, however, further provide the required factual basis for the mandate’’ includes a regulation that evaluate this issue as we conduct our RFA finding. Upon completion of the ‘‘would impose an enforceable duty economic analysis and revise this draft economic analysis, the Service will upon State, local, or tribal governments’’ assessment if appropriate. publish a notice of availability of the with two exceptions. It excludes ‘‘a Federalism draft economic analysis of the proposed condition of Federal assistance.’’ It also designation and reopen the public excludes ‘‘a duty arising from In accordance with Executive Order comment period for the proposed participation in a voluntary Federal 13132, the rule does not have significant designation for an additional 60 days. program,’’ unless the regulation ‘‘relates Federalism effects. A Federalism The Service will include with the notice to a then-existing Federal program assessment is not required. In keeping of availability, as appropriate, an initial under which $500,000,000 or more is with Department of the Interior policy, regulatory flexibility analysis or a provided annually to State, local, and we requested information from, and certification that the rule will not have tribal governments under entitlement coordinated development of, this a significant economic impact on a authority,’’ if the provision would proposed critical habitat designation substantial number of small entities ‘‘increase the stringency of conditions of with appropriate State resource agencies accompanied by the factual basis for assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps upon, or in Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, that determination. The Service has otherwise decrease, the Federal Washington, and Wyoming. We believe concluded that deferring the RFA Government’s responsibility to provide that the designation of critical habitat finding until completion of the draft funding,’’ and the State, local, or tribal for the lynx will have little incremental economic analysis is necessary to meet governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust impact on State and local governments the purposes and requirements of the accordingly. At the time of enactment, and their activities. The designation RFA. Deferring the RFA finding in this these entitlement programs were: may have some benefit to these manner will ensure that the Service Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child governments in that the areas important makes a sufficiently informed Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services to the conservation of the species are determination based on adequate Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation more clearly defined, and the primary economic information and provides the State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption constituent element of the habitat necessary opportunity for public Assistance, and Independent Living; essential to the survival and comment. Family Support Welfare Services; and conservation of the species is

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:03 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP2.SGM 09NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68313

specifically identified. While making defined by the NEPA in connection with Tribes for this proposed rule and has this definition and identification does designating critical habitat under the made potentially affected Tribes aware not alter where and what federally Act of 1973, as amended. We published of this proposed rule. sponsored activities may occur, it may a notice outlining our reasons for this References Cited assist these local governments in long- determination in the Federal Register range planning (rather than waiting for on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This A complete list of all references cited case-by-case section 7 consultations to assertion was upheld in the courts of the in this rulemaking is available on the occur). Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Web site http://mountain- Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore. prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/lynx/ Civil Justice Reform 1995), cert. denied 116 S. Ct. 698 (1996). or upon request from the Field In accordance with Executive Order However, when the range of the species Supervisor, Montana Field Office (see 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has includes States within the Tenth ADDRESSES). determined that the rule does not Circuit, such as that of the lynx, unduly burden the judicial system and pursuant to the Tenth Circuit ruling in Author(s) meets the requirements of sections 3(a) Catron County Board of Commissioners The primary author of this package is and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 75 the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. proposed designating critical habitat in F.3d 1429 (10th Cir. 1996), we will accordance with the provisions of the undertake a NEPA analysis for critical List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 Act. This proposed rule uses standard habitat designation and notify the Endangered and threatened species, property descriptions and identifies the public of the availability of the draft Exports, Imports, Reporting and primary constituent element within the environmental assessment for this recordkeeping requirements, designated areas to assist the public in proposal. Transportation. understanding the habitat needs of the Government-to-Government Proposed Regulation Promulgation lynx. Relationship With Tribes Accordingly, we propose to amend Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 In accordance with the President’s part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) memorandum of April 29, 1994, 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, This rule does not contain any new ‘‘Government-to-Government Relations as set forth below: collections of information that require with Native American Tribal approval by OMB under the Paperwork Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive PART 17—[AMENDED] Reduction Act. This rule will not Order 13175 ‘‘Consultation and impose recordkeeping or reporting Coordination with Indian Tribal 1. The authority citation for part 17 requirements on State or local Governments,’’ and the Department of continues to read as follows: governments, individuals, businesses, or the Interior Manual at 512 DM 2, we Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. organizations. An agency may not readily acknowledge our responsibility 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– conduct or sponsor, and a person is not to communicate meaningfully with 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. required to respond to, a collection of recognized Federal Tribes on a 2. In § 17.11(h), revise the entry for information unless it displays a government-to-government basis. Tribal ‘‘Lynx, Canada’’ under ‘‘MAMMALS’’ to currently valid OMB control number. lands in the Maine and Minnesota units read as follows: are included in this proposed National Environmental Policy Act designation; however, these tribal lands § 17.11 Endangered and threatened It is our position that, outside the are being considered for removal from wildlife. Tenth Circuit, we do not need to final designation as critical habitat. The * * * * * prepare environmental analyses as Service requested information from (h) * * *

Species Vertebrate popu- Historic range lation where endan- Status When listed Critical Special Common name Scientific name gered or threatened habitat rules

MAMMALS

******* Lynx, Canada ...... Lynx canadensis ..... U.S.A. (AK, CO, ID, CO, ID, ME, MI, T 692 17.95(a) 17.40(k) ME, MI, MN, MT, MN, MT, NH, NY, NH, NY, OR, PA, OR, UT, VT, WA, UT, VT, WA, WI, WI, WY. WY), Canada, circumboreal.

*******

3. In § 17.95(a), add critical habitat for Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) (iii) Minnesota: Cook, Koochiching, ‘‘Canada lynx’’ in the same alphabetical (1) Critical habitat units are depicted Lake, and St. Louis counties; order as this species occurs in § 17.11(h) on the maps below for the following (iv) Montana: Flathead, Glacier, to read as follows: States and counties: Granite, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Lincoln, (i) Idaho: Boundary County; Missoula, Pondera, Powell and Teton § 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. (ii) Maine: Aroostook, Franklin, counties; and (a) Mammals. Penobscot, Piscataquis and Somerset (v) Washington: Chelan and Okanogan * * * * * counties; counties.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:03 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP2.SGM 09NOP2 68314 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules

(2) Within these areas, the primary Frenchville, Grassy Landing, Greenlaw Gappas Landing Campground, Genoa, constituent elements for the Canada Crossing, Grindstone, Griswold, Gheen, Gheen Corner, Gilbert, Glendale, lynx are boreal forest landscapes Hawkins, Hay Brook, High Landing, Grand Portage, Grand Marais, supporting a mosaic of differing Hillman, Holeb, Howe Brook, Huson Greenwood Junction, Haley, Happy successional forest stages and Landing, Jackman, Jackman Mill Wanderer, Highland, Hornby, Hovland, containing: (historical), Jones Mill, Jones Mill, Hunters Park, Idington, Illgen City, (i) Presence of snowshoe hares and Keough, Knowles Corner, Kokadjo, La Isabella, Island View, Jameson, Jay See their preferred habitat conditions, Croix Depot, Lac Frontiere, Lake Parlin Landing, Jordan, Kabetogama, Kelly which includes dense understories of (historical), Little Canada, Long Pond, Landing, Kettle Falls, Knife River, young trees or shrubs tall enough to Lowelltown, Mackamp, Masardis, Lakewood, Larsmont, Lauren, Lax Lake, protrude above the snow; and McCarty, McKeen Crossing, McNally, Leander, Lester Park, Little Marais, (ii) Winter snow conditions that are Moose River, Moosehead, Moosehorn Little Marais Postoffice, London, generally deep and fluffy for extended Crossing, Morey Brow, New City, Nixon, Makinen, Lutsen, Manitou Junction, periods of time; and North East Carry, Ogontz, Old City, Maple, Maple Hill, Markham, Martin (iii) Sites for denning having Oxbow, Perkins, Pine Knoll, Plaisted, Landing, McComber, McNair, Melrude, abundant coarse woody debris, such as Plourde Mill, Poplar Ripps, Portage, Midway, Murphy City, Murray, Norshor downed trees and root wads. Pride, Quimby, Rand Landing, Junction, Orr, Palmers, Palo, Peyla, (3) Critical habitat does not include Rockwood, Round Mountain, Russell Pigeon River, Pineville, Prairie Portage, waterbodies, including lakes, reservoirs Crossing, Saint Francis, Saint John, Ranier, Red Rock, Reno, Robinson, or rivers, or human-made structures Sheridan, Shorey, Skerry, Skinner, Rollins, Rothman, Salo Corner, Sawbill existing on the effective date of this Smyrna Center, Soldier Pond, Somerset Landing, Schroeder, Scott Junction, rule, such as buildings, airports, paved Junction, Squa Pan, Stephensons Section Thirty, Sha-Sha Resort, Shaw, and gravel roadbeds, active railroad Landing, Tarratine, The Crossing, Silver Bay, Silver Creek, Silver Rapids, beds and the land on which such Walker, Three Streams, Wallagrass, Skibo, Soudan, South International structures are located. Critical habitat Weeksboro, Wheelock, Wheelock Mill, Falls, Sparta, Spring Lodge Resort and does not include Federal lands within Winterville. Marina, Stewart, Taconite Harbor, Taft, the Okanogam-Wenatchee, Flathead, Thunderbird Resort, Tofte, Toimi, Helena, Idaho Panhandle, Kootenai, (iii) Minnesota: Alger, Allen, Angora, Lewis and Clark, and Lolo National Arnold, Aurora, Babbitt, Baptism Tower, Tower Junction, Two Harbors, Forests. Critical habitat does not include Crossing, Bartlett, Beaver Bay, Beaver Wahlsten, Wakemup, Waldo, Wales, the following towns: Crossing, Belgrade, Bell Harbor, Wheeler Landing, White Iron, (i) Idaho: None. Biwabik, Brimson, Breda, Britt, Whiteface, Whyte, Winter, Winton, (ii) Maine: Allagash, Ashland, Attean Burntside, Burntside Lake, Buyck, Woodland, York. (historical), Attean Landing, Back Canyon, Castle Danger, Chippewa City, (iv) Montana: Avon, Elliston, Settlement, Batesville, Blackstone, Clappers, Clifton, Cook, Cotton, Covill, Garrison, Helmville, Lincoln, Ovando, Blackwater, Blair, Boat Landing Camp, Cramer, Crane Lake, Croftville, Cusson, Seeley Lake, Summit, Woodworth. Bradbury, Brassua, Buffalo, Burnt Darby Junction, Duluth, Duluth Heights, (v) Washington: None. Landing, Burnt Mill, Chapman, Eagles Nest, East Beaver Bay, Ely, Chesuncook, Clayton Lake, Daaquam, Embarrass, Fairbanks, Falls Junction, (4) Note: Index map for lynx critical Deadmans Corner, Dennistown, Dickey, Finland, Forest Center, Forsman, Four habitat follows: Dudley, Dyerville, Eagle Lake, Estcourt, Corners, Fredenberg, French River, BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:03 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP2.SGM 09NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68315

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:47 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP2.SGM 09NOP2 EP09NO05.023 68316 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules

(5) Unit 1: Maine Unit; Aroostook, to intersection with State Highway 11 in Highway 1 NW to intersection with Franklin, Penobscot, Piscataquis, and Long A Twp. (506181, 5040542). Follow Westfield Twp. boundary (579218, Somerset Counties, Maine. State Highway 11 NE to intersection 5160782). Follow township boundary (i) Coordinate projection: UTM, with T4 Indian Purchase Twp. boundary west to intersection with Chapman NAD83, Zone 19, Meters. Coordinate (515204, 5052175). Follow township Twp. boundary (572903, 5160530). definition: (easting, northing). Starting boundary NW to SW corner of T1 R8 Follow township boundary north to NE at Maine/Canada Border (SW corner of Twp. (513460, 5059043). Follow corner of township (572577, 5168198). Merrill Strip Twp.) (371910, 5028021), township boundary NE to intersection Follow township boundaries west to follow township boundary east to SE with Grindstone Twp. boundary intersection with Ashland Twp. boundary (553502, 5167377). Follow corner of Skinner Twp. (383434, (523967, 5061550). Follow township township boundaries north to SW 5029673). Follow township boundary boundary south and east to intersection corner of Westmanland Twp. (553279, SE to SW corner of T5 R6 Twp. (383438, with State Highway 11 (533826, 5197228). Follow township boundary 5029673). Follow township boundaries 5057404). Follow State Highway 11 east to SE corner of township (562523, NE to boundary of Moosehead Lake north to intersection with Soldiertown 5197586). Follow township boundaries (450963, 5036788). Follow Moosehead Twp. boundary (533178, 5067644). north to intersection with State Lake boundary to intersection with Follow township boundary east to SE Highway 161 (562361, 5209395). Follow Beaver Cove Twp. (452704, 5040915). corner of township (534261,5067639), State Highway 161 NE to New Canada Follow township boundary to then follow township boundaries north Twp. boundary (536315, 5227346). Moosehead Lake boundary (453125, to SE corner of T6 R7 Twp. (533735, Follow township boundaries west to 5040999). Follow Moosehead Lake 5108030). Follow township boundaries NW corner of Wallagrass Twp. (522883, boundary to township boundary east to intersection with U.S. Highway 5227037). Follow township boundaries (453705, 5041123). Follow township 2 (563731, 5108104). Follow U.S. north to Maine/Canada border (522876, boundary to NW corner of Bowdoin Highway 2 to intersection with New 5231986). Follow Maine/Canada border College Grant West Twp. (460415, Limerick Twp. boundary (584664, to beginning. 5042546). Follow township boundary to 5109885). Follow township boundaries SW corner of township (462537, north to intersection with U.S. Highway (ii) Note: Map 1 of Unit 1 (Maine) 5032002). Follow township boundaries 1 (583834, 5153895). Follow U.S. follows:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:47 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP2.SGM 09NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68317

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:03 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP2.SGM 09NOP2 EP09NO05.024 68318 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules

(6) Unit 2: Minnesota Unit; Cook, 13, Township 67 North, Range 19 West; proceeding along the north boundaries Koochiching, Lake, and St. Louis thence along the south boundaries of of Sections 23 and 24, Township 63 Counties, Minnesota. Sections 2 and 3, Township 67 North, North, Range 12 West and Section 19, (i) Unit 2 is divided into seven Range 19 West; thence proceeding along Township 63 North, Range 11 West; subunits to facilitate description. In the east, south, and west boundaries of thence south along the east boundary of addition, because the boundaries of Section 9, Township 67 North, Range 19 said Section; thence east along the north several subunits are defined in part by West; thence along the south and west boundary of Section 29, Township 63, the Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) of boundaries of Section 5, Township 67 Range 11 West and south along the east Superior National Forest, and those North, Range 19 West; thence along the boundary of said Section and of Section subunits are very complex, in some north boundary of Section 6, Township 32, Township 63, Range 11 West; thence cases we approximated those 67 North, Range 19 West, and Sections along the south boundary of said boundaries using public land survey 1–6, Township 67 North, Range 20 West Section and of Section 31, Township 63 lines for ease in description and public to the intersection of the north boundary North, Range 11 West; thence south utility except where the LAUs already of Section 6, T67 North, Range 20 West along the east boundary of Section 1, followed recognizable features. and United States Highway 53; thence Township 62 North, Range 12 West; (ii) Subunit 1. Beginning where the northerly along United States Highway thence west along the south boundary of United States and Canadian boundaries 53 to the United States and Canadian said Section; thence south along the east intersect with the west side of Section boundaries; thence easterly along the boundary of Section 11, Township 62 31, Township 68 North, Range 16 West Canadian Border to the point of North, Range 12 West; thence along the in Sand Point Lake, then proceeding beginning in Sand Point Lake. south boundary of said Section and of along the west side of said section to (iii) Subunit 2. Beginning at the Section 10 of said Township; thence landfall along said lake; thence westerly northeast corner of Section 35, proceeding north along the west along the shoreline of Sand Point Lake Township 67 North, Range 19 West, boundary of said Section; thence west to where it becomes the east shore of proceeding south along the east along the south boundaries of Sections King Williams Narrows in Section 1, boundary of said Section and of 4, 5, and 6, Township 62 North, Range Township 67 North, Range 17 West; Sections 2, 11, 14, 23, 26, and Section 12 West and of Sections 1 and 2, thence southerly along King Williams 35, Township 66 North, Range 19 West Township 62 North, Range 13 West; Narrows to a point defined by UTM to the southeast corner of Section 35, thence north along west boundary of coordinates 539818, 5350111 ( NAD Township 66 North, Range 19 West; Section 2, Township 62 North, Range 13 1983, Zone 15 North); thence westerly thence along the south boundary of said West; thence along the south boundary to first landfall in Section 12, Township Section of Sections 34, 33, 32, and 31, of Section 34, Township 63 North, 67 North, Range 17 West; thence Township 66 North, Range 19 West to Range 13 West; thence north along the proceeding westerly along the shore of the southeast corner of Section 36, west boundary of said Section and of Crane Lake to a point defined by UTM Township 66 North, Range 20 West; Sections 27 and 22 of said Township; coordinates 536693, 5350743 ( NAD thence south along the east boundaries thence along the north boundaries of 1983, Zone 15 North); from said point of Sections 1, 12, and 13, Township 65 Sections 22 and 23, Township 63 North, westerly to the southwest corner of North, Range 20 West to the point at Range 13 West; thence north along the Section 3, Township 67 North, Range 17 which the east boundary of Section 13, west boundary of Section 13, Township West; thence along the west boundary of Township 65 North, Range 20 West 63 North, Range 13 West; thence along said section to the southeast corner of intersects with United States Highway the north boundaries of said Section and Section 33, Township 68 North, Range 53; thence northwesterly along United of Sections 18, 17, 16, and 15, Township 17 West; thence along the south States Highway 53 to its intersection 63 North, Range 12 West point of boundary of said section and Section 32, with the north boundary of Section 5, beginning at the northeast corner of Township 68 North, Range 17 West to Township 66 North, Range 20 West; section 15 of said Township. the shore of Johnson Lake in Section 31, thence east along the north boundary of (v) Subunit 4. Sections 29 and 31, Township 68 North, Range 17 West; said Section and of Sections 4, 3, 2, 1, Township 60 North, Range 12 West and thence northwesterly along the shore of Township 66 North, Range 20 West and Section 36, Township 60 North, Range Johnson Lake to where it meets the of Sections 6 and 5, Township 66 North, 13 West. Spring Lake drainage in Section 23, Range 10 West to the northeast corner (vi) Subunit 5. Sections 7, 18, 19, Township 68 North, Range 18 West; of Section 5, Township 66 North, Range Township 59 North, Range 13 West and thence northwesterly along said 19 West; thence south along the east Sections 24–26, Township 59 North, drainage to the shoreline of Spring Lake; boundary of said Section to the Range 14 West. thence along the shoreline of Spring northeast corner of Section 8, Township (vii) Subunit 6. Section 18, Township Lake to its intersection with the east 66 North, Range 19, West; thence east 58 North, Range 17 West. boundary of Section 15, Township 68 along the north boundary of Section 9, (viii) Subunit 7. Beginning at the North, Range 18 West; thence north Township 66 North, Range 19 West; northeast corner of Section 15, along the east boundary of said section thence north along the east boundary of Township 65 North, Range 17 West to the southeast corner of Section 10, Section 3, Township 66 North, Range 19 proceeding south along the east Township 68 North, Range 18 West; West; thence east along the north boundary of said Section and of Section thence west along the south boundary of boundary of said Section; thence along 22 of said Township; thence along the said section and of Sections 7, 8, and 9, the east and north boundaries of Section north boundary of Section 26,Township Township 68 North, Range 18 West to 35, Township 67 North, Range 19 West 65 North, Range 17 West and along the the southeast corner of Section 12, to the point of beginning at the east boundary of said Section and of Township 68 North, Range 19 West; northeast corner of said Section. Section 35 of said Township; thence thence along the east boundaries of (iv) Subunit 3. Beginning at the along the north boundary of Section 2, Sections 13, 24, 25, and 36, Township northeast corner of Section 15, Township 64 North, Range 17 West; 68 North, Range 19 West and Sections Township 63 North, Range 12 West thence south along the east boundary of 1 and 13, Township 67 North, Range 19 proceeding south along the east said Section and of Section 11 of said West to the southeast corner of Section boundary of said Section; thence Township; thence along the north

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:03 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP2.SGM 09NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68319

boundary of Section 13, Township 64 14 West; thence along the south along the south boundaries of Section 6 North, Range 17 West; thence south boundary of said Section, proceeding of said Township and of Sections 1 and along the east boundaries of said north along the west boundary of said 2, Township 57 North, Range 10 West; Section and of Sections 24, 25, and 35 Section: thence along the southern thence along the west boundaries of of said Township and of Sections 1 and boundaries of Sections 27, 28, and 29, Section 2 of said Township and of 12 of Township 63 North, Range 17 Township 60 North, Range 14 West; Sections 35 and 26, Township 58 North, West; thence east along the north thence along the east boundaries of Range 10 West; thence along the north boundary of Section 18, Township 63 Section 31 of said Township and of boundary of Section 26 of said North, Range 16 West; thence south Sections 6 and 7, Township 59 North, Township, along the west boundary of along the east boundary of said Section; Range 14 West; thence along the south Section 24 of said Township and then thence along the north boundaries of boundary of Section 7 of said Township; along the north boundary of said Section 20 and 21, Township 63 North, thence along the east boundary of Section; thence along the west boundary Range 16 West; thence along the east Section 13, Township 59 North, Range of Section 18, Township 58 North, boundary of Section 27, Township 63 15 West; thence along the south Range 9 West; thence along the north North, Range 16 West and along the boundaries of Sections 13, 14, 15, and boundary of said Section; thence along north boundary of Section 27, Township 16 of said Township; thence along the the west boundary of Section 8 of said 63 North, Range 16 West; thence along east boundaries of Sections 20, 29, and Township; thence along the north the west, north and east boundaries of 32, Township 59 North, Range 15 West; boundary of Sections 8, 9, and 10 of said Section 23,Township 63 North, Range thence along the north boundary of Township; thence along the east 16 West; thence along the north Section 4, Township 58 North, Range 15 boundary of Section 10, Township 58 boundaries of Sections 25 and 30 of said West; thence along the east boundary of North, Range 9 West; thence along the Township; thence along the east said Section; thence along the north north boundary of Sections 14 and 13, boundary of Section 30 of said boundary of Section 10 of said Township 58 North, Range 9 West and Township; thence along the north Township and then along the east of Sections 18, 17, and 16, Township 58 boundaries of Sections 32–36, boundary of said Section; thence along North, Range 8 West; thence along the Township 63 North, Range 15 West and the north boundaries of Sections 14 and west boundary of Sections 10 and 3, of Sections 31–35, Township 63 North, 13, Township 58 North, Township 15 Township 58 North, Range 8 West; thence along the east boundary of West, and of Sections 18, 17, 16, and 15, thence along the north boundary of Section 35, Township 63 North, Range Township 58 North, Range 14 West; Sections 3, 2, and 1, Township 58 14 West and eastward along the north Township hence south along the east North, Range 8 West and of Township boundaries of Section 1, Township 62 boundary of Section 15 of said 58 North, Range 7 West and of North, Range 14 West and of Sections 6, Township and then along the south Township 58 North, Range 6 West and 5, and 4,Township 62 North Range 13 boundary of said Section; thence south of Sections 6, 5, and 4, Township 58 West; thence south along the east along the east boundary of Section 21, North, Range 5 West; thence along the boundaries of Sections 4, 9, 16, 21, 28, Township 58 North, Range 14 West; west boundary of Section 34, Township and 33, Township 62 North, Range 13 thence along the east boundary of 59 North, Range 5 West; thence along West and of Sections 4, 9, 16, and 21, Section 36, Township 58 North, Range the north boundary of said Section; Township 61 North, Range 13 West; 15 West of Township 57 North, Range thence along the west boundary of thence along the north boundary of 15 West, and of Township 56 North, Section 26 of said Township; thence Section 27, Township 61 North, Range Range 15 West; thence along the north along the north boundary of said 13 West; thence along the east boundary boundaries of Township 55 North, Section; thence, along the west of said Section; thence along the north Range 14 West; Township 55 North, boundaries of Sections 24, 13, and 12 of boundaries of Sections 35 and 36, Range 13 West; Township 55 North, said Township; thence along the north Township 61 North, Range 13 West; Range 12 West; Township 55 North, boundary of section 12, Township 59 thence along the east boundary of Range 11 West; Township 55 North, North, Range 5 West and of Section 7, Section 36, Township 61 North, Range Range 10 West; Township 55 North, Township 59 North, Range 4 West; 13 West; thence along the north Range 9 West; thence north along t he thence along the west boundary of boundary of Sections 6 and 5, Township west boundary of Township 56 North, Section 5, Township 59 North, Range 4 60 North, Range 12 West; thence along Range 8 West; thence along the north West; hence along the north and east the east boundaries of Sections 5 and 8, boundary of Section 1 and 2, Township boundaries of said Section; thence along Township 60 North, Range 12 West; 56 North, Range 9 West; thence along the north boundary of Section 4, thence along the south boundaries of the east boundaries of Sections 3, 4, and Township 59 North, Range 4 West; Sections 8 and 7, Township 60 North, 5, Township 56 North, Range 9 West; Township hence along the west Range 12 West; thence along the east thence along the west boundary of boundary of Section 34, Township 60 boundary of Section 13, Township 60 Section 5 of said Township; thence North, Range 4 West; Township hence North thence along the south boundary along the north boundary of said along the north boundary of said of Section 13, 14, and 15, Township 60 Section; thence along the east Section; thence along the west, north, North, Range 13 West; thence along the boundaries of Sections 32 and 29, and east boundary of Section 26, east boundary of Section 21, Township Township 57 North, Range 9 West; Township 60 North, Range 4 West; 60 North, Range 13 West; thence along thence along the south boundary of thence along the north boundary of the east boundary of Section 29, Section 20 of said Township; thence Section 36, Township 60 North, Range Township 60 North, Range 13 West; along the east and then the north 4 West and of Section 31, Township 60 thence along the south boundaries of boundaries of said Section; thence along North, Range 3 West; Township hence Sections 29 and 30, Township 60 North, the east boundary of Section 17, along the west boundaries of Sections Range 13 West and of Section 25, Township 57 North, Range 9 West; 29 and 20 of said Township; thence Township 60 North, Range 14 West; thence along the north boundary of said along the north boundaries of Sections thence along the east boundary of Section; thence along the west boundary 20 and 21 of said Township; thence Section 35, Township 60 North, Range of Section 8 of said Township; thence along the west boundaries of Sections

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:03 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP2.SGM 09NOP2 68320 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules

15 and 10 of said Township; thence where the United States and Canadian Township; thence along the north along the north boundaries of Sections boundaries intersect; thence boundary of Section 29 of said 10 and 11 of said Township; thence southeasterly along the United States Township; thence along the west along the west boundary of Section 1 of boundary to where it meets the mouth boundaries of Sections 21 and 16 of said said Township; thence along the north of the Pigeon River at Pigeon Bay along Township; thence along the north boundary of said Section and of the intersection of Sections 28 and 29, boundaries of Sections 16, 15, 14, and Sections 6 and 5, Township 60 North, Township 64 North, Range 7 East; 13 of said Township; thence along the Range 2 West; Township hence along thence easterly along and around Pigeon west boundaries of Township 60 North, the west and north boundaries of Point; thence westerly along the Range 16 West and of Township 61 Section 33, Township 61 North, Range shoreline of Lake Superior to the mouth North, Range 16 West; thence along the 2 West; thence along the west and north of the Lester River; thence northerly south boundary of Township 62 North, boundaries of Section 27 of said along said river to the east boundary of Range 17 West; thence along the east Township; thence along the west and Section 5, Township 50 North, Range 13 and south boundaries of Section 1, north boundaries of Section 23 of said West; thence northward along the east Township 61 North, Range 18 West; Township; thence along the west, north, boundary of said Section; thence along and east boundaries of Section 13 of the north boundaries of Sections 5 and thence along the south boundaries of said Township; thence along the north 6 of said Township and of Sections 1, Sections 2 and 3 of said Township; boundaries of Sections 19, 20, and 21, 2, and 3, Township 50 North, Range 14 thence along the east boundaries of Township 61 North, Range 1 West; West; thence along the west boundaries Sections 9, 16, and 21 of said Township; thence along the west and north of Sections 3 and 10 of said Township; thence along the south boundary of boundaries of Section 15 of said thence along the south boundaries of Section 21 of said Township to its Township; thence along the west and Sections 9, 8, and 7 of said Township intersection with U.S. Highway 53; north boundaries of Section 11 of said and of Section 12, Township 50 North, thence northerly along U.S. Highway 53 Township and of Sections 12, 7, 8, and Range 15 West to its intersection with to its intersection with the west 9, Township 61 North, Range 1 East; U.S. Highway 53 to its intersection with boundary of S18, Township 65 North, thence along the west and north the north boundary of Section 20, Range 19 West; thence southward along boundaries of Section 3 of said Township 58 North, Range 17 West; said boundary; thence along the south Township and along the north boundary thence eastward along the north boundary of said Section; thence along of Section 2 of said Township; thence boundaries of Sections 20, 21, and 22, the west boundary of Section 17, along the west and north boundary of Township 58 North, Range 17 West; Township 65 North, Range 19 West; Section 36, Township 62 North, Range thence along the west boundaries of thence along the north boundaries of 1 East and along the north boundary of Sections 14, 11, and 2, Township 58 Sections 17, 16, 15, and 14 of said Section 31, Township 62 North, Range North, Range 17 West and of Section 35, Township; thence along the east 2 East; thence along the west boundary Township 59 North, Range 17 West; boundary of Section 14 of said of Section 29, T62 North, Range 2 East; thence along the north boundary of said Township; thence along the north thence along the north boundary of said Section; thence along the west and boundaries of Section 24 of said Section and of Sections 28 and 27 of north boundaries of Section 25 of said Township and of Sections 19, 20, and said Township; thence along the west Township; thence along the west 21, Township 65 North, Range 18 West; and north boundary of Section 23 of boundaries of Sections 19 and 18, thence along the west boundary of said Township; thence along the west Township 59 North, Range 16 West; Section 22 of said Township; thence and north boundaries of Section 13, thence along the south boundaries of along the north boundaries of Sections Township 62 North, Range 2 East and of Sections 12 and 11, Township 59 North, 22, 23, and 24 of said Township; thence Section 18, Township 62 North, Range Range 17 West; thence along the east along the east boundary of said 3 East thence along the west boundaries and south boundaries of Section 15 of Township; thence along the north of Sections 8 and 5, Township 62 North, said Township; thence along the east boundaries of Sections 18, 17, 16, and Range 3 East; thence along the south boundary of Section 21 of said boundary of Section 31, Township 63 Township; thence along the south 15, Township 65 North, Range 17 West, North, Range 3 East; thence along the boundaries of Sections 21, 20, and 19 of to the point of beginning at the west boundaries of Sections 31, 30, 19, said Township to the intersection of the northeast corner of Section 15, 18, 7, and 6, Township 63 North, Range latter Section’s south boundary with Township 65 North, Range 17 West. 3 East, and of Section 31, Township 64 U.S. Highway 53; thence northerly along (ix) Within the subunits described in North, Range 3 East; thence along the U.S. Highway 53 to its intersection with (6)(ii) to (6)(xiii) above, the following north boundaries of Sections 31, 32, and the west boundary of Section 17, areas are not included in the critical 33 of said Township; thence along the Township 59 North, Range 17 West; habitat designation: Township 58 North, west, south, and east boundaries of thence northward along the west Range 16 West, Sections 3, 8, 9, 10, 16, Section 34 of said Township; thence boundaries of Sections 17, 8, and 5 of and 17; and Township 58 North, Range along the west boundaries of Section 26, said Township to the south boundary of 17 West, Sections 16, 24, 25, and 26. 23, 14, and 11, Township 64 North, Section 31, Township 60 North, Range Range 3 East; thence along the north 17 West; thence along the south (x) Note: Map 2 of Unit 2 (Minnesota) boundaries of Sections 11 and 12, boundary of said Section to the follows: Township 64 North, Range 3 East to southwest corner of Section 32 of said BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:03 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP2.SGM 09NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68321

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:03 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP2.SGM 09NOP2 EP09NO05.025 68322 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules

(7) Unit 3: Northern Rocky Mountains Mountain, Red Mountain, Webb Whale Buttes, Red Meadow Lake, Unit; Boundary County, Idaho; Mountain, Boulder Lakes, Lost Horse Mount Thompson-Seton, Mount Flathead, Glacier, Granite, Lake, Lewis Mountain, Yaak, Clark Mountain, Marston, Fortine, Stryker, Bull Lake, and Clark, Lincoln, Missoula, Pondera, Mount Baldy, Sylvanite, Flatiron Upper Whitefish Lake, Moose Peak, Powell and Teton counties, Montana. Mountain, Pink Mountain, Parsnip Cyclone Lake, Demers Ridge, (i) Coordinate Projection: UTM, Mountain, Inch Mountain, Volcour, Huckleberry Mountain, Skookoleel NAD83, Zone 12, Meters. Coordinate Ural, Banfield Mountain, Gold Hill, Creek, Werner Peak, Olney, Beaver Definition: (easting, northing). Unit 3 is Turner Mountain, Alexander Mountain, Lake, Whitefish, and Columbia Falls divided into 18 subunits to facilitate and Vermiculite Mountain. North. description. (viii) Subunit 7. Starting at coordinate (xiv) Subunit 13. Starting at (ii) Subunit 1. Starting at the (143538, 5402032), follow 4000 feet coordinate (263061, 5395697), follow intersection of the Idaho/Canada border elevation contour to beginning. This 4000 feet elevation contour to and 4000 feet elevation contour area is found within the following USGS beginning. This area is found within the (122032, 5440460), follow the 4000 feet 1:24000 Quads; Sylvanite, Flatiron following USGS 1:24000 Quads; Demers elevation contour to intersection with Mountain, Turner Mountain, Pulpit Ridge and Huckleberry Mountain. Montana/Canada border (151617, Mountain, Kilbrennan Lake, Kootenai (xv) Subunit 14. Starting at coordinate 5438492). Follow Montana/Canada Falls, and Scenery Mountain. (269763, 5390173), follow 4000 feet border west to intersection with 4000 (ix) Subunit 8. Starting at coordinate elevation contour to beginning. This feet elevation contour (147739, (154367, 5393646), follow 4000 feet area is found within the following USGS 5438749). Follow 4000 feet elevation elevation contour to beginning. This 1:24000 Quads; McGee Meadow, contour to intersection with Montana/ area is found within the following USGS Huckleberry Mountain, and Hungry Canada border (147356, 5438775). 1:24000 Quads; Turner Mountain, Gold Horse. Follow Idaho/Montana/Canada border Hill, Libby, and Scenery Mountain. (xvi) Subunit 15. Starting at west to beginning. This area is found (x) Subunit 9. Starting at coordinate coordinate (268105, 5372525), follow within the following USGS 1:24000 (174032, 5379043), follow 4000 feet 4000 feet elevation contour to Quads; Eastport, Canuck Peak, elevation contour to beginning. This beginning. This area is found within the Northwest Peak, Garver Mountain, area is found within the following USGS following USGS 1:24000 Quads; Bonnet Top, Yaak, Clark Mountain, 1:24000 Quads; Vermiculite Mountain Columbia Falls North and Hungry Mount Baldy, Line Point, Meadow and Alexander Mountain. Horse. Creek, Curley Creek, and Newton (xi) Subunit 10. Starting at coordinate (xvii) Subunit 16. Starting at the Mountain. (199737, 5417559), follow 4000 feet intersection of the Montana/Canada (iii) Subunit 2. Starting at the elevation contour to beginning. This border and 4000 feet elevation contour intersection of the Montana/Canada area is found within the following USGS (247220, 5433213), follow the 4000 feet border and 4000 feet elevation contour 1:24000 Quads; Webb Mountain, elevation contour to intersection with (152307, 5438447), follow the 4000 feet Beartrap Mountain, Eureka South, Inch tribal land boundary (275116, 5307842). elevation contour to intersection with Mountain, McGuire Mountain, Pinkham Follow tribal land boundary to Montana/Canada border (157205, Mountain, Edna Mountain, Volcour, intersection with 4000 feet elevation 5438130). Follow Montana/Canada Davis Mountain, Skillet Mountain, contour (266686, 5214358). Follow 4000 border west to beginning. This area is Alexander Mountain, Cripple Horse feet elevation contour to intersection found within the following USGS Mountain, Warland Peak, Bowen Lake, with tribal land boundary (266018, 1:24000 Quads; Garver Mountain and Tony Peak, Richards Mountain, Wolf 5213465). Follow tribal land boundary Bonnet Top. Prairie, and Fisher Mountain. to intersection with 4000 feet elevation (iv) Subunit 3. Starting at coordinate (xii) Subunit 11. Starting at coordinate contour (265946, 5213282). Follow 4000 (158408, 5437023), follow 4000 feet (217651, 5399051), follow 4000 feet feet elevation contour to intersection elevation contour to beginning. This elevation contour to beginning. This with BLM boundary (296279, 5202322). area is found within the following USGS area is found within the following USGS Follow BLM boundary to intersection 1:24000 Quad; Bonnet Top. 1:24000 Quads; Stryker, Skillet with 4000 feet elevation contour (v) Subunit 4. Starting at coordinate Mountain, Sunday Mountain, Radnor, (296556, 5202312). Follow 4000 feet (160775, 5430791), follow 4000 feet Bowen Lake, Dunsire Point, Johnson elevation contour to intersection with elevation contour to beginning. This Peak, Tally Lake, Wolf Prairie, Horse BLM boundary (297281, 5202285). area is found within the following USGS Hill, Sylvia Lake, Ashley Mountain, Follow BLM boundary to intersection 1:24000 Quads; Bonnet Top and Mount Lost Creek Divide, Rhodes, Deer Creek, with 4000 feet elevation contour Henry. Lynch Lake, Dahl Lake, Pleasant Valley (297438, 5202279). Follow 4000 feet (vi) Subunit 5. Starting at coordinate Mountain, Lone Lake, Blue Grass Ridge, elevation contour to intersection with (161176, 5427344), follow 4000 feet Thompson Lakes, Meadow Peak, BLM boundary (297573, 5202794). elevation contour to beginning. This McGregor Peak, Marion, Haskill Follow BLM boundary to intersection area is found within the following USGS Mountain, and Kila. with 4000 feet elevation contour 1:24000 Quads; Bonnet Top, Mount (xiii) Subunit 12. Starting at the (303183, 5206072). Follow 4000 feet Henry, Yaak, and Lost Horse Mountain. intersection of the Montana/Canada elevation contour to intersection with (vii) Subunit 6. Starting at the border and 4000 feet elevation contour BLM boundary (303606, 5206062). intersection of the Montana/Canada (205956, 5435192), follow the 4000 feet Follow BLM boundary to intersection border and 4000 feet elevation contour elevation contour to intersection with with 4000 feet elevation contour (163418, 5437730), follow the 4000 feet Montana/Canada border (245279, (306985, 5204735). Follow 4000 feet elevation contour to intersection with 5433300). Follow Montana/Canada elevation contour to intersection with Montana/Canada border (186741, border west to beginning. This area is BLM boundary (325030, 5210736). 5436254). Follow Montana/Canada found within the following USGS Follow BLM boundary to intersection border west to beginning. This area is 1:24000 Quads; Eureka North, Ksanka with 4000 feet elevation contour found within the following USGS Peak, Stahl Peak, Tuchuck Mountain, (326639, 5211303). Follow 4000 feet 1:24000 Quads; Mount Henry, Robinson Mount Hefty, Trailcreek, Polebridge, elevation contour to intersection with

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:03 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP2.SGM 09NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68323

BLM boundary (323872, 5207394). Montana/Canada border west to Spread Mountain, Lake Mountain, Follow BLM boundary to intersection intersection with 4000 feet elevation Olson Peak, Heart Lake, Caribou Peak, with 4000 feet elevation contour contour (247562, 5433194). Follow 4000 Blowout Mountain, Rogers Pass, Cadotte (321664, 5205489). Follow 4000 feet feet elevation contour to intersection Creek, Silver King Mountain, Stonewall elevation contour to intersection with with Montana/Canada border (247373, Mountain, Arrastra Mountain, Coopers BLM boundary (305659, 5202137). 5433204). Follow Montana/Canada Lake, Ovando Mountain, Ovando, Follow BLM boundary to intersection border west to beginning. This area is Woodworth, Salmon Lake, Belmont with 4000 feet elevation contour found within the following USGS Point, Gold Creek Peak, Wapiti Lake, (303278, 5201236). Follow 4000 feet 1:24000 Quads; Trailcreek, Kintla Lake, Stuart Peak, Evaro, Northwest Missoula, elevation contour to intersection with Kintla Peak, Mount Carter, Porcupine Northeast Missoula, Blue Point, BLM boundary (302649, 5201258). Ridge, Mount Cleveland, Gable Sunflower Mountain, Potomac, Follow BLM boundary to intersection Mountain, Chief Mountain, Babb, Lake Greenough, Bata Mountain, with 4000 feet elevation contour Sherburne, Many Glacier, Ahern Pass, Chamberlain Mountain, Browns Lake, (300781, 5201073). Follow 4000 feet Mount Geduhn, Vulture Peak, Quartz Marcum Mountain, Moose Creek, elevation contour to intersection with Ridge, Polebridge, Demers Ridge, Camas Lincoln, Swede Gulch, Stemple Pass BLM boundary (300776, 5200954). Ridge West, Camas Ridge East, Mount Wilborn, Granite Butte, Nevada Follow BLM boundary to intersection Cannon, Logan Pass, Rising Sun, Saint Mountain, Finn, Nevada Lake, with 4000 feet elevation contour Mary, Kiowa, Cut Bank Pass, Mount Helmville, Chimney Lakes, Wild Horse (299764, 5198147). Follow 4000 feet Stimson, Mount Jackson, Lake Parks, Elevation Mountain, Union Peak, elevation contour to intersection with McDonald East, Lake McDonald West, Mineral Ridge, Clinton, Bonner, Iris BLM boundary (292484, 5197608). McGee Meadow, West Glacier, Nyack, Point, Ravenna, Medicine Tree Hill, Follow BLM boundary to intersection Stanton Lake, Mount Saint Nicholas, Bearmouth, Drummond, Limestone with 4000 feet elevation contour Mount Rockwell, Squaw Mountain, East Ridge, Bailey Mountain, Windy Rock, (291094, 5197651). Follow 4000 feet Glacier Park, Mitten Lake, Half Dome Gravely Mountain, Ophir Creek, elevation contour to intersection with Crag, Hyde Creek, Summit, Blacktail, Esmeralda Hill, Greenhorn Mountain, BLM boundary (295674, 5184534). Essex, Pinnacle, Mount Grant, Nyack Austin, Black Mountain, MacDonald Follow BLM boundary to intersection SW, Doris Mountain, Columbia Falls Pass, Elliston, Avon, Luke Mountain, with 4000 feet elevation contour South, Hash Mountain, Jewel Basin, Garrison, Griffin Creek, and Dunkleberg (295759, 5184449). Follow 4000 feet Pioneer Ridge, Felix Ridge, Nimrod, Creek. This entire area is proposed elevation contour to intersection with Mount Bradley, Red Plum Mountain, critical habitat except for the following BLM boundary (296187, 5184021). Crescent Cliff, Morningstar Mountain, lands: Starting at the coordinate Follow BLM boundary to intersection Swift Reservoir, Fish Lake, Volcano (319039, 5226995), follow BLM with 4000 feet elevation contour Reef, Walling Reef, Gateway Pass, boundary to beginning. This area is (295513, 5183975). Follow 4000 feet Gooseberry Peak, Gable Peaks, Capitol found within the following USGS elevation contour to intersection with Mountain, Horseshoe Peak, Circus Peak, 1:24000 Quads; Seeley Lake East and BLM boundary (294232, 5179074). Quintonkon, Big Hawk Mountain, Crater Morrell Mountain. Starting at coordinate Follow BLM boundary to intersection Lake, Woods Bay, Yew Creek, Swan (320624, 5225739), follow BLM with 4000 feet elevation contour Lake, Connor Creek, Tin Creek, Spotted boundary to beginning. This area is (294376, 5178665). Follow 4000 feet Bear Mountain, Whitcomb Peak, found within the following USGS elevation contour to intersection with Trilobite Peak, Pentagon Mountain, 1:24000 Quad; Morrell Mountain. BLM boundary (294474, 5178641). Porphyry Reef, Mount Wright, Cave Starting at coordinate (296383, Follow BLM boundary to intersection Mountain, Ear Mountain, Our Lake, 5186663), follow BLM boundary to with 4000 feet elevation contour Gates Park, Three Sisters, Bungalow beginning. This area is found within the (295353, 5178635). Follow 4000 feet Mountain, Cathedral Peak, Meadow following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Clinton. elevation contour to intersection with Creek, String Creek, Thunderbolt Starting at coordinate (296609, BLM boundary (320899, 5178236). Mountain, Cilly Creek, Porcupine Creek, 5185893), follow BLM boundary to Follow BLM boundary to intersection Cedar Lake, Salmon Prairie, Swan Peak, beginning. This area is found within the with 4000 feet elevation contour Sunburst Lake, Marmot Mountain, following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Clinton. (321121, 5177835). Follow 4000 feet Pagoda Mountain, Amphitheatre Starting at coordinate (296530, elevation contour to intersection with Mountain, Slategoat Mountain, Glenn 5186657), follow BLM boundary to BLM boundary (324899, 5176961). Creek, Arsenic Mountain, Castle Reef, beginning. This area is found within the Follow BLM boundary to intersection Sawtooth Ridge, Patricks Basin, Pretty following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Clinton. with 4000 feet elevation contour Prairie, Prairie Reef, Haystack (Within this area, land which is (325898, 5176527). Follow 4000 feet Mountain, Big Salmon Lake East, Big designated as proposed critical habitat elevation contour to intersection with Salmon Lake West, Holland Peak, starts at coordinate (297038, 5186474) BLM boundary (329303, 5174047). Condon, Peck Lake, Piper-Crow Pass, and follows BLM boundary to Follow BLM boundary to intersection Mount Harding, Hemlock Lake, Cygnet beginning. This area is found within the with 4000 feet elevation contour Lake, Holland Lake Shaw Creek, Una following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Clinton) (329924, 5174403). Follow 4000 feet Mountain, Pilot Lake, Trap Mountain, Starting at coordinate (305789, elevation contour to intersection with Benchmark, Wood Lake, Double Falls, 5186382), follow BLM boundary to Interstate Highway 90 (338356, Bean Lake, Steamboat Mountain, Jakie beginning. This area is found within the 5167811). Follow Interstate Highway 90 Creek, Scapegoat Mountain, Flint following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Mineral to intersection with USFS boundary Mountain, Danaher Mountain, Hahn Ridge. Starting at coordinate (305659, (402512, 5159444). Follow USFS Creek Pass, Crimson Peak, Morrell Lake, 5182733), follow BLM boundary to boundary to NPS boundary (334101, Lake Inez, Lake Marshall, Gray Wolf beginning. This area is found within the 5364611). Follow NPS boundary to Lake, Saint Marys Lake, Upper Jocko following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Mineral intersection with Montana/Canada Lake, Seeley Lake West, Seeley Lake Ridge. Starting at coordinate (315723, border (309104, 5430544). Follow East, Morrell Mountain, Dunham Point, 5179630), follow BLM boundary to

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:03 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP2.SGM 09NOP2 68324 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules

beginning. This area is found within the Parks. Starting at coordinate (318247, Starting at coordinate (322387, following USGS 1:24000 Quad; 5190866), follow BLM boundary to 5186742), follow BLM boundary to Medicine Tree Hill. Starting at beginning. This area is found within the beginning. This area is found within the coordinate (316123, 5178792), follow following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Union following USGS 1:24000 Quad; BLM boundary to beginning. This area Peak. Starting at coordinate (337347, Elevation Mountain. Starting at is found within the following USGS 5195158), follow BLM boundary to coordinate (324560, 5187643), follow 1:24000 Quad; Medicine Tree Hill. beginning. This area is found within the BLM boundary to beginning. This area Starting at coordinate (314479, following USGS 1:24000 Quad; is found within the following USGS 5183663), follow BLM boundary to Chamberlain Mountain. Starting at 1:24000 Quad; Elevation Mountain. beginning. This area is found within the coordinate (327133, 5187734), follow Starting at coordinate (325099, following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Union BLM boundary to beginning. This area 5186866), follow BLM boundary to Peak. Starting at coordinate (317052, is found within the following USGS beginning. This area is found within the 5184417), follow BLM boundary to 1:24000 Quad; Elevation Mountain. following USGS 1:24000 Quad; beginning. This area is found within the Starting at coordinate (327463, Elevation Mountain. Starting at following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Union 5187624), follow BLM boundary to coordinate (325438, 5186581), follow Peak. Starting at coordinate (320811, beginning. This area is found within the BLM boundary to beginning. This area 5183108), follow BLM boundary to following USGS 1:24000 Quad; is found within the following USGS beginning. This area is found within the Elevation Mountain. Starting at 1:24000 Quad; Elevation Mountain. following USGS 1:24000 Quad; coordinate (327832, 5187474), follow Starting at coordinate (323452, Elevation Mountain. Starting at BLM boundary to beginning. This area 5187427), follow BLM boundary to coordinate (319192, 5191218), follow is found within the following USGS beginning. This area is found within the BLM boundary to beginning. This area 1:24000 Quad; Elevation Mountain. following USGS 1:24000 Quad; is found within the following USGS Starting at coordinate (326314, Elevation Mountain.} Starting at 1:24000 Quad; Elevation Mountain. 5203648), follow BLM boundary to coordinate (345715, 5188825), follow Starting at coordinate (321667, beginning. This area is found within the BLM boundary to beginning. This area 5192351), follow BLM boundary to following USGS 1:24000 Quads; Browns is found within the following USGS beginning. This area is found within the Lake, Chamberlain Mountain, Bata 1:24000 Quad; Chimney Lakes. Starting following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Mountain, Union Peak, Elevation at coordinate (344109, 5204620), follow Elevation Mountain. Starting at Mountain, Wild Horse Parks, and BLM boundary to beginning. This area coordinate (320585, 5179899), follow Chimney Lakes. {Within this area, land is found within the following USGS BLM boundary to beginning. This area which is designated as proposed critical 1:24000 Quad; Browns Lake. Starting at is found within the following USGS habitat starts at coordinate (329381, coordinate (344914, 5204270), follow 1:24000 Quad; Bearmouth. Starting at 5188913) and follows BLM boundary to BLM boundary to beginning. This area coordinate (318603, 5182370), follow beginning. This area is found within the is found within the following USGS BLM boundary to beginning. This area following USGS 1:24000 Quads; 1:24000 Quad; Browns Lake. Starting at is found within the following USGS Elevation Mountain, and Wild Horse coordinate (344118, 5204036), follow 1:24000 Quads; Bearmouth, Elevation Parks. Starting at coordinate (319172, BLM boundary to beginning. This area Mountain, and Union Peak. Starting at 5190028), follow BLM boundary to is found within the following USGS coordinate (326606, 5187107), follow beginning. This area is found within the 1:24000 Quad; Browns Lake. Starting at BLM boundary to beginning. This area following USGS 1:24000 Quads; coordinate (357144, 5190945), follow is found within the following USGS Elevation Mountain and Union Peak. BLM boundary to beginning. This area 1:24000 Quad; Wild Horse Parks. Starting at coordinate (322033, is found within the following USGS Starting at coordinate (329738, 5190748), follow BLM boundary to 1:24000 Quad; Nevada Lake. Starting at 5184069), follow BLM boundary to beginning. This area is found within the coordinate (355428, 5207566), follow beginning. This area is found within the following USGS 1:24000 Quad; BLM boundary to beginning. This area following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Wild Elevation Mountain. Starting at is found within the following USGS Horse Parks. Starting at coordinate coordinate (321061, 5189103), follow 1:24000 Quads; Coopers Lake, Marcum (331398, 5179218), follow BLM BLM boundary to beginning. This area Mountain, and Moose Creek. {Within boundary to beginning. This area is is found within the following USGS this area, lands which are designated as found within the following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Elevation Mountain. proposed critical habitat start at 1:24000 Quad; Drummond. Starting at Starting at coordinate (320496, coordinate (350866, 5201350) and coordinate (334581, 5178310), follow 5188957), follow BLM boundary to follows BLM boundary to beginning. BLM boundary to beginning. This area beginning. This area is found within the This area is found within the following is found within the following USGS following USGS 1:24000 Quad; USGS 1:24000 Quad; Marcum 1:24000 Quad; Drummond. Starting at Elevation Mountain. Starting at Mountain. Starting at coordinate coordinate (332927, 5176344), follow coordinate (320558, 5188537), follow (355141, 5201112), follow BLM BLM boundary to beginning. This area BLM boundary to beginning. This area boundary to beginning. This area is is found within the following USGS is found within the following USGS found within the following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Drummond. Starting at 1:24000 Quad; Elevation Mountain. 1:24000 Quad; Marcum Mountain.} coordinate (332167, 5175562), follow Starting at coordinate (321011, Starting at coordinate (353703, BLM boundary to beginning. This area 5188258), follow BLM boundary to 5200749), follow BLM boundary to is found within the following USGS beginning. This area is found within the beginning. This area is found within the 1:24000 Quad; Drummond. Starting at following USGS 1:24000 Quad; following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Marcum coordinate (331277, 5182437), follow Elevation Mountain. Starting at Mountain. Starting at coordinate BLM boundary to beginning. This area coordinate (322810, 5187242), follow (355960, 5194323), follow BLM is found within the following USGS BLM boundary to beginning. This area boundary to beginning. This area is 1:24000 Quads; Drummond, Bearmouth, is found within the following USGS found within the following USGS Elevation Mountain, and Wild Horse 1:24000 Quad; Elevation Mountain. 1:24000 Quad; Marcum Mountain.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:03 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP2.SGM 09NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68325

Starting at coordinate (356137, found within the following USGS is found within the following USGS 5193615), follow BLM boundary to 1:24000 Quad; Windy Rock. Starting at 1:24000 Quad; Ophir Creek. Starting at beginning. This area is found within the coordinate (359982, 5166653), follow coordinate (382059, 5164928), follow following USGS 1:24000 Quads; BLM boundary to beginning. This area BLM boundary to beginning. This area Marcum Mountain and Helmville. is found within the following USGS is found within the following USGS Starting at coordinate (357144, 1:24000 Quad; Windy Rock. Starting at 1:24000 Quads; Ophir Creek and Avon. 5190945), follow BLM boundary to coordinate (358776, 5166710), follow Starting at coordinate (380763, beginning. This area is found within the BLM boundary to beginning. This area 5163056), follow BLM boundary to following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Nevada is found within the following USGS beginning. This area is found within the Lake. Starting at coordinate (364695, 1:24000 Quad; Windy Rock. Starting at following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Avon. 5185182), follow BLM boundary to coordinate (371430, 5186097), follow Starting at coordinate (396769, beginning. This area is found within the BLM boundary to beginning. This area 5161893), follow BLM boundary to following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Nevada is found within the following USGS beginning. This area is found within the Lake. Starting at coordinate (353935, 1:24000 Quad; Finn. Starting at following USGS 1:24000 Quad; 5184938), follow BLM boundary to coordinate (370787, 5185789), follow MacDonald Pass. Starting at coordinate beginning. This area is found within the BLM boundary to beginning. This area (397969, 5162113), follow BLM following USGS 1:24000 Quads; Nevada is found within the following USGS boundary to beginning. This area is Lake, Helmville, Bailey Mountain, 1:24000 Quad; Finn. Starting at found within the following USGS Windy Rock, and Gravely Mountain. coordinate (372795, 5182611), follow 1:24000 Quad; MacDonald Pass. Starting {Within this area, lands which are BLM boundary to beginning. This area at coordinate (396918, 5161353), follow designated as proposed critical habitat is found within the following USGS BLM boundary to beginning. This area start at coordinate (361661, 5175019) 1:24000 Quad; Finn. Starting at is found within the following USGS and follows BLM boundary to coordinate (375336, 5182119), follow 1:24000 Quad; MacDonald Pass. beginning. This area is found within the BLM boundary to beginning. This area (xviii) Subunit 17. Starting at the following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Windy is found within the following USGS intersection of the BLM boundary and Rock. Starting at coordinate (360888, 1:24000 Quads; Finn and Nevada the 4000 feet elevation contour (326229, 5173433), follow BLM boundary to Mountain. Starting at coordinate 5210916), follow BLM boundary to beginning. This area is found within the (382582, 5172875), follow BLM intersection with 4000 feet elevation following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Windy boundary to beginning. This area is contour (326529, 5211101). Follow 4000 Rock. Starting at coordinate (363227, found within the following USGS feet elevation contour to beginning. This 5173358), follow BLM boundary to 1:24000 Quads; Ophir Creek and area is found within the following USGS beginning. This area is found within the Esmeralda Hill. {Within this area, land 1:24000 Quad; Woodworth. following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Windy which is designated as proposed critical (xix) Subunit 18. Starting at the Rock. Starting at coordinate (361203, habitat starts at coordinate (384870, intersection of the BLM boundary and 5170807), follow BLM boundary to 5170249) and follows BLM boundary to the 4000 feet elevation contour (299404, beginning. This area is found within the beginning. This area is found within the 5198161), follow 4000 feet elevation following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Windy following USGS 1:24000 Quads; Ophir contour to intersection with BLM Rock.} Starting at coordinate (366405, Creek and Esmeralda Hill.} Starting at boundary (299645, 5198151). Follow 5170924), follow BLM boundary to coordinate (381775, 5171386), follow BLM boundary to beginning. This area beginning. This area is found within the BLM boundary to beginning. This area is found within the following USGS following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Gravely is found within the following USGS 1:24000 Quad; Sunflower Mountain. Mountain. Starting at coordinate 1:24000 Quad; Ophir Creek. Starting at (xx) Note: Map 3 of Unit 3 (Northern (360010, 5167874), follow BLM coordinate (383679, 5167260), follow Rockies) follows: boundary to beginning. This area is BLM boundary to beginning. This area BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:03 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP2.SGM 09NOP2 68326 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:47 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP2.SGM 09NOP2 EP09NO05.027 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68327

(8) Unit 4: North Cascades Unit; feet elevation contour to intersection East McGregor Mountain, McAlester Chelan and Okanogan counties, with BLM boundary (301353, 5421464). Mountain, Gilbert, Midnight Mountain, Washington. Follow BLM boundary to intersection Thompson Ridge, Loup Loup Summit, (i) Coordinate Projection: UTM, with Washington/Canada border Buck Mountain, Cascade Pass, Goode NAD83, Zone 11, Meters. Coordinate (298454, 5431123). Follow Washington/ Mountain, Blue Buck Mountain, Definition: (easting, northing). Unit 4 is Canada border west to intersection with Stehekin, Sun Mountain, Oval Peak, divided into two subunits to facilitate 4000 feet elevation contour (240301, Hoodoo Peak, Twisp West, Thrapp description. 5433596). Follow 4000 feet elevation Mountain, Chiliwist Valley, Lucerne, Prince Creek, Martin Peak, Hungry (ii) Subunit 1. Starting at the contour to intersection with Mountain, Big Goat Mountain, South Washington/Canada border (Whatcom/ Washington/Canada border (239526, Navarre Peak, Oss Peak, Cooper Okanogan Counties boundary— 5433632). Follow Washington/Canada Mountain, Pateros, Manson, Cooper ‘‘Cascade Crest’’) (218319, 5434639), border to beginning. This area is found Ridge, and Azwell. This entire area is follow the ‘‘Cascade Crest’’ south to within the following USGS 1:24000 designated proposed critical habitat coordinate (200268, 5369981). Go south Quads; Skagit Peak, Castle Peak, Frosty except for the following land: Starting at approximately 250 meters (200241, Creek, Ashnola Mountain, Ashnola coordinate (292364, 5384506), follow 5369733) to watercourse (headwaters— Pass, Remmel Mountain, Bauerman BLM boundary to beginning. This area Flat Creek). Follow watercourse (Flat Ridge, Horseshoe Basin, Hurley Peak, is found within the following USGS Creek) to intersection with 4000 feet Nighthawk, Tatoosh Buttes, Shull 1:24000 Quad; Conconully West. elevation contour (201629, 5366872) Mountain, Pasayten Peak, Mount Lago, (iii) Subunit 2. Starting at the (Cascade Pass Quad—USGS 1:24000). Mount Barney, Coleman Peak, Corral intersection of the 4000 feet elevation Follow 4000 feet elevation contour to Butte, Duncan Ridge, Loomis, Lost Peak, contour and BLM boundary (293662, BLM boundary (270630, 5316493). Billy Goat Mountain, Azurite Peak, Slate 5382670), follow 4000 feet elevation Follow BLM boundary east to (270674, Peak, Robinson Mountain, McLeod contour to intersection with BLM 5316490). Follow BLM boundary south Mountain, Sweetgrass Butte, Doe boundary (294496, 5383222). Follow to intersection with 4000 feet elevation Mountain, Spur Peak, Tiffany Mountain, BLM boundary to beginning. This area contour (270651, 5315908). Follow 4000 Coxit Mountain, Blue Goat Mountain, is found within the following USGS feet elevation contour to BLM boundary Forbidden Peak, Mount Logan, Mount 1:24000 Quad; Conconully West. (293481, 5382799). Follow BLM Arriva, Washington Pass, Silver Star boundary north and then east to Mountain, Mazama, Lewis Butte, (iv) Note: Map 4 of Unit 4 (North intersection with 4000 feet elevation Pearrygin Peak, Old Baldy, Conconully Cascades) follows: contour (294577, 5384829). Follow 4000 West, Rendevous Mountain, Conconully BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:47 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP2.SGM 09NOP2 68328 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C Dated: November 1, 2005. * * * * * Craig Manson, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. 05–22193 Filed 11–8–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:03 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP2.SGM 09NOP2 EP09NO05.026