Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of Remanded Determination of Status for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: July 3, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 128)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 40075-40101]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03jy03-13]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AF03

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of Remanded
Determination of Status for the Contiguous United States Distinct
Population Segment of the Canada Lynx

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Clarification of findings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), in response to the
December 26, 2002, memorandum opinion and order of the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia, in the case of Defenders
of Wildlife v. Norton (Civil Action No. 00-2996 (GK)) and pursuant to
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA or Act), provides a
clarification to the findings we made in support of the final rule that
listed Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) (lynx) as threatened. The lynx is
currently listed as threatened in the contiguous United States as a
Distinct Population Segment (DPS) that includes the States of Colorado,
Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New York,
Oregon, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. As a result
of our reanalysis of the basis for that final rule, which was directed
by the Court, we find that the lynx is not endangered throughout a
significant portion of its range. This finding does not affect the
status of the lynx as currently set forth in 50 CFR 17.11; the lynx
continues to be listed as threatened in the States listed above. This
finding also does not affect the special rule pursuant to section 4(d)
of the Act for the Canada lynx set forth in 50 CFR 17.40(k).

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection,
by appointment, during normal business hours at the Montana Field
Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 100 N. Park Avenue, Suite 320,
Helena, Montana 59601.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Wilson, Field Supervisor, Montana
Field Office (see ADDRESSES), telephone 406-449-5225; facsimile 406-
449-5339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Service listed the Canada lynx, hereafter referred to as lynx,
as threatened on March 24, 2000 (65 FR 16052). After listing the lynx
as threatened, plaintiffs in the case of Defenders of Wildlife v.
Norton (Civil Action No. 00-2996 (GK)) initiated action in Federal
District Court, challenging the listing of the lynx as threatened and
alleging violations of the Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (5
U.S.C. 551 et seq.). Plaintiffs argued that the Service acted
arbitrarily and capriciously when it (1) did not treat the four lynx
regions as separate DPSs, (2) determined that the lack of guidance for
conservation of lynx in National Forest Land and Resource Management
Plans and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Resource Area Management
Plans is the single factor threatening the contiguous United States DPS
of lynx, (3) did not designate critical habitat for the lynx, and (4)
determined that ``[c]ollectively, the Northeast, Great Lakes and
Southern Rockies do not constitute a significant portion of the range
of the DPS.''
On December 26, 2002, the Court issued its memorandum opinion and
order, deciding that the Service's determination that ``[c]ollectively,
the Northeast, Great Lakes and Southern Rockies do not constitute a
significant portion of the range of the DPS'' must be set aside and
remanded to the Service for further consideration of the lynx's status
under the ESA consistent with the Court's memorandum opinion. The Court
explained that the Service's determination about the four regions was
counterintuitive and contrary to the plain meaning of the ESA phrase
``significant portion of its range.'' The Court did not address the
issues concerning the threats and the DPSs. The Court also ordered the
Service to ``undertake prompt rulemaking'' in order to designate
critical habitat for lynx, and ordered injunctive relief directed at
section 7 consultation.
The Court ordered the determination concerning a ``significant
portion of its range'' be remanded to the Service and completed within
180 days of the date of the order consistent with the Court's
memorandum opinion. With this document, the Service is providing its
consideration of this issue. This document does not address critical
habitat for the lynx, since our listing budget is currently
insufficient to begin work on a rule for critical habitat. The Service
will seek public comment in the future when it proposes critical
habitat. This document also does not address the special rule for
Canada lynx established in the March 24, 2000, final listing rule. That
rule, which is found in 50 CFR 17.40(k), remains in effect.
As noted above, plaintiffs contend that our determination that
``[c]ollectively, the Northeast, Great Lakes, and Southern Rockies do
not constitute a significant portion of the range of the DPS,'' was
critical to our decision not to list the lynx as endangered. Plaintiffs
maintain that, if those three regions are considered collectively to be
a significant portion of the DPS, ``then the Lynx's highly imperilled
status in those three areas would necessitate listing of the entire DPS
as endangered.'' Pls. Mot. for Summ. J. at 30 (emphasis in original).
However, the Service would need to find that the lynx is endangered in
these areas and that they were significant in order to list the entire
DPS. Therefore, we first reviewed all of the threats to the lynx in
these areas to determine whether it is in danger of extinction in each
area. We identified two areas or parts of areas in which the lynx might
be in danger of extinction. We then determined whether either of those
areas (or parts of areas) constitutes a significant portion of the
range of the lynx.
The remainder of this section describes some important concepts
used throughout the following analysis. Later sections include
background information on the natural history and range of the lynx,
responses to public comments, an analysis of the quantity and quality
of habitat throughout the range of the DPS, an analysis of the threats
facing the species in the areas addressed by the remand, a finding as
to the areas in which the lynx currently are in danger of extirpation,
and a finding that those areas do not constitute a significant portion
of the range of the lynx.
As a preliminary matter, we note that the Court suggested, but did
not decide, that ``significant'' is appropriately defined in this
context as ``a noticeably or measurably large amount,'' citing a
dictionary definition. However, there are other definitions of
significance that pertain to importance. Moreover, we believe this is
more consistent with the intent of the Act in the context of the
provision at issue. Otherwise, a severe threat to a small area within
the range of a species would always require the species to be listed as
endangered, no matter how inconsequential that area might be given the
biology of the species. For example, building a large dam may make the
area covered by the resulting artificial lake unsuitable for an aquatic
species currently resident in the river to be dammed. The area covered
by the lake would be a ``measurably large'' area, and therefore a
measurably large portion of the range of the species.

[[Page 40077]]

However, if the species is sufficiently widespread and healthy, the
area subject to the threat would not be biologically important, and we
believe it was not the intent of Congress that all such circumstances
lead to the listing of all affected species.
Understanding ``significant'' to mean ``important,'' the following
analysis concentrates on applying our understanding of the ecology of
the lynx to the geography of its habitat. This allows us to determine
whether a given area is a significant portion of the range of lynx.
With the help of new information available as a result of ongoing
research, we continue to improve our understanding of lynx ecology in
the contiguous United States. In delineating the range of the lynx in
the contiguous United States, we must take into account lynx life
history requirements, population dynamics, and the natural features of
the vegetation communities that make up lynx habitat. The following
list summarizes fundamental elements that determine the range of the
lynx in the contiguous United States. We describe these elements in
further detail later in this notice.
(1) Lynx in the contiguous United States are at the southern
margins of a widely-distributed lynx population whose center is in
north-central Canada and Alaska. Lynx populations in the contiguous
United States are sustained by cyclic influx from lynx populations in
Canada.
(2) Lynx are specialized predators of snowshoe hare (Lepus
americanus). Lynx populations track hare cycles. Abundant hares are
necessary to support survival of lynx kittens and recruitment into and
maintenance of the lynx population. As a result, depending on habitat
quality, local lynx populations naturally may not be able to survive
through a cyclic low in the hare cycle.
(3) Lynx and snowshoe hare habitat is boreal forest where there are
cold winters with deep snow.
(4) In the contiguous United States, the boreal forest is at its
southernmost extent, transitions into other vegetation communities, and
is naturally patchy. These natural patches may not be big enough or of
high enough quality to support a resident lynx population.
(5) The habitat within these patches changes over time and
location, naturally becoming suitable or unsuitable for lynx with
forest succession or changes in local climate conditions.
(6) Lynx disperse long distances when hare populations decline. As
a result, they can colonize suitable but unoccupied habitats, augment
existing resident populations, or disperse to habitats where they
cannot survive.
As a result of the factors described above, the range of the lynx
in the contiguous United States is comprised of areas supporting
resident, breeding populations and areas supporting occasional
dispersers:
(1) Resident population--Resident, breeding populations exist in
areas of abundant, higher-quality habitat. These areas are ``core''
areas essential to maintaining lynx in the contiguous United States.
During cyclic population lows, resident lynx populations are naturally
reduced to extremely low numbers of individuals. Throughout this
document, we use the term ``resident population'' to refer to a group
of lynx that has exhibited long-term persistence in an area as
determined by a variety of factors, such as evidence of reproduction,
successful recruitment into the breeding cohort, and maintenance of
home ranges.
(2) Dispersers--Lynx records in many parts of the contiguous United
States are of dispersing animals. Lynx occur as dispersers where boreal
forest is isolated, patchy, or of marginal quality such that it cannot
sustain a resident, breeding lynx population. We include areas of the
contiguous United States that contain boreal forest as potential lynx
range. Although dispersing lynx may periodically occupy some of this
range, there is a low probability that habitat quality and quantity are
sufficient to support a breeding population. It is possible that some
of the large outlying patches of boreal forest may periodically support
some breeding lynx; however, evidence of this is minimal and our best
information indicates that these areas are likely to contribute little
to the persistence of the species in the contiguous United States.
Some dispersing lynx are found in completely unsuitable habitats,
such as prairie or deciduous forest, where they are unable to survive
in the long term. We do not include such areas within the range of lynx
because such occurrences are unpredictable and because, to the best of
our knowledge, such areas have not contained conditions capable of
supporting lynx since at least the time of European settlement.
We use the word ``dispersers'' to refer to lynx that have left the
area they originally occupied for various reasons, most often when
snowshoe hare populations decline. To successfully disperse, lynx must
find suitable habitat and a mate and must successfully reproduce
(McKelvey et al. 2000a). Successful dispersals can result in the
colonization of unoccupied habitats and contribute to the persistence
of the metapopulation (as described in the next paragraph).
Unsuccessful dispersal is a natural phenomenon that occurs when lynx
move to habitats that are unable to sustain lynx. These individuals are
unable to survive and are lost from the metapopulation. Unsuccessful
dispersal is demonstrated by records of lynx in areas such as North
Dakota, Nebraska, and Iowa, which cannot support lynx populations in
the long term (Adams 1963; Gunderson 1978; W. Jobman, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, in litt. 1997).
Another word we use is ``metapopulation.'' According to McKelvey et
al. (2000a), a metapopulation is a number of discrete subpopulations
within habitat patches, connected by dispersal. Through time,
subpopulations may go extinct (no longer existing or living) and be
recolonized, but the larger metapopulation persists. We believe lynx in
the contiguous United States are part of a larger metapopulation with
lynx populations in Canada.
The range of the lynx must be considered differently from the range
of other species that are less mobile and have more stable population
dynamics. Because the lynx is highly mobile and has cyclic population
dynamics that are tied to its primary prey, the snowshoe hare, numbers
of lynx naturally fluctuate and become extremely low at times during a
cycle. Additionally, where snowshoe hare populations are not adequate,
resident lynx populations cannot be sustained. Because of this,
resident lynx populations never occurred everywhere boreal forest
existed in the contiguous United States. Where the boreal forest was
naturally more patchy and marginal the habitat was incapable of
supporting an adequate snowshoe hare population that in turn was able
to support a resident lynx population over time. As a result, only a
few areas in the contiguous United States historically supported
adequate quantity and quality of habitat to support resident lynx
populations over time. Many historical lynx occurrences across a large
area of the contiguous United States were likely dispersers. The
occurrence of dispersing lynx is unpredictable, and dispersing lynx
will continue to periodically move into areas that are not lynx
habitat. This historic, natural condition continues to exist today, as
will be discussed in this document.

Natural History

In the following section we describe in more detail than we did in
the final rule the natural history, population

[[Page 40078]]

dynamics, and habitat of lynx in the contiguous United States,
information necessary to delineate lynx range. The lynx is a medium-
sized cat with long legs; large, well-furred paws; long tufts on the
ears; and a short, black-tipped tail (McCord and Cardoza 1982). The
lynx's long legs and large feet make it highly adapted for hunting in
deep snow.
Lynx are highly specialized predators of snowshoe hare. The North
American distribution of the lynx is nearly the same as that of the
snowshoe hare, both of which are strongly associated with boreal forest
(Bittner and Rongstad 1982; McCord and Cardoza 1982; Quinn and Parker
1987; Agee 2000; Aubry et al. 2000; McKelvey et al. 2000b). Boreal
forests are cold and moist with conifer trees, the predominant type of
trees being species of spruce and fir (Elliot-Fisk 1988). Lynx habitat
can be generally described as boreal forests that have cold winters
with deep snow and that provide a snowshoe hare prey base (Quinn and
Parker 1987, McKelvey et al. 2000b, Mowat et al. 2000). For example, in
the Northeast, lynx were most likely to occur in areas with greater
than 268 centimeters (cm) (105 inches (in)) of annual snowfall (Hoving
2001). Boreal forests are naturally dynamic and, therefore, are known
as ``disturbance forests'' (Elliot-Fisk 1988, Agee 2000). The landscape
changes over time and location as the forest undergoes natural
succession following natural or human-caused disturbances such as fire,
insect epidemics, wind, ice, disease, and logging. Large-scale
disturbance is necessary to create the mosaic of different successional
forest stages that provide suitable foraging and denning habitat for
lynx. Lynx in the contiguous United States are at the southern margins
of a widely distributed lynx population that is most abundant in
northern Canada and Alaska.
To understand habitat relationships of lynx one must first
understand the habitat relationships of snowshoe hares, their primary
prey. Snowshoe hares use spruce and fir forests with dense understories
that provide forage, cover to escape from predators, and protection
during extreme weather (Wolfe et al. 1982; Monthey 1986; Hodges 2000a,
2000b). Generally, earlier successional (younger) forest stages have
greater understory structure than do mature forests and, therefore,
support higher hare densities (Fuller 1999, Hodges 2000a, 2000b). Lynx
generally concentrate their hunting activities in areas where hare
populations are high (Koehler et al. 1979; Parker 1981; Ward and Krebs
1985; Major 1989; Murray et al. 1994; O'Donoghue et al. 1997, 1998a).
In Maine, snowshoe hare abundance and lynx occurrence are positively
associated with late regeneration forests (forest stands that are
growing back 12 to 30 years after being clear-cut and have greater than
50 percent canopy closure), evidence that lynx are selecting habitat
primarily on the abundance of primary prey (Hoving 2001).
Lynx numbers and snowshoe hare densities in the contiguous United
States generally do not get as high as in the center of their range in
Canada, and there is no evidence they ever did so in the past (Hodges
2000a, 2000b; McKelvey et al. 2000b). It appears that northern and
southern hare populations have similar cyclic dynamics but that in
southern areas both peak and low densities are lower than in the north
(Hodges 2000b). However, it is unclear whether hare populations cycle
everywhere in the contiguous United States. Relatively low snowshoe
hare densities at southern latitudes are likely a result of the
naturally patchy, transitional boreal habitat at southern latitudes
that prevents hare populations from achieving densities similar to
those of the expansive northern boreal forest (Wolff 1980; Buehler and
Keith 1982; Koehler 1990; Koehler and Aubry 1994). Additionally, the
presence of more predators and competitors of hares at southern
latitudes may inhibit the potential for high-density hare populations
with extreme cyclic fluctuations (Wolff 1980). As a result of naturally
lower snowshoe hare densities, lynx densities at the southern part of
the range rarely achieve the high densities that occur in the northern
boreal forest (Aubry et al. 2000).
The association between lynx and snowshoe hare is considered a
classic predator-prey relationship (Saunders 1963; van Zyll de Jong
1966; Quinn and Parker 1987, Krebs et al. 2001). In northern Canada and
Alaska, lynx populations fluctuate on approximately 10-year cycles that
follow the cycles of hare populations (Elton and Nicholson 1942; Hodges
2000a, 2000b; McKelvey et al. 2000b). Generally, researchers believe
that when hare populations are at their cyclic high, the interaction of
predation and food supply causes hare populations to decline
drastically (Buehler and Keith 1982; Krebs et al. 1995; O'Donoghue et
al. 1997, Krebs et al. 2001). There is little evidence of regular
snowshoe hare cycles in the Northeast and southern Quebec (Hoving
2001), but hare populations do fluctuate widely in this region. Hare
fluctuations in this region may be more influenced by forest practices,
weather, and other ecological factors. Snowshoe hare provide the
quality prey necessary to support high-density lynx populations (Brand
and Keith 1979). Lynx also prey opportunistically on other small
mammals and birds, particularly when hare populations decline (Nellis
et al. 1972; Brand et al. 1976; McCord and Cardoza 1982; O'Donoghue et
al. 1997, 1998a). Red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) are an
important alternate prey (O'Donoghue et al. 1997; 1998a; Apps 2000;
Aubry et al. 2000). However, a shift to alternate food sources may not
sufficiently compensate for the decrease in hares consumed to be
adequate for lynx reproduction and kitten survival (Brand and Keith
1979, Koehler 1990, Koehler and Aubry 1994). When snowshoe hare
densities decline, the lower quality diet causes sudden decreases in
the productivity of adult female lynx and decreased survival of
kittens, if any are born during this time; as a result, recruitment of
young into the population nearly ceases during cyclic lows of snowshoe
hare populations (Nellis et al. 1972; Brand et al. 1976; Brand and
Keith 1979; Poole 1994; Slough and Mowat 1996; O'Donoghue et al. 1997,
Mowat et al. 2000).
Lynx den sites are found where coarse woody debris, such as downed
logs and windfalls, provides denning sites with security and thermal
cover for lynx kittens (McCord and Cardoza 1982; Koehler 1990; Koehler
and Brittell 1990; Slough 1999; Squires and Laurion 2000; J. Organ,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in litt. 1999). The integral component
for all lynx den sites appears to be the amount of downed, woody debris
present, not the age of the forest stand (Mowat et al. 2000). In Maine,
17 den sites have been located in a variety of stand types, including
10- to 20-year-old clear-cut and adjacent residual stands (J. Organ,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in litt. 1999; G. Matula, Maine
Department Inland Fisheries and Wildlife in litt. 2003). Maine den
sites are characterized by regenerating hardwoods and softwoods, dense
understory, and abundant coarse woody debris (J. Organ, in litt. 1999,
2003). In Washington, lynx denned in lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta),
spruce (Picea spp.), and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) forests older
than 200 years with an abundance of downed woody debris (Koehler 1990).
A den site in Wyoming was located in a mature subalpine fir/lodgepole
pine forest with abundant downed logs and dense understory (Squires and
Laurion 2000).
Lynx require very large areas containing boreal forest habitat. In
the Northeast, lynx were most likely to occur in areas containing
suitable

[[Page 40079]]

habitat that were greater than 100 square kilometers (km \2\) (40
square miles (mi \2\)) (Hoving 2001). The requirement for large areas
also is demonstrated by home ranges that encompass many square miles.
The size of lynx home ranges varies by the animal's gender and age,
abundance of prey, season, and the density of lynx populations (Hatler
1988; Koehler 1990; Poole 1994; Slough and Mowat 1996; Aubry et al.
2000; Mowat et al. 2000). Based on a limited number of studies in
southern boreal forest, the average home range for males is 151 km \2\
(58 mi \2\), for females it is 72 km \2\ (28 mi \2\) (Aubry et al.
2000). Recent home range estimates from Maine are 70 km \2\ (27 mi \2\)
for males and 52 km \2\ (20 mi \2\) for females (G. Matula, in litt.
2003). However, documented home ranges in both the southern and
northern boreal forest vary widely from 8 to 800 km \2\ (3 to 300 mi
\2\) (Saunders 1963; Brand et al. 1976; Mech 1980; Parker et al. 1983;
Koehler and Aubry 1994; Apps 2000; Mowat et al. 2000; Squires and
Laurion 2000; Squires et al. 2001; G. Matula, in litt. 2003).
Generally, it is believed that larger home ranges, such as have been
documented in some areas in the southern extent of the species' range
in the West, are a response to lower-density snowshoe hare populations
(Koehler and Aubry 1994; Apps 2000; Squires and Laurion 2000).
Lynx are highly mobile and have a propensity to disperse. Long-
distance movements (greater than 100 kilometers (km) (60 miles (mi)))
are characteristic (Mowat et al. 2000). Lynx disperse primarily when
snowshoe hare populations decline (Ward and Krebs 1985; Koehler and
Aubry 1994; O'Donoghue et al. 1997; Poole 1997). Subadult lynx also
disperse even when prey is abundant (Poole 1997), presumably as an
innate response to establish home ranges. Lynx also make exploratory
movements outside their home ranges (Squires et al. 2001). Lynx are
capable of moving extremely long distances (greater than 500 km (300
mi)) (Mech 1977; Brainerd 1985; Washington Department of Wildlife 1993;
Poole 1997; Mowat et al. 2000; Squires et al. 2001); for example, a
male was documented traveling 620 km (380 mi) (Brainerd 1985). A male
lynx in Wyoming made an exploratory movement of 730 km (450 mi) round
trip from its home range (Squires et al. 2001). While it is assumed
lynx would prefer to travel where there is forested cover, the
literature contains many examples of lynx crossing large, unforested
openings (Roe et al. 2000). The ability of both male and female lynx to
disperse long distances, crossing unsuitable habitats, indicates they
are capable of colonizing suitable habitats and finding potential mates
in areas that are isolated from source lynx populations.

Range of Lynx in the Contiguous United States

Within the contiguous United States, the lynx's range coincides
with that of the southern margins of the boreal forest along the
Appalachian Mountains in the Northeast, the western Great Lakes and the
Rocky Mountains and Cascade Mountains in the West. In these areas, the
boreal forest is at its southern limits, becoming naturally fragmented
into patches of varying size as it transitions into subalpine forest in
the West and deciduous temperate forest in the east (Agee 2000,
Wisconsin Department Natural Resources, in litt. 2003). Because the
boreal forest transitions into other forest types to the south,
scientists have difficulty mapping its exact boundaries (Elliot-Fisk
1988). Therefore, precisely identifying and describing the distribution
of lynx habitat also is difficult because there are several vegetation
and landform classifications and descriptions that have been published
for various parts of North America (U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of
Land Management 1999). However, the term ``boreal forest'' broadly
encompasses most of the vegetative descriptions of this transitional
forest type that makes up lynx habitat in the contiguous U.S. (Agee
2000).
In addition to appropriate vegetation type, delineation of the
range of the lynx within the contiguous United States must consider
snow conditions. Lynx are at a competitive advantage over other
carnivores (e.g., bobcats (Lynx rufus) or coyotes (Canis latrans)) in
areas that have cold winters with deep snow because of the lynx's
morphological adaptations for hunting and surviving in such
environments. Therefore, lynx populations may not be able to
successfully compete and persist in areas with insufficient snow even
if suitable forest conditions otherwise appear to be present (Ruediger
et al. 2000; Ruggiero et al. 2000b; Hoving 2001; S. Hassett, Wisconsin
Department Natural Resources, in litt. 2003). A consistent winter
presence of bobcats indicates such areas are not of high quality for
lynx.
Lynx in the contiguous United States are part of a larger
metapopulation whose center is located in the northern boreal forest of
central Canada; lynx populations emanate from this area (Buskirk et al.
2000b; McKelvey 2000a, 2000b). It appears hare populations and, as a
result, lynx populations in the southern part of the range are cyclic,
although the amplitude of the fluctuations in this portion of the range
is not as extreme as in the center of the range (Aubry et al. 2000;
Hodges 2000a, 2000b; Malloy 2000; McKelvey 2000b). When there is a high
in the lynx population in central Canada, it acts like a wave radiating
out to the margins of the lynx range (McKelvey et al. 2000a, 2000b). We
know from historic data that the magnitude of the lynx population high
emanating from the central Canadian boreal forest varies for each cycle
(McKelvey et al. 2000a, 2000b). This wave can be produced by local
populations reacting to environmental conditions, dispersers, or a
combination of these (McKelvey et al. 2000b). Schwartz et al. (2002)
concluded this wave is driven by dispersers, based on findings of a
high level of gene flow between lynx in Alaska, Canada, and the western
United States.
Lynx populations in the northeastern United States and southeastern
Canada are separated from those in north-central Canada by the St.
Lawrence River. There is little evidence of regular hare or lynx
population cycles in this area (Hoving 2001), but wide fluctuations in
lynx and snowshoe hare populations do occur. On a smaller scale,
fluctuating populations in the core of this area (Quebec's Gaspe
Peninsula, western New Brunswick, and northern Maine) can potentially
influence lynx distribution up to several hundred miles distant.
We believe lynx dispersing during periods of population highs will
occupy many patches of boreal habitat at the periphery of their range.
Some patches will be suitable to maintain a long-term population and
some will not. Where the boreal forest habitat patches within the
contiguous United States are large, with suitable habitat, prey, and
snow conditions, resident populations of lynx are able to survive
throughout the low period of the approximately 10-year cycle. Most
likely the influx of lynx from populations in Canada at the high point
of the cycle augments these resident populations. It is likely that
some of these habitat patches within the contiguous United States are
able to act as sources of lynx (where recruitment is greater than
mortality) that are able to disperse and potentially colonize other
patches (McKelvey et al. 2000a).
In other areas, the lynx that remain in an area after a cyclic
population high may be so few or in naturally marginal habitat that
they are not able to persist or establish local populations, although
some reproduction may occur. Such

[[Page 40080]]

areas naturally act as ``sinks,'' where lynx mortality is greater than
recruitment and lynx are lost from the overall population (McKelvey et
al. 2000a). Sink habitats are most likely those places on the periphery
of the southern boreal forest where habitat naturally becomes more
patchy and more distant from larger lynx populations. We consider lynx
found in these sink habitats to be dispersers but we include these
areas within the range of the lynx. Changes in the habitat conditions
or cyclic fluctuations in the prey populations may cause some habitat
patches to change from being sinks to sources and vice versa. Through
this natural process, local lynx populations in the contiguous United
States may ``blink'' in and out as the metapopulation goes through the
10-year cycle. We conclude that where habitat is of high enough quality
and quantity, resident lynx populations are able to become established
or existing populations are augmented, aiding in their long-term
persistence.
We include areas that contain boreal forest but that support only
dispersers within the range of the lynx because of the possibility lynx
could establish a small, local population and contribute to the
persistence of the metapopulation. However, evidence of this is
minimal.
An example of the cyclic population ``wave'' occurred in the 1960s
and 1970s, when numerous lynx were reported in the contiguous United
States far from source lynx populations. These records of dispersing
lynx correlate to unprecedented cyclic lynx highs in Canada (Adams
1963; Harger 1965; Mech 1973; Gunderson 1978; Thiel 1987; McKelvey et
al. 2000b; Mowat et al. 2000). These dispersers frequently were
documented in areas such as Wisconsin, that are close to source
populations of lynx in Canada or possibly northeastern Minnesota and
that contain some boreal forest. But there also have been a number of
occurrences of dispersers in unsuitable habitats far from source
populations, such as North Dakota prairie (Adams 1963; Gunderson 1978;
Thiel 1987; McKelvey et al. 2000b; Verts and Carraway 2001).
Rather than recognizing that the cyclic peaks of the early 1960s
and 1970s were anomalous highs for the 20th century, as explained in
the final rule, some wildlife managers expected subsequent cycles to be
equally high. Managers became concerned when harvest returns in the
1980s and 1990s indicated comparatively low cycles. However, as
thoroughly described in the final rule, lynx harvest returns in the
1980s and early 1990s were not unusual nor appreciably lower than those
recorded prior to the 1960s.
Some maps (e.g., Hall and Kelson 1959, Tanimoto and Garton 1993)
incorrectly portray the range of the lynx by encompassing peripheral
records from areas that are not within boreal forest or do not have
cold winters with deep snow, such as prairie or deciduous forest. Such
maps have led to a misperception that the historic range of the lynx in
the contiguous United States was once much more extensive than
ecologically possible. Records of lynx outside of southern boreal
forest in peripheral habitats that are unable to support lynx represent
long-distance dispersers that are lost from the metapopulation unless
they return to boreal forest and contribute to the persistence of a
population. These unpredictable and temporary occurrences are not
included within either the historic or current range of lynx because
they are well outside of lynx habitat. This includes records from
Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, North
Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Virginia (Hall and Kelson
1959; Burt 1954 in Brocke 1982; Gunderson 1978; McKelvey et al. 2000b;
J. Belfonti, The Nature Conservancy, in litt. 1994; S. Johnson, Indiana
Department of Natural Resources, in litt. 1994; P. Jones, Ohio
Department of Natural Resources, in litt. 1994; South Dakota Natural
Heritage Program, in litt. 1994; W. Jobman, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, in litt. 1997; Smithsonian Institute, in litt. 1998). In the
proposed rule to list the lynx, we included Massachusetts and
Pennsylvania in the historic range of the lynx but removed those areas
from the range in the final rule because of better information that
historically habitat in these States was not capable of supporting
lynx. We consider both the historic and current range to consist of
Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire,
New York, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming
because these States support some boreal forest and have more frequent
records of lynx.

Previous Federal Action

The final rule that listed lynx as threatened in the contiguous
United States described the history of the Service's actions concerning
the listing of the lynx. That discussion is incorporated herein by
reference. Since publication of the final rule and as a result of the
litigation that requires us to reconsider our determination about the
significant portion of the range of lynx, we reopened the comment
period for 30 days to acquire information to assist us during our
reconsideration (March 17, 2003, 68 FR 12611). This comment period
closed on April 16, 2003.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

As a result of the reopened comment period in March and April 2003,
the Service received 118 comments and recommendations. Of these
comments, 2 were from Congressional or Legislative officials, 6 were
from Federal agencies; 6 from States; 2 from County Commissioners, 17
from environmental organizations, 3 from businesses, 9 from Industry
Trade Associations, 1 from a University, and 70 from individuals. Some
commenters provided information relevant to our determination regarding
the significant portion of the range of lynx. Comments of a similar
nature are grouped into general issues. These issues and our responses
are discussed below.
We received numerous comments covering a broad spectrum of lynx-
related issues that are not the subject of this notice or are beyond
the scope of the court's remand. We are not addressing these comments
in this document. These comments covered such subjects as: designation
of critical habitat for lynx; the existence of various DPSs of lynx;
general support for or opposition to protection of lynx under the Act;
support for or opposition to lynx re-introduction efforts; classifying
the lynx re-introduction in the Southern Rocky Mountains as an
experimental, non-essential population; concern that the Service was
prioritizing the listing and protection of charismatic mega-fauna ahead
of other flora and fauna; the competency and intent of the Service; an
internet retail vendor of lynx pelts; recovery planning; and
streamlining section 7 consultations. In particular, we received a
number of comments as to the status of the lynx throughout the U.S. DPS
(i.e., endangered, threatened, or neither). However, the only portion
of our March 24, 2000 final listing determination that the court
remanded for further consideration was our determination that
``[c]ollectively, the Northeast, Great Lakes and Southern Rockies do
not constitute a significant portion of the range of the DPS.'' Our
finding on this limited remand is discussed below. To the extent that
the information we received since the final listing determination, or
that we receive in the future, causes us to reevaluate the listing of
the lynx, we will issue an appropriate proposed rule when resources
allow.

[[Page 40081]]

We conducted peer review of the proposed rule to list the
contiguous United States population of lynx during the open public
comment period in 1998. For this court-ordered reanalysis of the 2000
final rule listing the lynx, we did not have time to conduct additional
peer review.
Issue 1: Technical information was provided based on recent
research on lynx and snowshoe hares in Maine and Montana. Additional
technical information on lynx populations and lynx habitat quality and
quantity was provided by the State of Maine, the State of Vermont, the
State of Colorado, the State of Wisconsin, the State of Wyoming, the
State of Minnesota, research by the University of Maine and the
University of Montana, the U.S. Forest Service, the BLM, the National
Park Service, a number of environmental and industry groups, and
individuals.
Response: We incorporated this information into this document.
Issue 2: Several commenters expressed support or concern for the
Service's determination considering the significant portion of the
range of the lynx. Specifically, commenters explained their concerns
about whether or not the Northeast, Great Lakes, or the Southern
Rockies constitute a significant portion of the range of the lynx.
Response: The Act defines ``endangered species'' as any species
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. A ``threatened species'' is any species which is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The District
Court found our determination that the Northeast, Great Lakes, and the
Southern Rockies do not constitute a significant portion of the range
of the lynx was arbitrary and capricious, and as a result of that
finding, directed us to reevaluate it. Based on our reanalysis, we have
determined that lynx is not in danger of extinction throughout a
significant portion of its range in the contiguous United States DPS.
Issue 3: Several commenters opposed combining the Cascades in
general, or specific locations within Washington, with the Northern
Rocky Mountain region for our analysis.
Response: We combine the Cascades with the Northern Rocky Mountain
region for our analysis and for convenience only because the issues in
both regions are similar and frequently the best information available
addressed both regions. The two areas are separated by the Okanogan
River valley in northern Washington, which lynx can cross, although we
believe most movement of lynx to be north-south within contiguous
habitat with Canada and less likely that lynx would move between
habitat patches within Washington. Furthermore, the Cascades alone
supports the smallest amount of lynx habitat of any region within the
contiguous United States. The relative size and close proximity of the
lynx habitat in the Cascades to that in the Northern Rocky Mountains
further supports considering both areas as one. Combining these two
regions has not in any way diminished or obscured our analysis of the
status of lynx or the threats to the species.
Issue 4: Several commenters suggested the Cascades, the Cascades/
Northern Rocky Mountains, the Southern Rockies, the Great Lakes, and
the Northeast Lynx populations should each be designated as individual
DPSs. Other commenters believed the contiguous United States as a whole
does not fulfill the criteria to be a DPS for lynx.
Response: Reevaluation of DPS issues is outside of the scope of the
remand in this case. However, because the plaintiffs' claims regarding
application of the Service's authority to list DPSs have not yet been
addressed by the court, we are responding to these comments to update
and elaborate on our analysis in the final rule. The Act gives us the
authority to list fish, wildlife and plants by species, subspecies, or
by DPS of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds
when mature. However, Congress directed that we use our authority to
list by DPS sparingly (see Senate Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st
Session). The Service and National Marine Fisheries Service DPS policy
(61 FR 4721) identifies criteria that must be met for a vertebrate
group to qualify as a DPS, but it does not require that we designate a
DPS in all cases where a vertebrate group meets the DPS criteria. The
Service lists, reclassifies, or delists at the level we believe to be
most appropriate to carry out the conservation provisions of the Act.
In this document we reaffirm our determination in the final rule to
list the lynx in the contiguous United States as a single DPS. There
has been no new information since the final rule was published in 2000
that compels us to change our original determination. Subsequent to
issuing the proposal to list the lynx in 1998, we evaluated whether any
of the four regions individually fulfilled the criteria to be listed as
a DPS. As described in the final rule, we recognize that within the
contiguous United States the lynx occurs in four regions--the
Northeast, Great Lakes, Southern Rocky Mountains, and Northern Rocky
Mountains/Cascades. As described elsewhere in this document, we combine
the Northern Rocky Mountains and Cascades in our analysis because the
two regions are only separated by the Okanogan River valley, which lynx
can cross, and forest types and land ownership are similar.
Furthermore, the Cascades alone support the least amount of lynx
habitat of any region in the contiguous United States. In evaluating
whether a region qualified as a separate DPS, we analyzed whether lynx
in each region were both discrete and significant, as required by our
DPS policy. We concluded that within the contiguous United States these
regions are geographically isolated from each other and, therefore, are
discrete. Since the final rule, we are less certain that the Southern
Rocky Mountains regions were historically as isolated as described by
some authors. We believe it is likely that lynx in the Southern Rocky
Mountains region may have been dispersers that arrived during extremely
high population cycles, as indicated by the fact that the last verified
record of lynx in the region is from 1973, which correlates to an
extreme cyclic population high documented throughout the contiguous
United States and in Canada. As a result, our original conclusion that
the Southern Rocky Mountains supported an isolated resident lynx
population may not be correct, and the region should perhaps be
considered connected to the Northern Rocky Mountains/Cascades region.
When evaluating the status of a potential DPS, the DPS policy
requires that we evaluate the significance of the population segment in
relation to the taxon. A taxon is the taxonomic group of animals to
which the population belongs--in this case the species Lynx canadensis.
The DPS policy identifies elements that may be considered in
determining the discrete population segment's importance to the taxon
to which it belongs. These include: (1) Persistence of the discrete
population segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the
taxon, (2) evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would
result in a significant gap in the range of a taxon, (3) evidence that
the discrete population segment represents the only surviving natural
occurrence of a taxon, and (4) evidence that the discrete population
segment differs markedly from other populations

[[Page 40082]]

of the species in its genetic characteristics.
Lynx canadensis has an extensive distribution in North America,
existing in the boreal forest from Alaska throughout Canada from the
Yukon and Northwest Territories south across the United States border
and east to the Maritime Provinces and the Island of Newfoundland. Of
the entire North American range of the lynx, only a small portion
extends into the contiguous United States. Individually, the Northeast,
Great Lakes, Southern Rocky Mountains, and Northern Rocky Mountains/
Cascades account for an extremely small fraction of the entire range of
the taxon, the loss of which would not result in a significant gap in
the range of the taxon. Within all four regions of the contiguous
United States the distribution of lynx is associated with the southern
extensions of the boreal forest, where the predominant vegetation in
each region is spruce and fir types, although the individual species of
vegetation varies. As is true throughout the range of Lynx canadensis,
within these boreal forests in each region within the contiguous United
States, the important element for lynx is forest structure that
provides food and cover for snowshoe hares. Lynx cannot sustain
breeding populations without an adequate snowshoe hare population.
Additionally, the forest must provide cover for lynx dens. Such habitat
conditions occur in each of the four regions. As a result, we
determined that none of the regions individually constitute
significantly unique or unusual ecological settings. The only genetic
analysis of lynx populations shows that there is a high level of gene
flow between lynx populations in Alaska, western Canada and the western
contiguous United States (Schwartz et al. 2002). Genetic analysis
comparing lynx populations within the contiguous United States has not
been done. Finally, lynx in the different regions of the contiguous
United States clearly are not the only surviving natural occurrence of
lynx. Therefore, the individual regions do not fulfill the significance
criteria under our DPS policy and, as a result, do not constitute
separate DPSs. The DPS policy allows us to use the international
boundary with Canada to delineate a discrete DPS in the contiguous
United States. As described in the final rule, lynx in the contiguous
United States may be considered ecologically significant because lynx
habitat in the contiguous United States is a transitional type of
southern boreal forest rather than the classic boreal forest of
northern latitudes in Canada and Alaska, which is the center of lynx
range. Within this transitional boreal forest within the contiguous
United States there are core areas in Maine, Minnesota, Montana,
Washington and likely Idaho that support resident, breeding lynx
populations, the loss of which would result in a significant gap in the
range of lynx. Therefore, we once again conclude the listable entity is
the contiguous United States DPS of the lynx, consisting of the
Northeast, Great Lakes, Southern Rocky Mountains, and Northern Rocky
Mountains/Cascades.
Issue 5: Several commenters raised concerns about threats that were
beyond the control of Federal land management practices, particularly
in the Northeast where much of the forested lynx habitat is primarily
in private ownership.
Response: We recognize that lynx habitat occurs on non-Federal
lands, particularly in the Northeast. We do not have specific
information on the amount of lynx habitat on non-Federal lands nor
precise information on the type of activities that occur on such lands.
Non-Federal landowners are under no obligation to identify lynx habitat
on their lands nor do they have to supply any information to the
Service regarding these lands. We solicited information about non-
Federal lands during the reopened comment period. To the extent
possible, we attempted to better understand and assess the activities
on non-Federal lands that could affect lynx. Our analysis is described
in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' section.
Issue 6: Several other comments noted the reduced threat on Federal
lands, particularly National Forest lands, resulting from lynx habitat
management plans.
Response: We agree that threats to lynx as a result of a lack of
Federal land management plan guidance to conserve lynx, as identified
in the final rule, have been somewhat alleviated. As described in
``Factor D,'' Conservation Agreements the U.S. Forest Service and BLM
have with the Service, and the biological opinion on National Forest
and BLM land management plans committed the U.S. Forest Service and BLM
to use the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) in
determining the effects of actions on lynx. The U.S. Forest Service
further committed to deferring any actions that both would adversely
affect lynx and do not involve third parties until such time as the
Forest Plans are amended to adequately conserve lynx. The ongoing
adherence to the Conservation Agreements and programmatic biological
opinion and use of the LCAS in assessing the impacts of Federal actions
has been effective in removing most threats to the species on these
Federal lands. However, amendment or revision of National Forest and
BLM land management plans to conserve lynx is still the strongest
mechanism needed to ensure lynx and lynx habitat are conserved on
National Forest and BLM lands for the long term (see Factor D).
Issue 7: Several commenters suggested that habitat features (such
as snow depth, forest composition, prey abundance, elevation,
connectivity with lynx populations in Canada) that vary among regions
and affect habitat quality may not exist in peripheral areas. Other
commenters suggested that generalizations about western lynx
populations cannot be applied to the East. Other commenters made
recommendations as to how lynx habitat should or should not be defined
according to certain vegetation types or descriptions.
Response: Our understanding of lynx habitat requirements is
continually refined with ongoing research. We have a better
understanding of the habitat conditions based on information from areas
where there have been numerous records of lynx over many years and,
especially, where resident, breeding populations of lynx have existed
over time. Based on the best available information, the key to the
presence of lynx populations is adequate snowshoe hare populations.
Therefore, habitat conditions and vegetation types that support
adequate densities and distribution of snowshoe hares and deep snows
are what we consider to be lynx habitat. In general, lynx and snowshoe
hare habitats are described as moist boreal forest types that receive
deep snow and cold winters (Bittner and Rongstad 1982; McCord and
Cardoza 1982; Quinn and Parker 1987; Elliot-Fisk 1988; Agee 2000; Aubry
et al. 2000; McKelvey et al. 2000b; Ruediger et al. 2000). It is well
established that lynx are highly mobile and are frequently found in
marginal forest types or completely unsuitable habitats that cannot
sustain lynx. The fact that individual lynx have been found in such
areas does not mean that those areas can support a lynx population or
should be considered or managed as ``lynx habitat'' (J. Claar et al.,
in litt. 2001). To be considered lynx habitat, an area must have the
potential to sustain a lynx population over a period of time, which
includes supporting the appropriate vegetation composition and
structure to support adequate snowshoe hare densities and deep snow
where lynx are at a competitive advantage. We recognize

[[Page 40083]]

that the specific vegetation composition of the boreal forest type
varies among the regions. Additionally, we recognize that boreal forest
types on the periphery of the boreal forest range are found in smaller
patches and are only marginally able to support adequate snowshoe hare
populations. We conclude records of lynx in these marginal areas or in
other areas without lynx habitat are of dispersers. Although there is
no evidence that such habitats are able to sustain a resident lynx
population, we include all areas with lynx occurrences and lynx
habitat, however marginal, within the range of lynx.
Issue 8: One comment suggested lynx historically inhabited the
Black Hills of South Dakota as a permanent resident. Another comment
suggested northern mountain ranges in New Mexico should be included
within the range of lynx.
Response: The scientific literature definitively demonstrates that
lynx are specialist predators of snowshoe hares and do not successfully
reproduce without an adequate diet of snowshoe hares (Brand and Keith
1979). Snowshoe hares are not indigenous to South Dakota (American
Society of Mammalogists Web site). Therefore, we conclude South Dakota
naturally could not support a lynx population. We recognize that
dispersing lynx have occurred in unsuitable habitats such as in South
Dakota; however, we do not include areas of unsuitable habitat within
the range of lynx. We do not include New Mexico within the range of
lynx because we have no reliable records of native lynx occurring in
New Mexico. Lynx are not included on the list of Mammals of New Mexico
(American Society of Mammalogists Web site). We do not consider lynx
recently released into Colorado that strayed into New Mexico as
sufficient reason to include New Mexico within the range of native lynx
because there is no evidence habitat in New Mexico historically
supported lynx.
Issue 9: A number of comments reported lynx sightings or lynx
tracks in New York, New Hampshire, Washington, and Wyoming.
Response: Because lynx are difficult to identify and are often
confused with bobcats, we must consider the majority of these reports
anecdotal. Nonetheless, because of the existence of reliable lynx
records from these States, in addition to the presence of lynx habitat,
we include all these States within the range of lynx.
Issue 10: Some comments voiced concern that evidence of lynx in
some areas was a result of a survey that was subsequently found to have
been contaminated.
Response: In this reanalysis of the basis for our final rule, we
did not use any information from that particular survey, the results of
which have been rescinded by the author because of the contamination of
samples. The majority of the evidence of lynx in the contiguous United
States is from trapping records, research, and sightings or track
surveys by qualified individuals. Results of positive identification of
lynx by DNA acquired during the National Lynx Survey (K. McKelvey,
Rocky Mountain Research Station, in litt. 2003) provide additional
evidence of lynx. The integrity of the National Lynx Survey has been
maintained because of the survey method, DNA analyses, and measures
used to ensure quality and reliability.
Issue 11: We received a number of comments suggesting that certain
land use activities, particularly timber management practices,
adversely impact lynx habitat and are incompatible with lynx survival.
Alternatively, one comment suggested that pre-commercial thinning can
be compatible with objectives for high-quality lynx habitat.
Response: Timber harvesting can be beneficial, benign, or
detrimental to lynx depending on harvest methods, spatial and temporal
specifications, and the inherent vegetation potential of the site.
Forest practices in lynx habitat that result in or retain a dense
understory provide good snowshoe hare habitat that in turn provides
good foraging habitat for lynx. In Maine, extensive clear cutting over
the past 25 years has resulted in a large amount of the forest
currently in a stage of regeneration that is optimal for snowshoe hares
and lynx. However, research in Maine has shown that snowshoe hare
densities are low in forest stands that have been partially harvested
such that there is little understory to provide snowshoe hare habitat.
The effects of forest practices on lynx are described and analyzed
under Factor A.
Issue 12: Several comments raised concerns about the impacts of
various activities on lynx habitat. Activities identified by commenters
include roads and trails; agricultural and urban development; off-road-
vehicle and snowmobile use; ski resort expansion; mining; fire
suppression; and grazing.
Response: We address the potential threats to lynx under the
``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' section. As a result of
our analysis, we found the threat to lynx by some of these activities,
such as fire suppression, is low. We found no evidence that some
activities, such as forest roads, pose a threat to lynx. Some of the
activities suggested, such as mining and grazing, were not specifically
addressed because we have no information to indicate they pose threats
to lynx.
In considering threats to lynx, one must consider that lynx have
evolved to adapt to an ever-changing boreal forest and require a mosaic
within the boreal forest of appropriate species composition, varying
stand ages, and structure to support abundant snowshoe hares and lynx
denning habitat. Additionally, one must consider scale. Lynx are highly
mobile, moving long distances to find abundant prey, and use a large
area on a landscape as demonstrated by the large size of an average
lynx home range. To significantly impact a local lynx population, an
activity would likely have to occur across a very large area
(presumably at least the size of several home ranges), create a
homogeneous forest that does not provide the various stand ages,
species composition, and structure that are good snowshoe hare and lynx
habitat, or result in a barrier that effectively precludes dispersal
(see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section).
Issue 13: One comment suggested that climate change posed a threat
to southern lynx populations.
Response: This comment is based on a model that predicted that if
average annual snow depths decrease for a long period of time in the
Northeast, appropriate lynx habitat would be diminished and could be
completely eliminated if appropriate climate conditions did not return,
as the author theorized could happen as a result of global warming
(Hoving 2001). We conclude the potential for long-term reductions in
snow depth because of climate change is speculative at this time and is
not a threat to lynx within the foreseeable future (see Factor E).
Issue 14: One comment suggested a State-sanctioned coyote snaring
program threatens the lynx population in Maine.
Response: As addressed under Factor D, we recognize that legal
trapping, snaring, and hunting for bobcat, coyote, wolverine, and other
furbearers create a potential for incidental capture or shooting of
lynx. We acknowledge that no reliable recordkeeping exists to determine
how frequently such take occurs. Mortality of captured individuals
likely has differing impacts on the ability of local populations to
persist, depending on the size of the local population and when the
take occurs in the population cycle. Lynx still persist throughout
their range despite the fact that incidental catch occurred
historically, in all likelihood at higher levels than presently occur.
Although we are concerned about the

[[Page 40084]]

mortality of lynx that are incidentally captured, we have no
information to indicate that the loss of these individuals negatively
affects the overall ability of lynx populations to persist.

Introduction to Remand Analysis

In the final rule, we found that ``[c]ollectively, the Northeast,
Great Lakes and Southern Rockies do not constitute a significant
portion of the range of the DPS.'' The following reanalysis of that
finding is based on the administrative record, information obtained by
the Service during the comment period opened to address the issues on
remand, and the Court's opinion in the litigation. As discussed above,
we address first whether there were any areas in the range of the lynx
outside of the Northern Rockies in which the lynx is in danger of
extirpation. Our analysis of whether extirpation will occur is based on
the five factors listed in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. For any such
areas, we then determine whether they constitute a significant portion
of the range of the lynx, based largely on the quantity and quality of
the habitat in the portion of the range in question.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4 of the Act and regulations (50 CFR part 424) promulgated
to implement the listing provisions of the Act set forth the procedures
for adding species to the Federal lists. A species may be determined to
be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five
factors described in section 4(a)(1). These factors and their
application to the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) were discussed in the
final rule. Highlighted below are the key points raised in the final
rule and the conclusions we made about whether certain activities or
conditions threaten Canada lynx to the extent that those points are
relevant to the three areas at issue in this remand. If new information
changes a statement or conclusion made in the final rule, this point
will be made in this analysis. Also discussed below is any new
information we received about the five listing factors and their
application to lynx during the reopened comment period initiated as a
result of the remanded decision. Finally, in this document, we assess
the magnitude of the threats to lynx to assist us in determining the
status of the species in the areas at issue.
In considering threats to lynx and whether those threats are low,
medium, or high, one must consider that lynx have evolved to adapt to
an ever-changing boreal forest and require a mosaic within the boreal
forest of appropriate species composition, varying stand ages, and
structure to support abundant snowshoe hares and lynx denning habitat.
Additionally, one must consider scale. Lynx are naturally highly
mobile, moving long distances to find abundant prey, and use a large
area on a landscape; the average home range for a male lynx is 151
km2 (58 mi2) (Aubry et al. 2000). In order to
affect the suitability of lynx habitat and, in particular, a local lynx
population to the extent of putting the population at risk of
extinction, an activity would likely have to occur across a very large
area (at a minimum the size of several home ranges) and (1)
cumulatively result in the conversion of lynx habitat into non-lynx
habitat, (2) result in a homogeneous forest that does not provide the
various stand ages, species composition, and structure that are good
snowshoe hare and lynx habitat, or (3) effectively preclude dispersal.

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

Habitat Quantity and Quality

In assessing habitat quality for lynx, we examine a variety of
elements, such as primary prey (snowshoe hare) abundance, forest type,
forest structure, snow conditions, denning habitat, inherent habitat
patchiness, and connectivity with larger lynx populations and habitat
in Canada. We use lynx reproduction and recruitment into the population
as additional indicators of habitat quality.
In the following discussions, we describe available information on
lynx occurrence, habitat quantity, habitat quality, and other elements
that frame our understanding of lynx in the contiguous United States.
The complexities of lynx population dynamics and our incomplete
understanding of the limited lynx occurrence data, combined with a
naturally dynamic and transitional habitat, make it difficult to
precisely delineate the historic or current extent of the range of lynx
in the contiguous United States. While recognizing these limitations,
we use our best professional judgement of the best scientific and
commercial data available to make conclusions about the range of the
lynx for the purposes of this remand.
Important to understanding the range of lynx in the contiguous
United States is the status of the lynx in any given area as a member
of a resident, breeding population or as a disperser. While we
recognize and agree with McKelvey et al.'s (2000b) caution that lynx
occurrence data are too incomplete to infer much beyond simple
occurrence, for the purposes of this reevaluation, we feel it necessary
to make conclusions about the condition of lynx using our professional
assessment of the best scientific and commercial data available. We
partially base our conclusions regarding whether lynx in a particular
area are resident or dispersers on the record of reliable reports of
lynx. We discuss the reliability of records below.
Historic lynx data in the contiguous United States are scarce and
exist primarily in the form of trapping records. Many States did not
differentiate between bobcats and lynx in trapping records. Therefore,
long-term lynx trapping data are not available for most States. Long-
term trapping data have been used to understand population trends for
various species; however, because trapper effort can change across
years, trapping returns may not accurately reflect population trends.
Data showing few lynx trapped may be the result of low pelt prices or
reduced trapper effort, not necessarily a decreased population.
However, despite these difficulties, trapping data are the best
information available on historic lynx presence throughout much of its
range in the contiguous United States.
In the past, surveys designed specifically for lynx were rarely
conducted, and many reports (e.g., visual observations, snow tracks) of
lynx were collected incidental to other activities. The reliability of
many of these records is unknown. Trapping records may have errors,
track identification is extremely difficult, and observations may be
wrong because lynx look very similar to bobcat. Data from recent
research in Maine and Montana (Hoving 2001; Squires and Ruggiero 2001;
Squires et al. 2001; Squires et al. 2002; Homyack 2003; Maine
Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife 2003; G. Matula, in litt.
2003; L.S. Mills and P. Griffin, in litt. 2003); recent confirmed
records of lynx in Minnesota (Minnesota Department Natural Resources,
in litt. 2003); results from the National Lynx Survey (K. McKelvey,
Rocky Mountain Research Station, in litt. 2003); and mapping of lynx
habitat on Federal lands (E. Johnston, U.S. Forest Service, in litt.
2003; J. Whitney, Bureau of Land Management, in litt. 2003) provide
some of the best current information for our analysis.
Numerous reliable lynx records over a period of years (particularly
across a cyclic population low) and reliable evidence of reproduction
are considered strong evidence of a resident

[[Page 40085]]

population. For example, Washington has had numerous verified lynx
records since the 1800s (McKelvey et al. 2000b). These records exist in
the form of museum specimens (78 specimens), snow tracks, radio-
collared study animals, harvest records, remote-camera photographs, and
DNA samples. During the period that lynx harvest data were kept (1961-
1990) the annual harvest ranged from highs of 39 and 31 animals to lows
of 0 in some years. Finally, lynx reproduction has been and continues
to be documented numerous times in Washington. As a result of this
information, we conclude that Washington has a resident lynx
population.
Few and sporadic records, many of which correlate to timeframes
when there were cyclic population highs, and no evidence of
reproduction are considered evidence of dispersers, rather than
resident populations. For example, in Wisconsin only 11 verified
records exist from 1870-1961 (McKelvey et al. 2000b). There are 16
verified records of lynx from the early 1960s and 1970s that correspond
to the extreme cyclic population highs of that period, exceeding the
number known for the previous century. Two records from 1992 are the
only verified records in the State since the early 1970s, and also
correspond to the time period for a cyclic population high. Lynx
reproduction has never been documented in Wisconsin. We conclude that
Wisconsin has never had a resident lynx population but rather
occasional dispersers. We still consider Wisconsin to be in the range
of lynx, as discussed in more detail below.
The range of the lynx in the contiguous United States is broadly
delineated by the distribution of the southern extensions of boreal
forest, which occur in: (1) The Northeast (portions of Maine, New
Hampshire, Vermont, New York); (2) the western Great Lakes (portions of
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan); (3) the Northern Rocky Mountains/
Cascades (portions of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, northwestern
Wyoming, Utah); and (4) the Southern Rocky Mountains (portions of
Colorado, southeastern Wyoming) (Agee 2000, Aubry 2000, McKelvey et al.
2000). Differences in local climate, primarily precipitation, and
effects of elevation have resulted in boreal forest vegetation that
differs in the western regions compared to the east (Buskirk et al.
2000b); however, spruce and fir are the predominant tree species in
both the east and west. Within the borders of the contiguous United
States, these regions are separated from each other by vegetation types
that do not support lynx (e.g., prairie, deciduous forest). With the
exception of the Southern Rocky Mountain region, each of the regions
where lynx are found in the contiguous United States are directly
connected to lynx populations in Canada.
As described above, maps that accurately display the distribution
of boreal forest (and therefore lynx habitat) are not readily available
across the contiguous United States The only attempt to portray the
range of lynx across the contiguous United States with some degree of
precision is that of McKelvey et al. (2000b). McKelvey et al. (2000b)
overlayed lynx occurrence records across the contiguous United States
with broad vegetation classifications and topography to determine which
vegetative cover types and elevations contain most of the lynx
occurrences. In the East (Northeast and Great Lakes), Bailey's (1998)
ecoregion classification was used to describe vegetation at the broader
scale and in the West (Northern Rocky Mountains/Cascades and Southern
Rocky Mountains) K[uuml]chler's (1964) classification was used
(McKelvey et al. 2000b). Broad-scale vegetative mapping at a
continental scale, such as Bailey (1998) or K[uuml]chler (1964),
results in generalized descriptions that are expected to have some
inconsistencies with vegetation maps at a finer scale (T.B. Wigley,
National Council on Air and Stream Improvement, Inc., in litt. 2003).
However, these broad-scale maps are useful in generally delimiting and
describing vegetation types. McKelvey et al. (2000b) put some outer
bounds on what can reasonably be delineated as the range of lynx. In
this analysis, we rely on McKelvey et al. (2000b) as our starting point
in more precisely defining the range of the lynx.
In the following we summarize key information from the final rule,
new information available since the final rule, and the best scientific
information provided during the recent comment period to arrive at our
analysis of the range of the lynx.
The amount of boreal forest habitat in the contiguous United States
has not changed substantially in the past 100 years. In some local
areas there has been encroachment by human development but for the most
part these habitats are predominantly still forested. In these forests
the changes primarily have been the natural and human-caused
disturbance processes (fire, insect infestations, wind, ice, timber
harvesting) that alter the successional patterns and, sometimes
dominant tree species, within a forest.
In the western United States, boreal forests are located at higher
elevations and are predominantly under Federal ownership (U.S.
Geological Survey 1998). As a consequence, in the west (Northern Rocky
Mountains/Cascades and Southern Rocky Mountains) lynx habitat occurs
primarily on a Federally-owned land base. The proportion of Federal
land base decreases as one progresses eastward. However, in the Great
Lakes region most of the lynx records are from northeast Minnesota
where the majority of the boreal forest is federally-owned (Minnesota
Department Natural Resources in litt. 2003). In the Northeast, nearly
all the lynx habitat is privately-owned, most of which is commercial
forest in Maine.
Unfortunately, accurate estimates of the amount of lynx habitat on
all land ownerships are not available for all regions. In most cases,
private landowners have not mapped lynx habitat on their lands, and
private landowners have not shared information about their lands with
the Service. In the final rule, we cited estimates of the amount of
lynx habitat on all ownerships based on coarse maps of vegetation types
provided in a biological assessment (U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of
Land Management 1999). We recognized that these calculations
overestimated the amount of lynx habitat in many areas and possibly
underestimated it in other areas, but they provided a perspective on
the amount of lynx habitat overall and in the individual regions (T.B.
Wigley, in litt. 2003). The biological assessment estimates the
following area of lynx habitat: Northeast--65,337 km\2\ (25,227 mi\2\);
Great Lakes--96,247 km\2\ (37,161 mi\2\); Southern Rockies--26,673
km\2\ (10,298 mi\2\); Northern Rockies--138,929 km\2\ (53,641 mi\2\);
Cascades--16,964 km\2\ (6,550 mi\2\) (U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of
Land Management 1999). (These calculations were cited in the final rule
but were presented as acres, which we have converted into square
kilometers and square miles for this rule.) During the most recent
public comment period we were provided approximate estimates of the
amount of lynx habitat currently mapped on U.S. Forest Service, BLM,
and some National Park Service lands (S. Gniadek, National Park
Service, in litt. 2003; E. Johnston, USDA Forest Service, in litt.
2003; J. Whitney, BLM, in litt. 2003). This information also is
included in Table 1. These estimates for Federal lands will continue to
be refined to reflect data obtained through site-specific analysis,
field verification, and new information from research that

[[Page 40086]]

allows a better understanding and description of lynx habitat (E.
Johnston, in litt. 2003). Finally, rough estimates of the amount of
lynx habitat on all ownerships in the Northeast based on models of the
probability of lynx occurrence also are included in Table 1 (Hoving
2001, Hoving, University of Maine, pers. comm. 2003).

Table 1.--Estimates of Lynx Habitat \1\ Within the Contiguous United States Used by the Fish and Wildlife
Service in This Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Rockies/
Land ownership Northeast Great Lakes Southern Rockies Cascades
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Lands
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Forest Service \2\......... 2,104 km \2\ (813 17,685 km \2\ 30,311 km \2\ N. Rockies: 89,841
mi \2\). (6,828 mi \2\). (11,703 mi \2\). km \2\ (34,688 mi
\2\) Cascades:
5,949 km \2\
(2,297 mi \2\).
Bureau of Land Management \3\... No BLM lands...... No BLM lands...... 716 km \2\ (277 mi 1,236 km \2\ (477
\2\). mi \2\).
National Park Service \4\....... No NPS lands...... Not available..... Not available..... Yellowstone: 2,784
km \2\ (1,075 mi
\2\) Glacier:
1,103 km \2\ (426
mi \2\).
---------------------------------
Non-Federal Lands
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not available..... Not available..... Not available..... Not available.
---------------------------------
All Ownerships Combined
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hoving, pers. comm. 2003 \5\.... 13,511 km \2\ Not included in Not included in Not included in
(5,217 mi \2\). study. study. study.
Maine: 12,300 km
\2\ (4,700 mi
\2\)
New Hampshire:
1,000 km \2\ (400
mi \2\)
Vermont: 12 km \2\
(4 mi \2\)
New York: 190 km
\2\ (73 mi \2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Each of these estimates is qualified (e.g., Yellowstone is likely an overestimate because vegetation mapping
has not been refined; therefore, this estimate broadly includes all areas of potential habitat).
\2\ E. Johnston (in litt. 2003).
\3\ BLM acreages provided by management unit (J. Whitney, BLM, in litt. 2003); therefore, Northern Rocky
Mountains and Cascades are not individually identified. BLM acreages not available for Wyoming.
\4\ Not all NPS units provided lynx habitat estimates. Acreages from Murphy et al. (2003) and S. Gniadek (in
litt. 2003).
\5\ Fifty percent or greater probability of lynx occurrence in this area based on Hoving (2001).

Northeast
Northeastern United States lynx and snowshoe hare habitat and
populations are directly contiguous with those of Canada, south of the
St. Lawrence River, in southeastern Quebec and western New Brunswick.
Movement of lynx across the St. Lawrence River between populations in
northern Quebec and those south of the St. Lawrence is believed to
occur infrequently (R. Lafond, Quebec Ministry of the Environment,
pers. comm. 1999). However, a substantial lynx population resides south
of the St. Lawrence River on Quebec's Gasp[eacute]
Peninsula, where
lynx densities are estimated to be 10 lynx per 100 km\2\ (26 per 100
mi\2\) during periods of high hare populations (C. Fortin, unpubl.
data, in Ray et al. 2002). Lynx probably encounter little difficulty
moving between southeastern Quebec and northern Maine because habitat
is continuous.
Based on an analysis of cover types containing most of the lynx
occurrences, McKelvey et al. (2000b) determined that, at the broad
scale, most lynx occurrence records in the Northeast were found within
the broadly described ``Mixed Forest-Coniferous Forest-Tundra'' cover
type. This habitat type occurs along the northern Appalachian Mountain
range from southeastern Quebec, western New Brunswick, and western
Maine, south through northern New Hampshire. This habitat type becomes
naturally fragmented and begins to diminish to the south and west, with
a disjunct segment running north-south through Vermont, and a patch of
habitat in the Adirondacks of northern New York (McKelvey et al.
2000b).
Hoving (2001) modeled lynx habitat across all ownerships for the
Northeast region, including Canada south of the St. Lawrence River.
Hoving (2001) found that lynx are most likely to occur in areas with
deep snow (greater than 268 cm (105 in) mean annual snowfall) and
relatively little deciduous cover. Based on this model, potential lynx
habitat is concentrated on Quebec's Gasp[eacute]
Peninsula and
northwestern New Brunswick extending into northern Maine. The majority
of lynx habitat in this region is found in Canada; only sixteen percent
of this area is in the United States. Based on this analysis, there is
little lynx habitat in the northeastern United States outside of Maine
(Hoving 2001). In the United States, the amount of potential lynx
habitat where there is a 50 percent or greater probability of lynx
occurrence in this region is roughly 13,501 km\2\ (5,177 mi\2\) (Table
1) (C. Hoving, University of Maine, pers. comm. 2003). Maine has
approximately 12,300 km\2\ (4,700 mi\2\) of potential lynx habitat, New
Hampshire has 1,000 km\2\ (400 mi\2\), Vermont has 11 km\2\ (4 mi\2\),
and New York has 190 km\2\ (73 mi\2\) (C. Hoving, pers. comm. 2003).
Maine-Lynx have been documented in Maine since the 1800s, although
accounts are irregular and anecdotal for some time periods (Hoving
2001; R. Joseph, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in litt. 1999). Lynx
occurrences have been fairly consistent since the 1950s (Hoving 2001;
R. Joseph, in litt. 1999). Historical accounts provide evidence of the
reproduction and persistence of lynx in several northern and western
townships (Hoving 2001; R. Joseph, in litt. 1999). Since 1999,
intensive lynx research in northern Maine has resulted in 30 different
lynx radio-collared, and

[[Page 40087]]

17 litters with 37 kittens, documented in the 300-km\2\ (100-mi\2\)
study area (Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife 2003; G.
Matula, in litt. 2003), demonstrating the current existence of a
resident population.
Lynx habitat in Maine is considered to be of high quality at this
time. The quantity of boreal forest that can potentially support lynx
in Maine has not changed substantially in the past 100 years (G.
Matula, in litt. 2003). Extensive clear cutting to salvage diseased
trees in the 1970s and 1980s resulted in large amounts of the forest
presently in a stage of regeneration that is optimal for snowshoe hares
(Hoving 2001; Homyack 2003, Krohn 2003; G. Matula, in litt. 2003).
Snowshoe hare densities are high (1.6-2.4 hares per hectare (ha) (4.0-
5.9 per acre (ac))) in these regenerating stands (Homyack 2003; G.
Matula, in litt. 2003). As a result, lynx numbers have increased in
response to improved habitat conditions and increased snowshoe hare
populations. In a 300-km\2\ (100-mi\2\) study area in northern Maine,
the preliminary estimate of lynx density in fall 2002 was 4.4 lynx per
100 km\2\ (11.4 per 100 mi\2\) (G. Matula, in litt. 2003). Based on
preliminary analyses, lynx home ranges in this study area average 52
km\2\ (20 mi\2\) for females and 70 km\2\ (27 mi\2\) for males (G.
Matula, in litt. 2003); these relatively small home ranges are likely
an indication of high habitat quality with abundant snowshoe hares.
Coincidentally, these optimal habitat conditions occur during a period
when hares and lynx should be at a cyclic high, although evidence of
hare population cycles are less clear in this region. Maine's lynx
numbers are expected to fluctuate in concert with hare population
fluctuations.
New Hampshire--Although habitat in New Hampshire is contiguous with
that in Maine, the amount of current or historical lynx habitat in New
Hampshire is much less than in Maine. Recent modeling predicted
approximately 1,000 km\2\ (400 mi\2\) (Hoving 2001; C. Hoving, pers.
comm. 2003). Most of the lynx records are from harvest that occurred in
the 1930s, ranging from 1 to 20 per year (Brocke et al. 1993, McKelvey
et al. 2000b). Between 1940 and 1964, lynx harvests were lower, ranging
from 0 to 3 lynx trapped per year. For 11 of these 24 years, the
harvest was zero (McKelvey et al. 2000b). The trapping season was
closed in 1964 in response to apparent declines in lynx abundance
reflected in harvest returns (Siegler 1971; Silver 1974; Litvaitis et
al. 1991). Since the 1960s, reports of lynx in New Hampshire have been
rare; only two reports exist from the 1990s (M. Amaral, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, in litt. 1999). Although there are no records of lynx
breeding in New Hampshire, based on regular harvest reports from the
past and connectivity with habitats in Maine where resident lynx occur,
we believe that a small resident lynx population historically occurred
in New Hampshire but no longer exists. However, dispersers likely still
occur in New Hampshire because of its connectivity with Maine; lynx
have recently been documented in Maine near the New Hampshire border
(M. McCollough, pers. comm. 2003).
Vermont--Little boreal forest exists currently or historically in
Vermont and what habitat exists is isolated from that in New Hampshire
(W. Laroche, Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife, in litt. 2003).
Only four verified records of lynx exist for Vermont (McKelvey et al.
2000b; W. Laroche, in litt. 2003). There is no evidence lynx
reproduction ever occurred in Vermont. In the Green Mountain National
Forest, all potential lynx habitat occurs in small patches that are not
large enough to support a lynx; bobcats are present throughout these
areas (P. Brewster, Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests,
in litt. 2000), evidence that these areas are not suitable for lynx.
Hoving's (2001) model predicts only approximately 11 km\2\ (4 mi\2\) of
potential lynx habitat in Vermont (C. Hoving, pers. comm. 2003). Based
upon the limited amount and dispersed nature of suitable habitat, we
conclude lynx have occurred in Vermont as dispersers that have never
established resident populations. It is still possible for lynx to
disperse to Vermont.
New York--An ``island'' of boreal forest exists both historically
and currently in the Adirondack Mountains of New York. A resident lynx
population reportedly occurred in the northern region of New York,
particularly in the Adirondack Mountains, but it was considered
extirpated by 1900 (Brocke 1982, McKelvey et al. 2000b). However, there
are 23 verified lynx occurrences since 1900, primarily from the
Adirondack Mountains (McKelvey et al. 2000b). The most recent verified
record was from 1973 (McKelvey et al. 2000b), which correlates to an
extreme cyclic population high. Habitat and prey conditions were deemed
suitable for a lynx reintroduction in 1989-1991 (Brocke 1982). The
reintroduction was unsuccessful in establishing a population. Hoving's
2001 model predicted approximately 190 km\2\ (73 mi\2\) of potential
lynx habitat in New York (C. Hoving, pers. comm. 2003), an area only
slightly larger than the average home range of a single male lynx. The
boreal forest in New York is protected as Adirondack State Park and
much of the forest is mature without the understory necessary to
support a snowshoe hare population capable of sustaining lynx (G.
Batcheller, New York State Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine
Resources, pers. comm. 2003). It appears habitat quality is marginal.
We conclude that a resident population may have existed in New York
prior to 1900; however, records of lynx since 1900 are of dispersers.
Northeast Summary--As it did historically, the boreal forest of the
Northeast continues to exist primarily in Maine where habitat is
currently optimal and a resident, breeding population of lynx continues
to exist. Maine's lynx population is currently much larger than we knew
at the time of the final rule in 2000 and habitat is directly connected
to substantive lynx populations and habitat in southeastern Quebec and
New Brunswick. The potential exists for lynx to occur in New Hampshire
because of its direct connectivity with Maine and we presume they
currently occur there. Lynx in Vermont have always existed solely as
dispersers. Lynx occurring in New York since 1900 have been dispersers.
Great Lakes
At the time of the final listing rule for lynx, the coarse-scale
vegetation description, ``mixed deciduous-coniferous forest'' was used
to characterize potential lynx habitat in the Great Lakes Region
because it encompassed 88 percent of lynx occurrence records in this
region (McKelvey et al. 2000b). As mapped (Bailey 1998, McKelvey et al.
2000b), the mixed deciduous-coniferous forest covers an extensive area
in the western Great Lakes region, primarily in northeastern Minnesota,
northern Wisconsin, and the western portion of Michigan's upper
peninsula, giving the appearance of a large expanse of continuous
boreal forest and creating the expectation of resident lynx populations
throughout this large area.
However, this broad vegetation description encompasses large areas
that are not lynx habitat, particularly in Wisconsin (Wisconsin
Department Natural Resources, in litt. 2003). As can be seen in maps of
Early Settlement Vegetation, historically spruce and fir (the
predominant type of trees in the boreal forest) were most abundant in
northeastern Minnesota, which is contiguous with boreal forest in
Ontario,

[[Page 40088]]

Canada, whereas in Michigan and especially Wisconsin, spruce and fir
were limited to scattered patches (Great Lakes Ecological Assessment no
date, Mladenoff no date, Wisconsin Department Natural Resources, in
litt. 2003). Therefore, within the Great Lakes region, potential lynx
habitat has always been most abundant in northeastern Minnesota.
An accurate estimate of the amount of potential lynx habitat for
all ownerships in the Great Lakes region was not available to us. The
majority of potential lynx habitat in this region is in northeastern
Minnesota under Federal ownership, although we cannot say precisely how
much because we do not have acreages of lynx habitat on non-Federal
lands. In the Great Lakes region, as currently mapped there are
approximately 18,000 km \2\ (7,000 mi \2\) of potential lynx habitat on
National Forest lands (Table 1). This estimate includes National Forest
lands in Minnesota and Michigan's Upper Peninsula. There is no
potential lynx habitat on National Forest lands in Wisconsin (Weiland
2002).
Minnesota--As was true historically, northeastern Minnesota
continues to support a substantial amount of transitional boreal forest
(roughly estimated at 12,500 km \2\ (4,800 mi \2\)) in a more evenly
distributed pattern rather than in small patches (Great Lakes
Ecological Assessment no date, Wisconsin Department Natural Resources,
in litt. 2003). In Minnesota, the deepest snows occur in the northeast
corner of the State (Minnesota Department Natural Resources in litt.
1998). Most of northeastern Minnesota is under Federal ownership,
primarily in the Superior National Forest (Minnesota Department Natural
Resources, in litt. 2003).
Minnesota provides a good example of the problems in assessing the
status of lynx because of the complexity of lynx cycles and the
difficulty in interpreting historical lynx occurrence data. As a
result, scientists have debated whether lynx in Minnesota are members
of a long-term resident population or dispersers from Canada that do
not establish a resident population in the State (McKelvey et al.
2000b; R. Sando, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, in litt.
1998). Minnesota has a substantial number of historic lynx reports,
primarily trapping records (McKelvey et al. 2000b), as expected because
of the direct connectivity of the boreal forest in northeastern
Minnesota with that of Ontario, Canada, where lynx occur. Harvest and
bounty records for Minnesota are available since 1930. Approximate 10-
year cycles are apparent in the data, with highs in the lynx cycle in
1940, 1952, 1962, and 1973 (Henderson 1978; McKelvey et al. 2000b).
During a 47-year period (1930-1976), the Minnesota lynx harvest was
substantial, ranging from 0 to 400 per year (Henderson 1978). These
harvest returns for Minnesota are believed to be driven by immigration
from Canada (Henderson 1978; Mech 1980; McKelvey et al. 2000b; M.
DonCarlos, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources in litt. 1994).
Outside of harvest data, 76 additional verified lynx records exist for
Minnesota before 2001 (McKelvey et al. 2000b).
Reproduction and maintenance of home ranges by lynx were documented
in the early 1970s (Mech 1973, 1980), potential evidence of the
presence of a resident population. But this may have been an artifact
of the early 1970s being a period of an extreme peak in the population
cycle in Canada. Records of lynx in Minnesota have been rare in the
past 2 decades; there were only 3 verified records of lynx in Minnesota
in the 1990s (M. DonCarlos, in litt. 1994).
Individuals knowledgeable about lynx and snowshoe hares suggest
that fires and logging created early successional forests that were
conducive to abundant hare populations in northern Minnesota in the
first half of the 20th century (S. Loch, in litt. 2003), resulting in
the high numbers of lynx recorded during that time. In contrast,
snowshoe hare numbers were exceptionally low in the 1980s through the
1990s (S. Loch, in litt. 2003), likely explaining the scarcity of lynx.
Based on surveys in northern Minnesota, snowshoe hare numbers are
currently high (J. Erb, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, in
litt. 2003).
In the past 3 years there have been 62 verified reports of lynx in
northeastern Minnesota, 6 of which provided evidence of reproduction
(usually visual observations of kittens accompanying an adult)
(Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, in litt. 2003; S. Loch, in
litt. 2003); it is assumed some of these reports are of the same animal
or family group so the actual number of animals is likely lower. This
dramatic increase in reports corresponds with a cyclic population high
directly adjacent in Ontario (S. Loch, in litt. 2003). Research has
been initiated that will help determine whether these animals are
members of an established resident population in Minnesota or if these
animals fail to persist when the cyclic population high recedes
(University of Minnesota, in litt. 2002).
Lynx presence in Minnesota is an artifact of the international
border between Canada and the United States artificially splitting the
lynx range in this area into two pieces of a whole that exists
primarily in adjacent Ontario, highlighting a phenomenon that occurs
with differing magnitude all along the international border where lynx
habitat occurs on both sides of the border. It appears the Ontario lynx
population sometimes expands and occupies northeastern Minnesota and
sometimes it contracts and lynx recede from Minnesota. As a result,
northeastern Minnesota may not always support lynx. However, we
conclude that northeastern Minnesota often supports a resident lynx
population because there is ample boreal forest habitat directly
connected with that in Ontario, there is a high number of historic lynx
records, evidence of lynx reproduction and cyclically abundant snowshoe
hares.
Wisconsin--The mapping of Wisconsin shows the discrepancy that can
occur between broad-scale vegetation mapping and more precise
vegetation maps. Maps of the early vegetation of Wisconsin delineate
only small patches of boreal forest primarily along the shore of Lake
Superior in extreme northern Wisconsin (Mladenoff no date; Wisconsin
Department Natural Resources, in litt. 2003; S. Hassett, in litt. 2003)
compared to one third of the State being mapped as mixed deciduous-
coniferous forest as broadly classified by Bailey (1998) (McKelvey et
al. 2000b). Therefore, it is clear that historically in Wisconsin there
actually was very little boreal forest and, as a result, little
potential lynx habitat (Mladenoff no date; S. Hassett, in litt. 2003;
Wisconsin Department Natural Resources, in litt. 2003). Where
appropriate lynx forest types do occur in Wisconsin, historic snow
conditions have not been optimal for lynx (Weiland 2002). This habitat
is more appropriate for bobcats, which are common and well-distributed
in northern Wisconsin (S. Hassett, in litt. 2003). As a result, no lynx
habitat was mapped on U.S. Forest Service lands in Wisconsin because of
a lack of appropriate habitat and snow depth to support lynx (Weiland
2002).
Verified reports of lynx in Wisconsin are limited (29 records from
1870 to 1992) (McKelvey et al. 2000b); 16 of these reports are
associated with unprecedented cyclic highs that occurred throughout
Canada in the early 1960s and 1970s. In 1992, two lynx mortalities were
reported (Wydeven 1993; C. Pils, in litt. 1994). No sign of lynx has
been found during extensive snow track surveys in potential lynx
habitat in northern Wisconsin over the past 4 years (S. Hassett, in
litt. 2003). There are no records of lynx breeding in Wisconsin.

[[Page 40089]]

Because Wisconsin always has had a limited amount of boreal forest
habitat, marginal snow conditions for lynx, and no evidence of
reproduction, we concur with Thiel (1987) that, historically, Wisconsin
has not supported a permanent, self-sustaining lynx population; rather,
lynx presence is associated with cyclic lynx population fluctuations in
Canada. We conclude that any lynx found in Wisconsin are dispersers,
not residents.
Michigan--Michigan's Upper Peninsula supports boreal forest, and
lynx habitat has been mapped on U.S. Forest Service lands in the Upper
Peninsula (Great Lakes Ecological Assessment no date; J. Trick, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 2003). Beyer et al. (2001)
suggested habitat in the Upper Peninsula is limited. Additionally, Lake
Superior nearly isolates the Upper Peninsula from source lynx
populations in Canada, limiting the number of animals available to
successfully establish a population. The majority of occurrences are on
the eastern part of the Upper Peninsula where the largest patch of
boreal forest historically occurs (Great Lakes Ecological Assessment no
date) and which is the shortest distance (lynx can cross the St. Mary's
River) from lynx populations in Ontario, Canada. Beyer et al. (2001)
documented 39 verified records of lynx from Michigan's Upper Peninsula
between 1940 and 1997. Twenty-seven of these records correlate with an
extreme cyclic high in Canada in the early 1960s (Beyer et al. 2001).
McKelvey et al. (2000b) found 44 verified records Statewide from the
mid 1800s until 1983 (Harger 1965; McKelvey et al. 2000b). The Lower
Peninsula naturally had very little boreal habitat (Great Lakes
Ecological Assessment no date) and was even more isolated from source
lynx populations in Canada by Lakes Huron and Michigan. Six records
exist for Michigan's lower peninsula, all from 1917 or earlier (Harger
1965; McKelvey et al. 2000b). There is no evidence of lynx reproduction
in Michigan (Beyer et al. 2001). Beyer et al. (2001) concluded a
resident lynx population does not occur in the Upper Peninsula and that
dispersers occur only occasionally.
We include Michigan's Upper Peninsula within the range of lynx
because it supports some boreal forest and periodically lynx have been
present but we conclude that limited number of lynx occurrences did not
constitute a resident population but were dispersers. We do not include
Michigan's Lower Peninsula because the few historic reports of lynx
were in non-lynx habitat.
Great Lakes Summary--We conclude that northeastern Minnesota has
historically supported and currently supports a resident lynx
population, based on the number of lynx records, evidence of
reproduction, and the presence of boreal forest contiguous with
occupied habitat in Ontario. Currently, there are many more lynx in
northeastern Minnesota than we knew of at the time of the final rule in
2000. We conclude records of lynx in Wisconsin and Michigan constitute
dispersing animals, rather than individuals from resident populations,
based on the lack of evidence of reproduction, lack of connectivity
with suitable habitat, and limited amount of habitat.
Northern Rocky Mountains/Cascades
In this region, the majority of lynx occurrences are associated
with the ``Rocky Mountain Conifer Forest'' in the Rocky Mountains of
Montana, Idaho, eastern Washington, and Utah, and the Cascade Mountains
in Washington and Oregon. The boreal forest of northern Washington,
northern Montana, and northern Idaho is directly contiguous with that
in adjacent British Columbia and Alberta, Canada. In this mountainous
area, lynx habitat occurs at higher elevations and, therefore, is
naturally fragmented by topography into island-like patches (McKelvey
et al. 2000b). Lynx cross intervening landscapes, made up of shrub-
steppe, grassland, low-elevation forested or unforested valleys, and in
some cases, desert, to reach these habitat ``islands.'' We combine the
Northern Rocky Mountains and Cascades together for our analysis because
the Cascades and Northern Rocky Mountains regions are only separated by
the Okanogan River Valley in northern Washington and because of similar
conditions in both regions. Additionally, the Cascades alone supports
the smallest amount of lynx habitat in the contiguous United States.
Approximately 99 percent of the lynx habitat in the Cascades was
estimated to occur on National Forest lands (U.S. Forest Service and
Bureau of Land Management 1999); based on current mapping there are
nearly 6,000 km\2\ (2,300 mi\2\) of lynx habitat on National Forest
lands in the Cascades (Table 1). By contrast, the Northern Rocky
Mountains alone support the largest amount of lynx habitat in the
contiguous United States. Approximately 67 percent of the lynx habitat
in the Northern Rocky Mountains was estimated to occur on National
Forest lands (U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 1999),
and based on current mapping there are nearly 96,000 km\2\ (37,000
mi\2\) of lynx habitat just on National Forest lands in the Northern
Rocky Mountains (Table 1). The relatively small size and close
proximity of the lynx habitat in the Cascades to that in the Northern
Rocky Mountains further supports considering both areas as one.
The majority of lands within the mountain ranges in this region are
under Federal ownership, predominantly as National Forest lands. As a
result, within this region a large amount of lynx habitat is found on
Federal lands; as currently mapped, there are approximately 89,841
km\2\ (34,688 mi\2\) of lynx habitat on National Forest land in the
Northern Rockies and 5,949 km\2\ (2,297 mi\2\) of lynx habitat on
National Forest lands in the Cascades; approximately 1,300 km\2\ (490
mi\2\) on BLM lands; approximately 2,900 km\2\ (1,100 mi\2\) in
Yellowstone National Park; and approximately 1,100 km\2\ (430 mi\2\) in
Glacier National Park (Table 1). Estimates of the quantity of lynx
habitat were not available for all National Park Service units in this
region.
Washington--Washington has a long record of verified lynx
occurrences over the past century. Resident lynx populations were
historically found in the northeast and north-central regions and along
the east slope of the Cascade Mountains (McKelvey et al. 2000b, Stinson
2001). There are a few historic records of lynx in the southern part of
the Cascades in Washington near Mt. Adams (Stinson 2001). Trapping data
kept since 1961 reflect cyclic patterns (McKelvey et al. 2000b). The
largest harvests were taken in 1969-1970 (31 lynx) and 1976-1977 (39
lynx) (Washington Department of Wildlife 1993). Results of snow track
surveys, remote cameras, and DNA surveys show that lynx continue to
occupy north-central and northeast Washington (Base and Zender 2001;
Stinson 2001; Aubry et al. 2002; B. Maletzke, Okanagon National Forest,
in litt. 2003; K. McKelvey, in litt. 2003). Recent records of lynx
reproduction also exist for Washington (Stinson 2001; B. Maletzke, in
litt. 2003). We conclude resident lynx populations continue to exist in
Washington.
Oregon--There is no evidence that a resident lynx population ever
occurred in Oregon (Verts and Carraway 1998; K. McKelvey and K. Aubry,
Rocky Mountain Research Station, in litt. 2001). Only 12 verified
records of lynx exist for Oregon for the past century (Verts and
Carraway 1998, McKelvey et al. 2000b). The majority of these records
are from marginal or non-lynx habitats and correlate with cyclic highs
in

[[Page 40090]]

northern lynx populations (Verts and Carraway 1998; K. McKelvey and K.
Aubry, Rocky Mountain Research Station, in litt. 2001). We do not
consider compilations of anecdotal reports of lynx in Oregon reliable
for the reasons described by McKelvey and Aubry (Rocky Mountain
Research Station, in litt. 2001). Habitats in Oregon that are
potentially suitable for lynx are naturally isolated from occupied
habitats in Washington and Idaho. There are no records of lynx
reproduction in Oregon. Based on the limited verified records of lynx,
lack of evidence of lynx reproduction, frequency of occurrences in
atypical habitat, and the correlations of such occurrences with cyclic
highs, we believe that lynx occur in Oregon as dispersers that have
never maintained resident populations.
Idaho--According to Rust (1946), lynx were not abundant but were
distributed throughout northern Idaho in the early 1940s, occurring in
8 of the 10 northern and north-central counties. McKelvey et al.
(2000b) located a number of lynx specimen records from Idaho collected
during the early 1900s. Between 1960 and 1991, 35 verified records
exist for Idaho, with 13 of these from 1982 to 1991 (McKelvey et al.
2000b). Lynx reports in Idaho have been few in the past 20 years. The
Idaho Conservation Data Center (2003) has four reports since 2000, and
a lynx was confirmed by DNA evidence on the Boise National Forest (K.
McKelvey, in litt. 2003). Because past records of lynx in northern and
north-central Idaho are common and boreal forest in Idaho is contiguous
with boreal forest in Washington, Montana, and British Columbia,
Canada, where resident lynx populations are known to exist, we conclude
that lynx continue to be present in northern and north-central Idaho,
which have the capacity to support a resident population.
Montana--In Montana, numerous historic and current lynx records
exist throughout the Rocky Mountain Conifer Forest in the western part
of the State (McKelvey et al. 2000b; P. Graham, Montana Department of
Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, in litt. 1998). Montana's harvest records
since the 1950s reflect cyclic lynx populations (McKelvey et al.
2000b). Since Montana started accurately recording lynx harvest in
1977, Montana's largest lynx harvests occurred in both 1979 and 1984
when 62 lynx were taken each season (McKelvey et al. 2000b; B.
Giddings, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, in litt.
1994). Harvest records, winter track surveys conducted since 1990/1991,
and trapper logbooks, led Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and
Parks to conclude that the State's lynx population is distributed
throughout what it determined to be ``predicted lynx habitat'' (P.
Graham, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, in litt. 1998). Snow track
surveys have documented lynx tracks throughout the range in western
Montana (P. Graham, in litt. 1998). Reproduction is documented; 14 dens
were located between 1999 and 2001 in a study area in northwestern
Montana (Brainerd 1985, Squires and Ruggiero 2001). In some mountain
ranges in southwest Montana, lynx are present but in apparently low
numbers, based on recent surveys (Gehman and Robinson 2000, Squires et
al. 2002). We conclude that a resident population of lynx is
distributed throughout suitable habitat in the northern and central
mountain ranges in western Montana, whereas in the mountains in
southwestern Montana, habitat naturally becomes more marginal (more
patchy and drier forest types) and supports dispersers more often than
resident populations.
Wyoming--Most historical and recent records of lynx in Wyoming are
from the northwestern mountain ranges (Reeve et al. 1986; McKelvey et
al. 2000b; B. Wichers, Wyoming Game and Fish, in litt. 2003). McKelvey
et al. (2000b) found only 30 verified records Statewide since 1856.
Lynx reports from Yellowstone National Park have always been rare;
since 2001, lynx survey efforts in the Park have detected one lynx
(Murphy et al. 2003). In west-central Wyoming, a female lynx with
kittens was documented in 1998 (Squires and Laurion 2000). However, the
female died of starvation and it is presumed the kittens also died,
perhaps indicating inadequate habitat and prey base (Squires et al.
2001). A male lynx was radio-tracked moving long distances from its
home range in west-central Wyoming and into Yellowstone National Park
as recently as 2001 (Squires et al. 2001). It is possible, based on
recent evidence of reproduction, that in the past a resident lynx
population occurred in northwestern Wyoming. However, few lynx have
been found during several recent surveys. We believe this is because
the habitat is naturally marginal (more patchy and drier forest types)
and less capable of supporting snowshoe hares (B. Wichers, in litt.
2003), and is farther from source populations. Therefore, we believe
lynx currently in Wyoming are dispersers and that the habitat may not
be able to support resident populations.
Utah--There are only 10 verified records of lynx in Utah since 1916
(McKay 1991; McKelvey et al. 2000b). Nearly all the reliable lynx
reports are from the Uinta Mountain Range along the Wyoming border
(McKay 1991). Four of the records correlate to the cyclic highs of the
1960s and 1970s. Recent DNA results documented the presence of a lynx
in Utah (McKelvey in litt. 2003). There is no evidence of lynx
reproduction in Utah. We conclude that lynx that occur in Utah are
dispersers rather than residents, because most of the few existing
records correspond to cyclic population highs, there is no evidence of
reproduction, and boreal forest habitat in Utah is remote and far from
source lynx populations.
Northern Rocky Mountains/Cascades Summary--In summary, we conclude
that the Northern Rocky Mountains/Cascades Region continues to support
resident lynx populations in north-central and northeastern Washington,
western Montana and likely northern Idaho. We conclude that lynx have
always occurred as dispersers in Oregon and Utah. In northern Wyoming
it appears habitat is less suitable to support resident populations
and, therefore, we conclude animals in this area are most likely
dispersers.
Southern Rocky Mountains
This area represents the extreme southern edge of the range of the
lynx. The southern boreal forest of Colorado and southeastern Wyoming
is isolated from boreal forest in Utah and northwestern Wyoming by the
Green River Valley and the Wyoming basin (Findley and Anderson 1956 in
McKelvey et al. 2000b). These habitats reduce opportunities for
emigration from the Northern Rocky Mountains/Cascades Region and
Canada, and may isolate lynx in the Southern Rocky Mountains in
Colorado and southeastern Wyoming (Halfpenny 1982; Koehler and Aubry
1994). However, the potential still exists for lynx to immigrate to the
southern Rocky Mountains, particularly during extreme cyclic population
highs.
As in the Northern Rocky Mountains/Cascades region, lynx habitat in
the Southern Rocky Mountain region occurs at high elevations and,
therefore, is naturally fragmented by topography and drier south- and
west-facing slopes into island-like patches rather than expansive,
contiguous blocks (Ruediger et al. 2000). Accurate estimates of the
amount of lynx habitat on all land ownerships in the Southern Rocky
Mountain region are not available. The only estimate of lynx habitat on
all ownerships was based on coarse maps of vegetation types that
contained the majority of lynx occurrences; based on this type of
mapping, it was roughly

[[Page 40091]]

estimated that there were 27,000 km \2\ (10,300 mi \2\ ) of potential
lynx habitat across all ownerships in this region (U.S. Forest Service
and Bureau of Land Management 1999). All of this habitat is found in
the mountains, which are primarily under Federal ownership (U.S.
Geological Survey 1998). In the Southern Rocky Mountains region, as
currently mapped there are approximately 30,000 km \2\ (12,000 mi \2\ )
of lynx habitat on U.S. Forest Service lands and approximately 700 km
\2\ (280 mi \2\ ) on BLM lands (Table 1) (E. Johnston, in litt. 2003;
J. Whitney, in litt. 2003).
Colorado--The montane and subalpine forest ecosystems in Colorado
are naturally highly fragmented (Thompson 1994), which we believe has
always limited the potential for lynx. Most historic records are
distributed among the northern and central mountain ranges in Colorado
(McKelvey et al. 2000, Meaney 2002). There is a great deal of
inconsistency among historic lynx reports for Colorado (Meaney 2002);
as a result, it is difficult to interpret historic records and we
question some of the numbers reported. However, based on available
information, Thompson and Halfpenny's (1989) description seems
accurate: ``it is unlikely lynx were ever very common and have probably
existed as discontinuous, remnant populations,'' a conclusion that is
supported by the State of Colorado (T. Blickensderfer, in litt. 2003).
A total of 22 positive lynx reports exist in State records since the
late 1800s (J. Mumma, Colorado Division of Wildlife, in litt. 1998);
although McKelvey et al. (2000b) considered only 17 of these records
``verified.'' The last verified lynx specimens were taken in 1973-1974
(Halfpenny et al. 1982; T. Blickensderfer, in litt. 2003); which
coincided with extreme cyclic population highs that occurred throughout
the west and Canada. No verified records of lynx exist since 1974;
however, extensive survey efforts have resulted in periodic reports of
lynx tracks (Halfpenny and Miller 1981; Thompson and Halfpenny 1989;
Anderson 1990; Thompson and Halfpenny 1991; Andrews 1992; Carney 1993;
Fitzgerald 1994; Colorado Division of Wildlife et al. 1997; T.
Blickensderfer, in litt. 2003). Based on historic lynx records, we are
uncertain whether Colorado supported a small resident lynx population
that may have been extirpated or whether historic records were of
dispersers that arrived during extremely high population cycles. If
these historic records did represent resident populations rather than
solely dispersing animals that emigrated from the Northern Rocky
Mountains/Cascades or Canada that were unable to sustain persistent
populations, we believe a viable native resident lynx population no
longer exists in Colorado. We believe the most likely cause for the
loss of resident lynx populations in Colorado was a natural process
because lynx in this region are isolated from source lynx populations
and habitats. Immigration appears necessary to augment and maintain
local lynx populations, especially in transitional habitats at the
southern margins of lynx range. The distance and isolation of this
region from source populations outside of the Southern Rocky Mountains
severely reduced, if not entirely precluded, the immigration that was
likely necessary for the lynx population of this region to sustain
itself. If these historic records were of dispersers that arrived when
there were extremely high population cycles, it would be inappropriate
to conclude these populations were extirpated because dispersers can
continue to arrive in these areas in the future.
In 1997, the Colorado Division of Wildlife in cooperation with
numerous government and private entities began a program to introduce
lynx from Canada and Alaska into Colorado in an effort to reestablish a
resident lynx population. In 1999 and 2000, 96 lynx were released into
in Colorado with the intention of releasing an additional 186 lynx
between 2003 and 2009 (T. Blickensderfer, in litt. 2003). It is too
early to determine whether this effort will be successful (T.
Blickensderfer, in litt. 2003), although reproduction has been recently
documented (T. Malmsbury, in litt., 2003).
Southeastern Wyoming--Habitat in southeastern Wyoming is contiguous
with that in Colorado. Records from southeastern Wyoming are scarce
(Reeves 1986, McKelvey 2000b). The most recent record is from the
Laramie Range in 1963, a time when the lynx population cycle was at an
unprecedented high. The core of lynx range in this region was in
Colorado. Because habitat in this area is naturally marginal, patchy,
and less suitable for snowshoe hares (B. Wichers, in litt. 2003) and
there are extremely few historic records of lynx in southeastern
Wyoming with no evidence of breeding, we conclude a resident population
never existed in southeast Wyoming and that reports of lynx were of
dispersers.
Southern Rocky Mountains Summary--We are uncertain whether lynx in
this region historically occurred as a resident population or if
historic records were of periodic dispersers. We conclude that if a
resident lynx population historically occurred in the Southern Rocky
Mountains, then this native population has been lost. We surmise the
primary cause for the loss of this population was its natural isolation
from potential source populations. Although habitats in the Southern
Rockies are far from source populations and more isolated, it is still
possible that dispersers could arrive in the Southern Rocky Mountains
during extreme highs in the population cycle. It remains to be seen if
the State of Colorado's reintroduction program will reestablish a
resident lynx population.

Habitat-Related Threats Analysis

The final rule discussed the factors affecting lynx habitat, which
included human alteration of the distribution and abundance, species
composition, successional stages, and connectivity of forests, and the
resulting changes in the forest's capacity to sustain lynx populations.
The final rule noted that two important human influences on snowshoe
hare habitat are timber harvest and fire suppression; however, the
final rule acknowledged that information about how lynx populations
respond to these specific impacts is limited. Studies of lynx and
snowshoe hare have documented lynx presence and reproduction and
snowshoe hare abundance in a variety of managed landscapes (Apps 2000;
Squires and Laurion 2000; Squires and Ruggiero 2001; Stinson 2001;
Homyack 2003; Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife 2003;
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, in litt. 2003; G. Matula, in
litt. 2003; Mills and Griffin, in litt. 2003).
In the final rule we cited calculations of the extent of lynx
habitat encompassed in certain regions, land ownerships, and land
management designations. These calculations were provided to us in a
biological assessment (U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management 1999). Because these calculations were based on coarse
mapping of vegetation types, they overestimated the amount of lynx
habitat in many areas (particularly in the Great Lakes, as described
above) and possibly underestimated it in other areas, but they
nonetheless provided a perspective on the amount of lynx habitat
overall and the proportions in various ownerships and land management
designations. Since the final rule, lynx habitat has been mapped on
Federal lands in order to conduct analyses under section 7 of the Act.
As a result, estimates of the amount of lynx habitat on some Federal
lands are more

[[Page 40092]]

accurate than in the 1999 biological assessment (U.S. Forest Service
and Bureau of Land Management 1999; S. Gniadek, in litt. 2003; E.
Johnston, in litt. 2003; J. Whitney, Bureau of Land Management, in
litt. 2003). Refined calculations for all ownerships were not provided;
therefore it was not possible to recalculate the information in the
biological assessment for the purposes of this remanded decision.
Nonetheless, for the Southern Rocky Mountains and Northern Rocky
Mountains/Cascades, we believe the proportions of lynx habitat provided
in the biological assessment are still fairly accurate and useful
because if the same refinements and mapping that occurred on National
Forest and BLM lands were applied to non-Federal lands it would
presumably result in similar adjustments. Therefore, in this analysis
we will use the proportions of Federal and non-Federal lands in the
Northern Rocky Mountains/Cascades and Southern Rocky Mountains, and the
proportions in either developmental or non-developmental management
designations for the Northern Rocky Mountains/Cascades, Southern Rocky
Mountains, and Great Lakes provided in the biological assessment and
used in the final rule.
In all regions where the lynx range in the contiguous United
States, timber harvest and its related activities are the predominant
land use affecting lynx habitat. The final rule stated that timber
harvest and associated forest management can be benign, beneficial, or
detrimental to lynx depending on harvest methods, spatial and temporal
specifications, and the inherent vegetation potential of the site. Some
timber harvest regimes can result in reduced cover, unusable forest
openings, and large monotypic stands with sparse understories that are
unfavorable for lynx and snowshoe hare (de Vos and Matel 1952; Harger
1965; Hatler 1988; Brittell et al. 1989; Koehler 1990; Hoving 2001;
Homyack 2003; Mills and Griffin, in litt. 2003). Mechanical thinning
(pre-commercial thinning) of densely stocked young stands to promote
vigorous growth of fewer trees can reduce the stem densities required
to support high numbers of snowshoe hare (U.S. Forest Service et al.
1999a; Homyack 2003; Mills and Griffin, in litt. 2003).
The final rule explained that forestry practices can be beneficial
when the resulting understory stem densities and structure meet the
forage and cover needs of snowshoe hare (Keith and Surrendi 1971; Fox
1978; Conroy et al. 1979; Wolff 1980; Parker et al. 1983; Litvaitis et
al. 1985; Monthey 1986; Bailey et al. 1986; Koehler 1990; McKelvey et
al. 2000d). Snowshoe hare densities tend to be highest in regenerating
stands with very high stem densities (Hodges 2000a, 2000b, Griffin and
Mills in press, Homyack 2003). Although large openings initially may
not be used by snowshoe hare and lynx, regeneration harvest units
(e.g., clear-cut) in appropriate habitat types eventually (in 10 years
or more depending on the type of forest) achieve early successional
stages with dense understories as preferred by snowshoe hares (Monthey
1986; Quinn and Parker 1987; Koehler 1990; Koehler and Brittell 1990;
Washington Department of Wildlife 1993; McKelvey et al. 2000c; Hoving
2001; Homyack 2003). Lynx can readily move across landscapes fragmented
by commercial forestry (Squires and Laurion 2000).
The final rule suggested that large clear-cut may be detrimental to
lynx because they might eliminate the mosaic forest ages and structure
needed by lynx. We have learned since publication of the final rule
that, in northern Maine, optimal forest conditions for lynx and
snowshoe hares have been created as a result of large-scale clear
cutting in the 1970s and 1980s to salvage spruce and fir stands damaged
by insects. A large proportion of Maine's northern forest is currently
in a stage of regeneration that provides dense understories where
snowshoe hares are most abundant (Hoving 2001; Homyack 2003; Krohn
2003; G. Matula, in litt. 2003). Despite extensive clear cutting, the
forests of northern Maine continue to provide a mosaic of forest ages
and structure, such as required for lynx denning. As a result, Maine
lynx populations are high (see ``Maine'' discussion above). Larger
openings, such as created by clear-cut, can often more closely resemble
vegetative patterns that follow natural disturbance events (e.g., fire,
windthrow, and insect outbreaks) and decrease amounts of edge favorable
to generalist predators (McKelvey et al. 2000c, Krohn 2003). We
anticipate that where good snowshoe hare and lynx habitat occurs within
the contiguous United States, regenerating stands that result after
large clear-cut can be managed to allow regrowth of a dense understory,
so that they too will provide good conditions for snowshoe hares and
lynx.
Recent research in Maine and Montana measured the effects of some
timber harvest regimes on snowshoe hare populations, which has
implications for lynx. In Maine in 2000-2002, snowshoe hare densities
were highest in unthinned, 12- to 20-year old clear-cut (1.77 hares per
ha (0.72 hares per ac)) (Homyack 2003). Pre-commercially thinned stands
averaged about half the hare density (0.98 hares per ha (0.40 hares per
ac)) as unthinned stands. Hare densities in mature conifer forests with
sparse understories were low (0.23 hares per ha (0.09 hares per ac)).
Lowest hare densities were in partial-harvest cuts (0.15 hares per ha
(0.06 hares per ac)). In Montana, preliminary results of research since
1998 found that in winter snowshoe hare densities were high in mature
forests with abundant understories and lowest in stands that had been
pre-commercially thinned or in sparsely-regenerating clear-cut; in this
study standard pre-commercial thinning had a negative effect on
snowshoe hare densities in most places and times (Mills and Griffin, in
litt. 2003). Furthermore, preliminary findings in Montana substantiate
what scientists have generally presumed--snowshoe hares are exposed to
higher predation and suffer higher mortality rates in forest stands
with open understories (Mills and Griffin, in litt. 2003).
The final rule also explained that fire has an important role in
forest ecology in some forest types in the United States. During the
early 20th century, Federal and State agencies in the contiguous United
States enacted a policy of suppressing forest fires. The effects of
fire suppression, as well as timber harvest, on lynx habitat vary among
the geographic regions (Agee 2000) and will be discussed separately
below.
Except in the Northeast, a substantial amount of lynx habitat in
the contiguous United States occurs on Federal lands, primarily
National Forests and BLM lands (see Table 1). Since the listing of the
lynx in 2000, Conservation Agreements the U.S. Forest Service and BLM
have signed with the Service (Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service in litt. 2000; U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service in litt. 2000), and the programmatic biological
opinion on National Forest and BLM land management plans (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2000) committed the U.S. Forest Service and BLM to use
the LCAS in determining the effects of actions on lynx (Ruediger et al.
2000). The final rule explained that the LCAS was developed to provide
a consistent and effective approach to conserve lynx and lynx habitat
on Federal lands across its range in the contiguous United States
(Ruediger et al. 2000). The U.S. Forest Service further committed to
deferring any actions not involving third parties that would adversely
affect lynx until such

[[Page 40093]]

time as the Forest Plans were amended or revised to adequately conserve
lynx. Adherence to the Conservation Agreements, the biological opinion,
and the LCAS in assessing the impacts of Federal actions on lynx
alleviates the affects of National Forest and BLM land management plans
and the activities they allow on lynx, such as timber harvest or fire
management, that were identified in the final rule and the 1999
biological assessment (U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management 1999) (see Factor D).
Northern Rocky Mountains/Cascades and Southern Rocky Mountains
In the final rule, we recognized that the Northern Rocky Mountains
encompass more privately-owned lynx habitat than elsewhere in the west
(U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 1999). In the final
rule, we stated that almost one-third of lynx habitat is in private
ownership (U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 1999).
Although we lacked specific information when we published the final
rule, we recognized that large portions of this habitat likely occur on
privately-owned corporate timber lands where timber harvest and
thinning occurs. Data regarding private lands is generally not as
available as data pertaining to Federal lands; as a result, few data
are available concerning the quality of lynx and snowshoe hare habitat
on private lands. However, preliminary results of research conducted on
privately-owned corporate timber lands in northwestern Montana show
that such lands provide varying levels of snowshoe hare densities
(abundant to low), depending on the timber harvest regime (Mills and
Griffin, in litt. 2003).
The final rule identified that the majority of lynx habitat in the
west occurs on Federal lands. According to assessments in 1999, in the
Northern Rocky Mountains, 72 percent of lynx habitat is on National
Forest or BLM lands, 99 percent in the Cascades, and 82 percent in the
Southern Rocky Mountains (U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management 1999). As currently mapped, in the Northern Rocky Mountains/
Cascades region there are approximately 96,000 km\2\ (37,000 mi\2\) of
lynx habitat on National Forest Lands and approximately 1,236 km\2\
(477 mi\2\) on BLM lands (see ``Table 1'') (E. Johnston, in litt. 2003;
J. Whitney, in litt. 2003). In the Southern Rocky Mountain region there
are approximately 30,000 km\2\ (12,000 mi\2\) of lynx habitat on
National Forest Lands and approximately 700 km\2\ (280 mi\2\) on BLM
lands (see Table 1) (E. Johnston, in litt.2003; J. Whitney, in litt.
2003).
Federal lands are managed as either ``developmental'' or ``non-
developmental'' allocations. Lands in developmental allocations are
managed for multiple uses, such as recreation and timber harvest, some
of which may conflict with conservation of lynx. Lands within non-
developmental allocations are managed for the most part to allow
natural ecological processes to dominate and contain large portions of
wilderness or other natural areas (U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of
Land Management 1999; D. Prevedal, U.S. Forest Service, in litt. 1999).
Timber harvest and construction of roads or fire suppression typically
do not occur or are very limited in lands managed in non-developmental
allocations. Lynx (including introduced lynx in Colorado) continue to
be broadly distributed throughout lynx habitat in the Northern Rocky
Mountains/Cascades and Southern Rocky Mountains (McKelvey et al. 2000b;
T. Blickensderfer, in litt. 2003), both inside and outside of non-
developmental allocation areas (U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management 1999).
Non-developmental allocations are beneficial for lynx because they
are managed for the most part to allow natural ecological processes to
dominate. This is significant, because in the Northern Rocky Mountains,
41 percent of lynx habitat is in non-developmental allocations; in the
Cascades, 85 percent of lynx habitat is in non-developmental
allocations; and in the Southern Rocky Mountains, 23 percent is in non-
developmental status (U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management
1999).
The final rule described the amount of lynx habitat managed in
developmental allocations for multiple uses in the Northern Rocky
Mountains/Cascades, and Southern Rocky Mountains. In the Northern Rocky
Mountains, 59 percent of lynx habitat is in developmental allocations,
in the Cascades 15 percent, and in the Southern Rocky Mountains 77
percent (U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 1999).
Activities that may be detrimental to lynx or lynx habitat, such as
some timber harvest regimes and fire suppression, can occur in
developmental allocations.
Timber harvest levels on Federal land in the West have declined
consistently and dramatically (approximately 80 percent) over the past
decade or longer (R. Gay, U.S. Forest Service, in litt. 1999). Timber
harvest in specific lynx forest types also has declined in the Northern
Rocky Mountains (B. Ballenbacher, U.S. Forest Service, in litt. 1999;
B. Ferguson, U.S. Forest Service, pers. comm. 1999), Cascades (F.
Zenson, U.S. Forest Service, pers. comm. 1999), and the Southern Rocky
Mountains (B. Short, U.S. Forest, in litt. 1999).
On National Forest lands, with a few exceptions for projects
involving third parties (applicants), activities that may affect lynx
on developmental allocations are addressed by adherence to the LCAS and
its conservation measures for lynx. For example, the Forest Service has
curtailed its precommercial thinning on Forest Service land since the
signing of its Conservation Agreement with the Service and the
programmatic biological opinion on Forest and BLM land management
plans, both of which abide by the LCAS (see Factor D). Risks to lynx or
lynx habitat on BLM lands also are being addressed through adherence to
the Conservation Agreement. Most Federal land management plans have yet
to be amended to provide long-term conservation for lynx.
Timber harvest activities on non-Federal lands are guided by State
or Tribal forest practice rules whose requirements vary (e.g., Idaho
Department of Lands 1996, Washington Administrative Code 2001, Montana
State Forest Practices Rules 2003). Under Washington Forest Practices
Board regulations, three major non-Federal landowners have adopted and
implemented lynx habitat management plans on their lands in Washington
(see Factor D).
We conclude that some timber harvest activities, such as pre-
commercial thinning, may reduce the quality of snowshoe hare habitat in
local areas on non-Federal lands in the Northern Rocky Mountains/
Cascades and Southern Rocky Mountains, and thus may negatively affect
lynx or lynx habitat at local scales. Alternatively, timber harvest
regimes in lynx habitat that create a dense understory provide good
snowshoe hare and lynx conditions. A significant proportion of lynx
habitat is managed in non-developmental status, which is beneficial for
lynx. Furthermore, lynx habitat on National Forest and BLM lands is
managed to conserve lynx. As a result, we conclude the current threats
from timber harvest and thinning on both non-Federal and Federal lands
to lynx in the Northern Rocky Mountains/Cascades and Southern Rocky
Mountains are low.
The final rule explained that natural fire plays a significant role
in creating the mosaic of vegetation patterns, forest stand ages and
structure that provide good lynx and snowshoe hare habitat in the
western mountain ranges of the

[[Page 40094]]

United States. The final rule also explained that fire suppression in
the Northern Rocky Mountains/Cascades and Southern Rocky Mountains
during the past 50 years has likely had little impact on lynx, because
most forests where lynx habitat occurs have natural fire return
intervals that are longer than the period of time of human fire
suppression or because fires that do occur in lynx habitat are large,
high-intensity fires that are difficult to suppress. Where fire
suppression does occur in lynx habitat, it can reduce the quality of
habitat by reducing the amount of younger forests or by changing the
species composition and structure of forests.
Because of the many large forest fires in the West since 2000,
there is increased national interest in reducing the risk of fire by
reducing fuel loads on both Federal and non-Federal lands (U.S.
Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of the Interior 2001).
Such efforts can affect lynx habitat if they reduce the amount of
understory vegetation. Understory removal may affect the capability of
stands to support snowshoe hares. At this time, few of these fire
suppression efforts have been implemented, so it is impossible to
analyze their effects on lynx. The LCAS recommends that on Federal
lands fire be restored as an ecological process. The U.S. Forest
Service and BLM use the LCAS in determining the effects of their
actions on lynx (see Factor D).
As in the final rule, we conclude that past fire suppression has
had limited impact in lynx habitat in the Northern Rocky Mountains/
Cascades and Southern Rocky Mountains; however, it may affect lynx
habitat quality at some local scales, particularly on non-Federal
lands. Although increased interest in fire suppression and reduction of
heavy fuels has the potential to affect snowshoe hare habitat, we
conclude the threat to lynx in the Northern Rocky Mountains/Cascades
and Southern Rocky Mountains as a result of the current effects of fire
suppression is currently low.

Northeast

In the Northeast, lynx habitat is supported almost entirely on a
non-Federal land base (private, State, or county), predominantly
commercial forest lands, as was recognized in the final rule. The final
rule discussed activities that may affect lynx in the Northeast Region.
It described the history of logging and forest management through the
1800s and 1900s and the effects on lynx habitat in this region.
Since the final rule, our understanding of forest conditions in
Maine, which is the core of the lynx range in the Northeast, has
improved. Historically, large-scale natural disturbances (wind, ice,
and insect epidemics) and traditional forestry practices (including
some level of clear-cutting) created the early successional forest
stages where snowshoe hares generally are most abundant. In response to
insect outbreaks in the 1970s and 1980s, extensive clear-cutting to
salvage diseased trees and subsequent herbicide use to promote regrowth
of conifers created the current forest conditions that are optimal for
snowshoe hares and lynx (Hoving 2001; Homyack 2003, Krohn 2003; G.
Matula, in litt. 2003). Currently, large amounts of the forest are in a
stage of regeneration that supports high snowshoe hare densities
(Homyack 2003). As a result, lynx numbers also are high (see ``Maine''
discussion, above).
At its peak in the late 1990s, 20 to 25 percent of the Maine forest
was in an early regeneration stage (Gadzik et al. 1998), which is
unnaturally high and out of proportion to historic conditions when only
3 to 7 percent of the forest was in this stage of regeneration (Krohn
2003). Nonetheless, this created exceptional snowshoe hare and lynx
habitat.
Passage of the Maine Forest Practices Act has in 1989 limited the
amount of clear cutting. As a result, forest landowners have changed
their harvest practices to extensive use of pre-commercial thinning and
partial harvesting rather than clear cutting (Gadzik et al. 1998,
Homyack 2003; Krohn 2003). These techniques result in forest stands
with sparse understories that support low snowshoe hare densities
(Homyack 2003). If harvest practices cease to provide early
successional forest with dense understories or stand-replacing
disturbances (such as provided by large clear-cut) in proportions
similar to historic conditions, habitat conditions for snowshoe hare
and lynx will be diminished.
The quantity of lynx habitat in Maine is expected to decline as
stands in late regeneration created by clear cutting in the 1970s and
1980s succeed to mature forest. Snowshoe hare populations begin to
decline in stands about 30 years after clear cutting when the forest
canopy closes, shading increases at ground level, and the dense
understory that supports high populations of snowshoe hares is greatly
reduced. Over 95 percent of cutting that occurs now is partial
harvesting (selective cutting, patch cuts). This new cutting regime
supports lower populations of snowshoe hares (Fuller 1999, Homyack
2003) and will not provide the large patches of regenerating forest
that support the more numerous lynx populations observed at the present
time.
As explained in the final rule, in Northeast forests fire return
intervals are very long as a result of the moist maritime influence.
Thus, fire did not historically play a significant role in creating
early successional habitats. While current fire suppression may have
localized minor effects, it is not likely affecting lynx habitat
overall in the Northeast.
As recognized in the final rule, timber harvest and associated
activities on non-Federal lands exert the most influence on lynx
habitat in the Northeast and have created the optimal conditions that
currently exist for lynx and snowshoe hares in northern Maine. At this
time, we do not know if future timber harvest practices will continue
to provide forest conditions that are capable of supporting snowshoe
hare densities that can, in turn, support a resident lynx population.
We conclude the threat to lynx in the Northeast because of timber
harvest and associated activities is moderate, although it may have
more severe impacts if a natural mosaic of forest stand ages and
structure that can support snowshoe hares and lynx is not maintained.

Great Lakes

The final rule described habitat conditions for lynx in the Great
Lake Region. It described the history of logging and forest management
through the 1800s and 1900s that was similar to the history in the
Northeast.
We know that the estimate of lynx habitat provided in 1999 (U.S.
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 1999) substantially
overestimated the amount of lynx habitat in the Great Lakes because of
the coarse-scale vegetation map on which the estimate for the Great
Lakes was based (see ``Great Lakes'' discussion above). By using more
accurate maps we now know that the majority of lynx habitat in the
Great Lakes is on Federal lands, primarily National Forest lands,
contrary to the information used in the final rule that incorrectly
portrayed a high proportion of lynx habitat on non-Federal lands (Great
Lakes Ecological Assessment no date, Mladenoff no date; Minnesota
Department Natural Resources, in litt. 2003; Wisconsin Department
Natural Resources, in litt. 2003). In the Great Lakes Region,
approximately 18,000 km 2 (7,000 mi 2) of lynx
habitat are currently mapped on National Forest lands (Table 1).

[[Page 40095]]

Unfortunately, an accurate estimate of the amount of lynx habitat
across all land ownerships in the Great Lakes is still not available.
A large amount of the boreal forest in northeastern Minnesota where
lynx are found is managed as the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness
(4,160 km\2\ (1,600 mi\2\)) (Superior National Forest website).
Wilderness is managed to let natural ecological processes dominate,
which is beneficial to lynx.
The final rule recognized that timber harvest is the predominant
use of the forests where lynx habitat occurs in the Great Lakes region;
the final rule also explained that timber harvest levels on National
Forest lands in the Great Lakes have declined by approximately 20
percent over the past decade (R. Gay, U.S. Forest Service, in litt.
1999). As described in the final rule, mixed conifer/hardwood stands
are often replaced and maintained in pure deciduous stands because of
the importance of aspen as a crop tree (Agee 2000). On managed timber
lands in all ownerships, the maintenance of aspen to produce pulpwood
precludes the establishment of coniferous forest types, which in turn
likely diminishes snowshoe hare habitat quality.
The final rule described natural fire regimes and the history of
fire suppression in the Great Lakes. Fire suppression policies across
all land ownerships in the Great Lakes are such that fire is unlikely
to assume its natural role in creating a mosaic of vegetation
communities and age classes across the landscape. However, the final
rule established that on some Federal lands in northeastern Minnesota,
where the region's highest quality and quantity of lynx habitat is
found, and where numerous lynx have been documented in the past 3 years
(Minnesota Department of Natural Resources in litt. 2003), fires are
allowed to burn. The LCAS recommends that on Federal lands fire be
restored as an ecological process. Locally, fire suppression may reduce
the quality of lynx habitat in the Great Lakes.
Since the listing of the lynx in 2000, activities that may affect
lynx on National Forest lands are addressed by the U.S. Forest
Service's adherence to the LCAS in alleviating the impacts of actions
on lynx (see Factor D). However, at this time, most Federal land
management plans have not been amended or revised to provide long-term
conservation of lynx.
We conclude that timber harvest and fire suppression on non-Federal
lands may cause local impacts to lynx and snowshoe hare habitat in the
Great Lakes Region. Since the lynx was listed, lynx habitat on National
Forest lands is managed to conserve lynx. As a result, we conclude the
threat to lynx in the Great Lakes because of timber harvest and fire
suppression is low.

Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Education Purposes

The final rule explained that one of the primary reasons we
proposed to list lynx, based on available information at the time, was
our conclusion that the low numbers of lynx in the contiguous United
States and southern Canada were the residual effects of over-trapping
believed to have occurred in the 1970s and 1980s, in response to
unprecedented high pelt prices, a concern that was widely shared (Brand
and Keith 1979; Todd 1985; Bailey et al. 1986; Hatler 1988; Washington
Department of Wildlife 1993).
The final rule explained the variables that influence trapping
records and the use of such records as indicators of historic lynx
population changes. The final rule recognized that trapping mortality
can either compensate for natural mortality or be in addition to
natural mortality, depending on when it occurs in the population cycle.
The final rule described trends in lynx pelt prices, and we will not
restate them here.
The final rule explained that based on information obtained after
public review and comment of the proposed rule in 1998, we now
recognize that the cyclic peak harvest returns of the early 1960s and
1970s were unprecedented highs for the 20th century (McKelvey et al.
2000b; Mowat et al. 2000). Wildlife managers may have expected harvest
returns during the 1980s and 1990s to be comparable to the anomalous
cyclic peaks of the 1960s and 1970s. When harvest returns failed to be
as high as anticipated, managers interpreted the lower returns to be
caused by overtrapping when pelt prices were high (Bailey et al. 1986;
Hatler 1988; Hash 1990; Washington Department of Wildlife 1993). We
compared the lynx harvest returns in the 1980s and early 1990s to
harvest data dating back over a longer period of time (i.e., prior to
1960) and found that lynx harvest returns were not unusual nor
appreciably lower than those recorded prior to the 1960s.
To demonstrate that lynx harvest returns in the 1980s and 1990s
were not substantially different from returns prior to the 1960s and
that wildlife managers were inappropriately using returns from the
1960s and 1970s as the standard on which to compare subsequent returns
and set seasons, the final rule thoroughly described historic trapping
data for Minnesota, Montana, and Washington, which will not be restated
here.
The final rule explained that Mowat et al. (2000) suspected that
over-trapping may deplete local lynx populations, particularly at the
southern part of the lynx's North American range, but that dispersal of
lynx from healthy populations has led to the repopulation of such
areas. States and Tribes closed lynx trapping seasons prior to the
listing of the lynx, which, in addition to the listing of lynx under
the Act, eliminated the mortality of lynx through legal lynx-targeted
trapping and we have no information suggesting that illegal lynx-
targeted trapping occurs in the contiguous United States. We continue
to believe that precautions taken by States and Provinces to restrict
lynx trapping since the 1980s likely have prevented and continue to
prevent the over-harvest of resident lynx. Most Canadian provinces
control for potential over-trapping by closing the lynx trapping
seasons during the lows in the lynx population cycle (e.g., Environment
et faune Quebec 1995). However, some theorize that lynx harvest in
Canada reduces the numbers of lynx that could potentially disperse to
the contiguous United States. In the final rule we explained that low
numbers of lynx in the contiguous United States compared to Canada
occur not as a result of over-trapping, but because the prey of lynx is
limited by naturally fragmented habitat, topography, and climate.
As we emphasized in the final rule, legal trapping, snaring, and
hunting for bobcat, coyote, wolverine, and other furbearers create a
potential for incidental capture or shooting of lynx. We know that
incidental capture and shooting occurs (Wydeven 1998; M. DonCarlos in
litt. 1994; Colorado Department of Wildlife 2003; R. Naney, U.S. Forest
Service, pers. comm. 1999, B. Giddings, Montana Fish, Wildlife and
Parks, pers. comm. 2001; C. McLaughlin, Maine Department of Inland
Fisheries and Wildlife, pers. comm. 2001; J. Cochrane, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 2003; M. McCollough pers. comm. 2003); no
reliable recordkeeping exists to determine how frequently such taking
occurs. The effect on the individual lynx captured has varied, usually
depending on the type of trap or the set and whether the trap was
checked in time to successfully release or rehabilitate the animal.
These captures have sometimes caused no injuries and the animal was
immediately released back into the wild, sometimes lynx were injured
but were rehabilitated and then

[[Page 40096]]

released into the wild, and sometimes the captures have resulted in
mortality. Mortality of captured individuals likely has differing
impacts on the ability of local populations to persist depending on the
size of the local population and when the trapping occurs in the
population cycle. Lynx persist throughout their range despite the
incidental catch that presumably has occurred throughout the past,
probably at higher levels than presently. Although we are concerned
about the mortality of lynx that are incidentally captured, we have no
information to indicate that the loss of these individuals has
negatively affected the overall ability of lynx in the contiguous
United States to persist. We recognize that individuals may be lost,
which could affect small, local populations.
Based on the information described in this section, we conclude
that legal, lynx-targeted harvesting does not occur and therefore is
not a factor threatening the contiguous United States lynx population.
The threat to lynx populations from illegal harvesting, if any, and
incidental catch by trapping, snaring, or hunting is low.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

Mountain lions (Puma concolor) and fisher (Martes pennanti) have
been documented to prey on lynx (Squires and Ruggiero 2001, G. Matula,
in litt. 2003) but there is no information to suggest that these
natural events are threatening lynx populations. Plague has been
documented in the Colorado reintroduced population, but its overall
impact is unknown at this time (T. Shenk, Colorado Division of
Wildlife, pers. comm 2003). As in the final rule, we conclude that
disease and predation are not factors threatening lynx.

Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

The final rule (1) outlined regulatory protections that States and
Tribes within the range of the lynx have in place to provide protection
to the species, (2) described how lynx is protected under the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), and
(3) identified efforts on private lands to provide for the conservation
of the species. These protections and efforts will not be reiterated
here.
Timber harvest activities on non-Federal lands are guided by State
or Tribal forest practice rules whose requirements vary (e.g., Maine
Forest Practices Act 1989); however, not all States or Tribes have
forest practice rules.
The final rule discussed the fact that a substantial amount of lynx
habitat in the contiguous United States is found on Federal lands,
primarily National Forest and BLM lands. The final rule thoroughly
described the purposes and analyses of the LCAS and the biological
assessment of National Forest and BLM Land Management Plans (U.S.
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 1999, Ruediger et al.
2000). At that time, we found that Federal land management plans did
not adequately address risks to lynx and, as identified in the LCAS,
that plans allowed actions that cumulatively could result in
significant detrimental effects to lynx in the contiguous United
States. As a result, we concluded in the final rule that the lack of
Federal Land Management Plan guidance for conservation of lynx, and the
potential for Plans to allow or direct actions that adversely affect
lynx, were a significant threat to the contiguous United States lynx
population.
As described in the final rule, the LCAS was developed to provide a
consistent and effective approach to conserving lynx on Federal lands
in the contiguous United States (Ruediger et al. 2000). The overall
goals of the LCAS were to recommend lynx conservation measures, provide
a basis for reviewing the adequacy with regard to lynx conservation of
Forest Service and BLM land and resource management plans, and
facilitate conferencing and consultation under section 7 of the Act,
should the lynx be listed. The LCAS identifies an inclusive list of 17
potential risk factors for lynx or lynx habitat that may be addressed
under programs, practices, and activities within the authority and
jurisdiction of Federal land management agencies. For example, these
risk factors include programs or practices that result in habitat
conversion, habitat fragmentation, or obstruction to lynx movement;
roads or winter recreation trails that facilitate access to historical
lynx habitat by competitors; and fire suppression, which changes the
vegetation mosaic maintained by natural disturbance processes. The
risks identified in the LCAS are based on effects to either individual
lynx, populations, both, or lynx habitat. Therefore, not all of the
risks identified in the LCAS threaten lynx populations in the United
States. For example, one risk factor identified for the Southern
Rockies Region is accidental death from vehicle collisions. While this
may result in the death of individual lynx, it is not considered to be
a threat to lynx populations.
With the listing of the lynx in 2000, Federal agencies across the
contiguous United States range of the lynx were required to consult
with the Service on actions that may affect lynx. The LCAS assists
Federal agencies in planning activities and projects in ways that
benefit lynx or avoid adverse impacts to lynx or lynx habitat (Ruediger
et al. 2000). The LCAS addresses potential risks including timber
harvest and fire management. The LCAS ensures the appropriate mosaic of
habitat is provided for lynx on Federal lands. For instance, both early
successional forests and older forests with understory are important
for lynx foraging habitat. The LCAS recommends that while timber
harvest can result in early successional forests, harvest be limited to
provide adequate amounts of older timber stands. Also, the LCAS
recommends that no pre-commercial thinning occur in lynx habitat and no
increase in designated or groomed snowmobile routes in lynx habitat. If
projects are designed that fail to meet these or other recommendations,
the biologists using the LCAS would arrive at an adverse effects
determination for lynx. On National Forest lands such projects then
would be deferred until Forest Plans are amended to conserve lynx.
A Conservation Agreement between the U.S. Forest Service and the
Service (U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in
litt. 2000) and a similar Agreement between the BLM and the Service
(Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in litt.
2000) committed the U.S. Forest Service and BLM to use the LCAS in
determining the effects of actions on lynx. The U.S. Forest Service
further committed to deferring any actions not involving third parties
that would adversely affect lynx, until such time as the Forest Plans
were amended or revised to adequately conserve lynx. A programmatic
biological opinion analyzed and confirmed the adequacy of the LCAS and
its conservation measures to conserve lynx and concluded that Forest
and BLM land management plans as implemented in accordance with the
Conservation Agreements would not jeopardize the continued existence of
lynx (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000). Currently, the ongoing
adherence to the Conservation Agreements, the LCAS, and the
programmatic biological opinion alleviates the effects of Federal land
management activities identified in the final rule. However, amendment
of National Forest and BLM land management plans to conserve lynx will
be the strongest mechanism in ensuring lynx and lynx habitat are
conserved on

[[Page 40097]]

National Forest and BLM lands for the long term.
As a result of Federal, State, and Tribal regulations and plans
that conserve lynx, the threats to lynx from the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms have been reduced. However, until Federal land
management plans are amended to address lynx, we conclude that the
threat to lynx because of the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms continues to be moderate, albeit at a lower level than that
described in the final rule.

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence

Since the lynx was listed, our understanding of the vital role
immigration of lynx from Canada plays in sustaining lynx in the
contiguous United States has improved (Ray et al. 2002, Schwartz et al.
2002). In the final rule, we explained that connectivity of appropriate
habitat types and cover provide travel corridors between habitat
patches, thereby increasing the likelihood of successful lynx
dispersal. It is essential that landscape connectivity between lynx
habitats and populations in Canada and the contiguous United States be
maintained. The final rule described the reduced ability for lynx from
northern populations in Canada to cross the St. Lawrence River in
southern Quebec and the St. Mary's River between Ontario and Michigan.
At this time, we know of no natural or human-caused barriers that
effectively prohibit movement of lynx between Canada and the directly
adjacent regions of the contiguous United States (Northeast, Great
Lakes, and Northern Rocky Mountains/Cascades) that support lynx
habitats and populations. The threat to lynx because of the lack of a
cohesive international strategy to maintain connectivity between
habitats in Canada and the United States is low.
The final rule also noted that for most areas of the contiguous
United States, we have no evidence that human-caused changes have
significantly reduced the ability of lynx to disperse or have resulted
in the loss of genetic interchange. The final rule explained that high
traffic volume on roads that bisect suitable lynx habitat and
associated suburban developments (such as from ski area expansion) may
inhibit lynx movement and dispersal and may contribute to loss of
habitat connectivity. Such situations occur in the Southern Rocky
Mountains Region connecting cities, towns, and ski areas. The final
rule explained that roads do not appear to be a significant direct
cause of mortality of resident lynx, but that the majority of records
of lynx mortalities from vehicle accidents are of recently translocated
animals. No information currently exists to determine the level at
which traffic volume or roadway design may influence or create an
impediment to lynx movements. In local areas, lynx may be negatively
influenced by high traffic volume on roads that bisect suitable lynx
habitat and associated suburban developments that contribute to loss of
habitat connectivity; however, we conclude the overall threat to lynx
populations from high traffic volume on roads that bisect suitable lynx
habitat and associated suburban developments is low, although locally
in Colorado the risk is higher.
Isolated, small resident lynx populations, such as may have existed
in the Southern Rocky Mountains and New York, are susceptible to
genetic or demographic problems or random environmental events (such as
a series of years when snow conditions are poor such that lynx cannot
out-compete other predators). As described in ``Background'' above, we
surmise that immigration is necessary to augment and maintain local
lynx populations, especially in transitional habitats at the southern
margins of lynx range. The natural distance and isolation of the
Southern Rocky Mountain region and New York from source lynx
populations may have severely reduced, if not entirely precluded the
immigration that was likely necessary for potential resident lynx
populations in these areas to sustain themselves. This same analysis
does not apply to dispersers because we consider dispersers to be
transient individual animals that are not a part of a population; they
contribute little to the persistence of the metapopulation unless they
augment or colonize resident lynx populations. We recognize that
individual lynx may be affected by random environmental events. We
expect that many dispersing lynx naturally do not survive because they
are unable to find adequate food resources and because of the risks
naturally inherent in long-distance movements.
The final rule describes that lynx show no evidence of being
displaced by or avoidance of unpaved forest roads. We find no
information demonstrating that forest roads negatively impact lynx (Roe
et al. 2001) and, therefore do not consider forest roads to be a threat
to lynx.
The final rule discussed the theory that suggested that increasing
ease of human access into forests increased the vulnerability of lynx
to intentional or unintentional shooting and trapping. We are concerned
about the mortality of lynx through legal or illegal trapping and
shooting; however, we have no information to indicate that the loss of
these individuals negatively affects the overall ability of lynx
populations to persist. We conclude the threat to the threat to lynx
populations from incidental catch by trapping, snaring, or hunting is
low (see Factor B above).
There continues to be no data on the role of competition between
lynx and other species; therefore, we have only information on behavior
and morphological adaptations of lynx and of potential competitors
during both winter and snow-free seasons from which to gain some
inferences about competition and whether it has an impact on lynx, as
was thoroughly described in the final rule. Bobcats, mountain lions,
and fishers are natural potential competitors or predators that
coevolved with lynx. As described in the final rule, the coyote
expanded its range into that of the lynx within the past century so any
potential for competition between these two species may be considered
unnatural. Deep snow provides lynx its competitive advantage. The final
rule explained that human alteration of forests may create habitats
that may be more suitable to potential lynx competitors. At this time
there is no evidence that, if competition exists between lynx and any
of these species, it exerts a population-level impact on lynx;
therefore, we do not consider competition to be a threat to lynx.
Research scientists in the Missoula Wildlife Ecology unit of the
Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, in cooperation with the
Northern Region of the Forest Service and the Superior National Forest
in Minnesota, recently discovered evidence of hybridization between
bobcats and Canada lynx. This is the first time hybridization has been
reported in wild populations of these species. As a result of this
finding, the Forest Service has conducted a DNA analysis of most of the
lynx hair samples collected as part of the National Lynx Survey to help
determine if hybridization has occurred elsewhere. So far, no
additional instances of hybridization have been detected. This
phenomenon may have implications for lynx conservation, but additional
sampling and analysis are required before biologists will be able to
fully understand the significance of the hybridization (D. Tippetts,
U.S. Forest Service, in litt., 2003).

[[Page 40098]]

Despite the lack of evidence that competition with any species is
negatively affecting lynx, the final rule explained the theory that ski
and snowmobile trails and roads that are maintained for winter
recreation and forest management create packed snow corridors that give
other species, particularly coyotes, access to lynx winter habitat on
all land ownerships. This theory has neither been proven or disproven
at this time (Roe et al. 2000). On the basis of this theory, the LCAS
provides that there be no net increase in groomed or designated over-
the-snow routes and snowmobile play areas on Federal lands (Ruediger et
al. 2000). The U.S. Forest Service and BLM are committed to adhering to
their Conservation Agreements with the Service and the programmatic
biological opinion on Forest and BLM land management plans that require
the U.S. Forest Service and BLM to use the LCAS in determining the
effects of actions on lynx (see Factor D). Because no evidence has been
provided that packed snowtrails facilitate competition to a level that
negatively affects lynx, we do not consider packed snowtrails to be a
threat to lynx at this time.
During the public comment period on this remanded decision, we
received information that predicted that if snow depths substantially
decrease for a long period of time, lynx habitat will no longer exist
in the Northeast (Hoving 2001). Hoving's (2001) model predicted that
lynx were most likely to occur in areas with deep snow (greater than
268 cm (105 in) of mean annual snowfall). Hoving (2001) modeled
possible consequences to the availability of lynx habitat in the
Northeast as determined by snow depth. His predictions were only based
on a comparison of average annual snow depths in the 1970s to those of
the 1980s, not on models of future climate. Hoving (2001) acknowledged
that the 1970s were unusually snowy whereas the 1980s was a period of
relatively little snow. If average annual snow depth substantially
decreases in the Northeast, as Hoving (2001) theorized could happen as
a result of global warming, appropriate lynx habitat would be
diminished and could be completely eliminated if appropriate climate
conditions did not return. We conclude the potential for long-term
reductions in snow depth because of climate change is speculative at
this time and is not a threat to lynx.

Table 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Magnitude of threat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Rockies/
Northeast Great Lakes Southern Rockies Cascades
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor A:
Timber harvest regimes...... Moderate.......... Low............... Low............... Low.
Fire suppression............ Not a threat...... Low............... Low............... Low.
Factor B:
Legal lynx-targeted harvest. Not a threat...... Not a threat...... Not a threat...... Not a threat.
Incidental harvest.......... Low............... Low............... Low............... Low.
Factor C........................ Not a threat...... Not a threat...... Not a threat...... Not a threat.
Factor D:
Federal land management plan Not a threat...... Moderate.......... Moderate.......... Moderate.
guidance.
Factor E:
International strategy...... Low............... Low............... Low............... Low.
High volume traffic/ Low............... Low............... Moderate.......... Low.
development.
Forest roads................ Not a threat...... Not a threat...... Not a threat...... Not a threat.
Competition................. Not a threat...... Not a threat...... Not a threat...... Not a threat.
Global warming.............. Not a threat...... Not a threat...... Not a threat...... Not a threat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finding

Based on the information provided in the final rule and the
analysis provided above about the range of the lynx and the five
factors contained in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, we find that the lynx
is not endangered because it is not in danger of extinction throughout
a significant portion of its range. The way the lynx is affected varies
across the range and there is not any particular activity that poses a
threat consistently throughout the range of the species. Activities
that may impact the lynx and its habitat are typically localized and
even within a local area the impact an activity may have on lynx can
vary depending on the quality and quantity of habitat in a local area
or the size of the local resident population. In some portions of the
range, lynx and its habitat face few or no threats (e.g., in wilderness
areas in the Great Lakes, Southern Rocky Mountains, and Northern Rocky
Mountains/Cascades).
Activities addressed in the factors contained in section 4(a)(1)
are not of the magnitude or scope to require us to list the species as
endangered. We base our finding that lynx is not endangered on the
following factors:
(1) Lynx in the contiguous United States are, and historically have
been, the southernmost segment of a larger metapopulation whose center
is in Canada. Immigration from Canada is, and historically was, vital
to sustaining lynx in the contiguous United States.
(2) In the contiguous United States, lynx habitat consists of the
southern extensions of the boreal forest in the Northeast, Great Lakes,
Southern Rocky Mountains, and Northern Rocky Mountains/Cascades. The
overall quantity and extent of boreal forest in these areas has not
substantially changed in the past century because, for the most part,
areas where lynx habitat occurs are still managed as forest lands,
although there may have been a low level of encroachment in lynx
habitat because of human development in some local areas. The quality
of the boreal forest varies because it is a naturally dynamic
ecosystem. To support lynx, the boreal forest must contain the mosaic
of appropriate species composition, forest stand ages, and forest
structure that provide snowshoe hare habitat for lynx foraging and lynx
denning conditions.
(3) Lynx habitat occurs on lands owned and managed by Federal,
Tribal, State, County, and private individuals and entities. Although
we do not have information that allows us to accurately quantify how
much habitat for lynx exists in the contiguous United States,

[[Page 40099]]

in the Northeast nearly all lynx habitat occurs on private lands. In
the Great Lakes, Southern Rocky Mountains, and Northern Rocky
Mountains/Cascades, lynx habitat occurs primarily on Federal lands,
although a portion does occur on State, Tribal, or private lands. Based
on coarse vegetation maps, potential lynx habitat was roughly estimated
to be 65,337 km \2\ (25,227 mi \2\) in the Northeast; 96,247 km \2\
(37,161 mi \2\) in the Great Lakes; 26,673 km \2\ (10,298 mi \2\) in
the Southern Rocky Mountains; and 155,893 km \2\ (60,191 mi \2\) in the
Northern Rocky Mountains/Cascades (U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of
Land Management 1999).
(4) The current range of the lynx includes portions of Colorado,
Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New York,
Oregon, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The historic
range of the lynx included these same States. The range of the lynx has
not been dramatically reduced. We believe all historic habitat is still
available to dispersing lynx except for very local areas where
development has encroached on the boreal forest. A resident population
does not exist in New York. We do not know if New York or the Southern
Rockies ever supported resident lynx populations, but efforts at
reintroduction of lynx in New York were unsuccessful and it would be
premature to judge ongoing reintroduction efforts in Colorado (although
reproduction has recently been documented).
(5) In the contiguous United States, the quality and quantity of
the available habitat and its proximity to source populations
influenced whether lynx historically were able to establish resident
populations or occurred primarily as dispersers. The best scientific
information suggests that historically only a few areas in the
contiguous United States had lynx habitat of high enough quality and
quantity to support resident populations and these are areas where
resident populations currently continue to persist--northern Maine,
northeastern Minnesota, western Montana, and north-central and
northeastern Washington. Evidence of the continuing high quality
habitat of these areas is indicated by the fact that currently there
are many more lynx in these areas where resident populations exist
(particularly in Maine and northeastern Minnesota) than we knew at the
time we listed the species in 2000. Northern New Hampshire and northern
Idaho currently have habitat conditions presumed capable of supporting
lynx and are directly adjacent to resident populations; therefore we
expect lynx occupy these areas.
The areas where resident populations occur are where habitat for
lynx has consistently been of sufficient quality and quantity to
support abundant snowshoe hare populations so that lynx are able to
successfully produce kittens that are then recruited into the
population. These habitats are of sufficient quality and quantity such
that snowshoe hare populations at cyclic lows are still able to support
a minimal number of lynx in the area, although we do not expect that
lynx successfully reproduce when hare populations are low.
Additionally, the habitat quality and quantity can support immigrants
from Canada that colonize new areas or contribute to existing
populations. In reality, in each region these areas are an artifact of
the international border between Canada and the United States that
artificially splits them into two pieces of a whole that exists
primarily in Canada. This is most evident in Minnesota and Ontario--it
appears sometimes the Ontario lynx population expands and occupies
Minnesota and sometimes it contracts and lynx recede from Minnesota.
Historically, both Colorado and New York may have supported small
resident lynx populations that may have been extirpated, although we
are uncertain because historic records in these areas also may have
been of dispersers that arrived during extremely high population
cycles. In both Colorado and New York the last verified record of lynx
was in 1973, a time that corresponds to an extreme cyclic population
high. In both States there have been recent efforts to establish lynx
populations. The attempt to establish a lynx population in New York in
1989-1991 was unsuccessful. The State of Colorado has undertaken an
intensive effort to restore lynx in Colorado. Lynx have been released
over the past 4 years into Colorado and reproduction was recently
documented, but it is too early to determine if a population will be
successfully established.
(6) In the remainder of the lynx range where some boreal forest
exists in smaller patches, is of marginal quality, or is relatively
isolated from source lynx populations, lynx occur as dispersers. We
include boreal forest that supports only dispersers within the range of
the lynx because of the possibility lynx could establish a local
population and contribute to the persistence of the metapopulation.
However, evidence of this is minimal. We consider these areas that only
support dispersers within the range of the lynx--portions of Michigan,
Oregon, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
(7) Areas that are outside of boreal forest types and that do not
have cold winters with deep snow where dispersing lynx have
sporadically been documented are not considered a part of the range of
lynx because they do not contain the ecological conditions capable of
supporting lynx. These areas include--Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa,
Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
South Dakota, and Virginia.
(8) We conclude that large portions of range of the lynx in the
Great Lakes, Southern Rocky Mountains, and Northern Rocky Mountains/
Cascades are managed as non-developmental, such as designated
wilderness areas, which is beneficial to lynx because it is managed to
let natural ecological processes dominate. While there is some risk to
lynx in these areas, these risks do not threaten lynx.
(9) We conclude there is a low threat to the contiguous United
States lynx population because of the lack of a cohesive international
strategy to maintain connectivity between habitats in Canada and the
United States.
(10) We conclude there is a threat to the contiguous United States
lynx population because of current effects of timber harvest and
thinning and fire suppression on both non-Federal and Federal lands in
the Northern Rocky Mountains/Cascades and Southern Rocky Mountains. We
conclude that this threat is low. Although a majority of lynx habitat
in these regions is on National Forest and BLM lands that are managed
to conserve lynx, timber harvest regimes and fire suppression that may
be locally detrimental to lynx and snowshoe hare habitat likely occurs
on the limited amount of non-Federal lands that support lynx habitat in
both the Northern Rocky Mountains/Cascades and Southern Rocky
Mountains.
(11) We conclude that lynx habitat may be impacted because of
changing timber harvest regimes on non-Federal lands in the Northeast.
We conclude the threat of these activities is moderate, although there
is the potential for more severe impacts if a natural mosaic of
vegetation ages and forest structure that can support snowshoe hares
and lynx is not maintained.
(12) We conclude that lynx may be impacted because of timber
harvest and fire suppression on non-Federal and Federal lands in the
Great Lakes. However, the impact of these activities is low because a
majority of lynx habitat in this region is on National Forest lands,
which are managed to conserve

[[Page 40100]]

lynx; however, on the non-Federal lands in this region timber harvest
regimes and fire suppression could cause local impacts to lynx and
snowshoe hare habitat.
(13) Until Federal land management plans are amended or revised to
address lynx, we conclude that the threat to lynx because of the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms is moderate, albeit at a
lower level than that described in the final rule.
(14) We conclude there is a threat to the contiguous United States
lynx population from incidental catch by trapping, snaring, or hunting.
We conclude this threat is low, although there may be an increased risk
to small, local populations from incidental catch depending on when it
occurs in the population cycle; however, we have no information
regarding how frequently incidental trapping, snaring, or hunting of
lynx occurs.
(15) We conclude that existing regulatory mechanisms do not
ameliorate all of the threats contained in Factors A, B, and E.
However, some regulatory mechanisms do minimize the impact some
activities may have on lynx, such as regulations that prohibit the
trapping and hunting of lynx in most States. While Federal land
management plans have yet to be amended to adequately address lynx,
Federal land managers have taken significant steps to minimize the
impacts projects may have on lynx and manage habitat to conserve lynx
until land management plans are amended.
(16) We conclude lynx are impacted by high traffic volume on roads
that bisect suitable lynx habitat and by associated suburban
developments. However, we conclude this impact is low because this
situation rarely occurs throughout the range of lynx except in the
Southern Rocky Mountains; however there is currently no native lynx
population in this area.
Lynx in the Northeast are not in danger of extinction. As it has
historically, the boreal forest of the Northeast exists primarily in
Maine. Lynx habitat in Maine is currently optimal and a resident,
breeding population of lynx continues to exist. Maine's lynx population
is currently much larger than we knew at the time of the final rule in
2000 and lynx habitat in Maine is directly connected to substantial
lynx populations and habitat in southeastern Quebec and New Brunswick.
Future timber harvest regimes in Maine have the potential to reduce the
amount of snowshoe hare habitat, which in turn would reduce the size of
the lynx population. There are no barriers to the movement of lynx
across the Canada-U.S. border. Coyote snaring in Maine poses a risk of
incidental mortality to local lynx populations. The potential exists
for lynx to occur in New Hampshire because of its direct connectivity
with Maine and we presume they currently occur there. Lynx in Vermont
have always existed solely as dispersers because Vermont naturally
supports very little lynx habitat.
Lynx in the Great Lakes are not in danger of extinction.
Northeastern Minnesota has historically supported, and currently
supports, a resident lynx population. Boreal forest in Minnesota is
contiguous with occupied habitat in Ontario. Currently, there are many
more lynx in northeastern Minnesota than we knew of at the time of the
final rule in 2000. The majority of lynx habitat in the Great Lakes
area is located in Minnesota and is managed as Federal lands. Threats
to lynx on these lands are alleviated because these Federal agencies
use the LCAS to guide activities in lynx habitat. Amendment or revision
of Federal land management plans to adequately address lynx is
necessary to provide long-term lynx conservation. On non-Federal lands
there is a low threat to lynx because of the potential for certain
forms of timber management and fire suppression to reduce snowshoe hare
habitat. Wisconsin and Michigan naturally support only dispersing
animals. We base this assessment on the lack of evidence of
reproduction, lack of direct connectivity with suitable habitat, and
limited amount of habitat in these States.
We conclude that the only portion of the range where the lynx faces
possible extirpation includes the Southern Rocky Mountains (primarily
Colorado) and New York, to the extent that either of these areas
historically supported resident populations. We believe the loss of
these resident populations was a natural process because these areas
are naturally isolated from source lynx populations and habitats;
therefore, the immigration necessary to augment and maintain local lynx
populations was naturally precluded. However, the State of Colorado is
currently undertaking an intense effort to restore lynx to Colorado. If
lynx in these areas historically consisted only of dispersers that
arrived during extremely high population cycles, we have no evidence
that anything would prevent further such dispersal into these areas in
the future. In addition, to use the words of another court quoted with
approval of the court in this case, to the extent that these areas
never supported a resident population (as opposed to dispersers), these
areas are not ``areas in which [the lynx]
is no longer viable but once
was,'' because the lynx was never viable there. Defenders of Wildlife
v. Norton, 258 F.3d 1136, 1145 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoted at 239 F.Supp.2d
at 20). However, if we presume that both Colorado and New York
historically supported resident populations, we find these areas do not
constitute a significant portion of the range of lynx for the following
reasons:
(1) Both areas constitute a comparatively small amount of the
contiguous United States range of the lynx. Based on rough estimates,
the Southern Rockies (primarily Colorado) supported only 8 percent of
lynx habitat in the contiguous United States (U.S. Forest Service and
Bureau of Land Management 1999); however, we know this proportion was
somewhat underestimated because lynx habitat was overestimated in other
regions. New York supports slightly more than 1 percent of lynx habitat
just within the Northeast based on a current habitat model, and
therefore only a small fraction of a percent of the habitat nationwide.
(2) The fact that historic records do not clearly demonstrate that
these areas supported resident, breeding lynx populations indicates
that these areas are of more marginal quality. Where habitat is
abundant and of higher quality, there is evidence that resident,
breeding lynx populations persist as indicated by high numbers of
reliable lynx records over many years and evidence of reproduction. We
do not have such information for either New York or the Southern Rocky
Mountains. In fact, an effort to establish a lynx population in New
York during 1989-1991 failed, potentially an indication that the
habitat was not adequate to support a lynx population. Reproduction has
recently been documented in an intensive lynx reestablishment effort
currently underway in Colorado but it remains to be seen if the habitat
is adequate to support a lynx population for the long-term without such
intensive human intervention.
(3) Habitat appears marginal in the Southern Rocky Mountains and
New York. In the Southern Rocky Mountains lynx habitat occurs at high
elevations and, therefore, is naturally highly fragmented by topography
and drier south- and west-facing slopes into island-like patches rather
than expansive, contiguous blocks. The amount of potential lynx habitat
in New York is estimated to be an area only slightly larger than the
average home range of a single male lynx. Additionally, the boreal
forest in New

[[Page 40101]]

York is protected as Adirondack State Park where much of the forest is
mature and does not have the understory necessary to support a snowshoe
hare population capable of sustaining lynx.
(4) Both of these areas are a relatively long distance and
naturally more isolated from other lynx populations, substantially
reducing the potential for lynx from northern populations to augment or
colonize these areas or, alternatively, reducing the ability of lynx
from these areas to have augmented or colonized other lynx habitats.
Therefore the contribution of these areas to the persistence of lynx in
the contiguous United States is presumably minimal.
We conclude that the contiguous United States DPS of the lynx is
not in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its
range within the Northeast, Great Lakes, or Southern Rockies and
therefore does not warrant reclassification to ``endangered'' status in
all or a significant portion of its range within these areas. As a
result the Canada lynx will remain listed as threatened in Colorado,
Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New York,
Oregon, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited herein, as well as others,
is available upon request from the Montana Field Office (see
ADDRESSES).

Author

The author of this document is Lori Nordstrom, Montana Field
Office, Helena, Montana.

Dated: June 24, 2003.
Steve Williams,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 03-16664 Filed 7-2-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of Remanded Determination of Status for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx

Local Navigation