[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 58 (Friday, March 24, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16052-16086]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-7145]



[[Page 16051]]

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

Part V





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of 
Threatened Status for the Contiguous U.S. Distinct Population Segment 
of the Canada Lynx and Related Rule; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 58 / Friday, March 24, 2000 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 16052]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AF03


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of 
Threatened Status for the Contiguous U.S. Distinct Population Segment 
of the Canada Lynx and Related Rule

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine 
threatened status for the contiguous U.S. Distinct Population Segment 
of the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), with a special rule, pursuant to 
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. This population segment 
occurs in forested portions of the States of Colorado, Idaho, Maine, 
Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Utah, 
Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. The contiguous U.S. Distinct 
Population Segment of the lynx is threatened by the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms. Current U.S. Forest Service Land and 
Resource Management Plans include programs, practices, and activities 
within the authority and jurisdiction of Federal land management 
agencies that may threaten lynx or lynx habitat. The lack of protection 
for lynx in these Plans render them inadequate to protect the species.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 24, 2000.

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: Kemper McMaster, Field Supervisor, 
Montana Field Office (see ADDRESSES section) (telephone 406/449-5225; 
facsimile 406/449-5339).

Background

    The Canada lynx, hereafter referred to as lynx, is a medium-sized 
cat with long legs; large, well-furred paws; long tufts on the ears; 
and a short, black-tipped tail (McCord and Cardoza 1982). Adult males 
average 10 kilograms (22 pounds) in weight and 85 centimeters (33.5 
inches) in length (head to tail), and females average 8.5 kilograms (19 
pounds) and 82 centimeters (32 inches) (Quinn and Parker 1987). The 
lynx's long legs and large feet make it highly adapted for hunting in 
deep snow.
    The bobcat (Lynx rufus) is a North American relative of the lynx. 
Compared to the lynx, the bobcat has smaller paws, shorter ear tufts, 
and a more spotted pelage (coat), and only the top of the tip of the 
tail is black. The paws of the lynx have twice the surface area as 
those of the bobcat (Quinn and Parker 1987). The lynx also differs in 
its body proportions in comparison to the bobcat. Lynx have longer 
legs, with hind legs that are longer than the front legs, giving the 
lynx a ``stooped'' appearance (Quinn and Parker 1987). Bobcats are 
largely restricted to habitats where deep snows do not accumulate 
(Koehler and Hornocker 1991). Hybridization (breeding) between lynx and 
bobcat is not known (Quinn and Parker 1987).
    Classification of the Canada lynx (also called the North American 
lynx) has been subject to revision. In accordance with Wilson and 
Reeder (1993), we currently recognize the lynx in North America as Lynx 
canadensis. We previously used the latin name L. lynx canadensis for 
the lynx (Jones et al. 1992; S. Williams, Texas Tech University, pers. 
comm. 1994). Other scientific names still in use include Felis lynx or 
F. lynx canadensis (Jones et al. 1986; Tumlison 1987).
    The historical and present range of the lynx north of the 
contiguous United States includes Alaska and that part of Canada that 
extends from the Yukon and Northwest Territories south across the 
United States border and east to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. In the 
contiguous United States, lynx historically occurred in the Cascades 
Range of Washington and Oregon; the Rocky Mountain Range in Montana, 
Wyoming, Idaho, eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, northern Utah, and 
Colorado; the western Great Lakes Region; and the northeastern United 
States region from Maine southwest to New York (McCord and Cardoza 
1982; Quinn and Parker 1987) (see ``Distribution and Status'' section).
    In the contiguous United States, the distribution of the lynx is 
associated with the southern boreal forest, comprising of subalpine 
coniferous forest in the West and primarily mixed coniferous/deciduous 
forest in the East (Aubry et al. 1999) (see ``Distribution and Status'' 
section); whereas in Canada and Alaska, lynx inhabit the classic boreal 
forest ecosystem known as the taiga (McCord and Cardoza 1982; Quinn and 
Parker 1987; Agee 1999; McKelvey et al. 1999b). Within these general 
forest types, lynx are most likely to persist in areas that receive 
deep snow, for which the lynx is highly adapted (Ruggiero et al. 
1999b).
    We consider lynx in the contiguous United States to be part of a 
larger metapopulation whose core is located in the northern boreal 
forest of central Canada; lynx populations emanate from this area 
(Buskirk et al. 1999b; McKelvey et al. 1999a, 1999b). The boreal forest 
extends south into the contiguous United States along the Cascade and 
Rocky Mountain Ranges in the West, the western Great Lakes Region, and 
along the Appalachian Mountain Range of the northeastern United States. 
At its southern margins, the boreal forest becomes naturally fragmented 
into patches of varying size as it transitions into other vegetation 
types. These southern boreal forest habitat patches are small relative 
to the extensive northern boreal forest of Canada and Alaska, which 
constitutes the majority of the lynx range.
    Many of these southern boreal forest habitat patches within the 
contiguous United States are able to support resident populations of 
lynx and their primary prey species. It is likely that some of the 
habitat patches act as sources of lynx (recruitment is greater than 
mortality) that are able to disperse and potentially colonize other 
patches (McKelvey et al. 1999a). Other habitat patches act as ``sinks'' 
where lynx mortality is greater than recruitment and lynx are lost from 
the overall population. The ability of naturally dynamic habitat to 
support lynx populations may change as the habitat undergoes natural 
succession following natural or manmade disturbances (i.e., fire, 
clearcutting). In addition, fluctuations in the prey populations may 
cause some habitat patches to change from being sinks to sources and 
vice versa. 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 based on a variety of factors, such as evidence 
of reproduction, successful recruitment into the breeding cohort, and 
maintenance of home ranges. We use the word ``transient'' to refer to a 
lynx moving from one place to another within suitable habitat. Another 
word we use throughout the document is ``dispersing,'' which refers to 
lynx that have left suitable habitat for various reasons, such as 
competition or lack of food. When dispersing lynx leave suitable 
habitat and enter habitats that are unlikely to sustain lynx, these 
individuals are considered lost from the metapopulations unless they 
return to boreal forest.
    Lynx use large woody debris, such as downed logs and windfalls, to 
provide

[[Page 16053]]

denning sites with security and thermal cover for kittens (McCord and 
Cardoza 1982; Koehler 1990; Koehler and Brittell 1990; Squires and 
Laurion 1999; J. Organ, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in litt. 1999). 
For lynx den sites, the age of the forest stand does not seem as 
important as the amount of downed, woody debris available (Mowat et al. 
1999). In Washington, lynx used Pinus contorta (lodgepole pine), Picea 
spp. (spruce), and Abies lasiocarpa (subalpine fir) forests older than 
200 years with an abundance of downed woody debris for denning (Koehler 
1990). A den site in Wyoming was located in a mature subalpine fir/
lodgepole pine forest with abundant downed logs and a high amount of 
horizontal cover (Squires and Laurion 1999). A lynx den site found in 
Maine in 1999 was located in a forest stand in Picea rubra (red spruce) 
cover type that was logged in 1930 and again in the 1980s (J. Organ, in 
litt. 1999). The site is regenerating into hardwoods and has a dense 
understory (J. Organ, in litt. 1999). The dominant feature of the Maine 
site was the abundance of dead and downed wood (J. Organ, in litt. 
1999).
    The size of lynx home ranges varies by the animal's gender, 
abundance of prey, season, and the density of lynx populations (Hatler 
1988; Koehler 1990; Poole 1994; Slough and Mowat 1996; Aubry et al. 
1999; Mowat et al. 1999). Documented home ranges vary from 8 to 800 
square kilometers (3 to 300 square miles) (Saunders 1963; Brand et al. 
1976; Mech 1980; Parker et al. 1983; Koehler and Aubry 1994; Apps 1999; 
Mowat et al. 1999; Squires and Laurion 1999). Preliminary research 
supports the hypothesis that lynx home ranges at the southern extent of 
the species' range are generally large compared to those in the 
northern portion of the range in Canada (Koehler and Aubry 1994; Apps 
1999; Squires and Laurion 1999).
    Lynx are highly specialized predators whose primary prey is the 
snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), which has evolved to survive in areas 
that receive deep snow (Bittner and Rongstad 1982). Snowshoe hares use 
forests with dense understories that provide forage, cover to escape 
from predators, and protection during extreme weather (Wolfe et al. 
1982; Monthey 1986; Hodges 1999a,1999b). Generally, earlier 
successional forest stages have greater understory structure than do 
mature forests and therefore support higher hare densities (Hodges 
1999a,1999b). However, mature forests can also provide snowshoe hare 
habitat as openings develop in the canopy of mature forests when trees 
succumb to disease, fire, wind, ice, or insects, and the understory 
grows (Buskirk et al. 1999b). Lynx concentrate their hunting activities 
in areas where hare activity is relatively high (Koehler et al. 1979; 
Parker 1981; Ward and Krebs 1985; Major 1989; Murray et al. 1994; 
O'Donoghue et al. 1997, 1998a).
    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). 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 1999a, 
1999b; McKelvey et al. 1999b). Generally, researchers believe that when 
hare populations are at their cyclic high, depletion of food resources 
exacerbated by predation cause hare populations to decline drastically 
(Buehler and Keith 1982; Krebs et al. 1995; O'Donoghue et al. 1997). 
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 1997, 1998a). Red squirrels (Tamiasciurus 
hudsonicus) are an important alternate prey (O'Donoghue 1997;1998a; 
Apps 1999; Aubry et al. 1999). In the Yukon, lynx shifted to red 
squirrels when hare numbers began to decline (O'Donoghue 1998a, 1998b). 
However, a shift to alternate food sources may not compensate for the 
decrease in hares consumed (Koehler and Aubry 1994). In northern 
regions, when hare densities decline, the lower quality diet causes 
sudden decreases in the productivity of adult female lynx and decreased 
survival of kittens, which causes the numbers of breeding lynx to level 
off or decrease (Nellis et al. 1972; Brand et al. 1976; Brand and Keith 
1979; Poole 1994; Slough and Mowat 1996; O'Donoghue et al. 1997).
    Relative densities of snowshoe hares at southern latitudes are 
generally lower than those in the north, which has led to differing 
interpretations of the population dynamics of snowshoe hare 
populations. At southern latitudes hare populations may be--(1) 
noncyclic, (2) cyclic like northern populations, (3) cyclic with the 
high and low population numbers closer to the average population 
numbers, or (4) cyclic with a fluctuating periodicity (length of time 
between peaks and lows) (Dolbeer and Clark 1975; Wolff 1980; Buehler 
and Keith 1982; Brittell et al. 1989; Koehler 1990; Koehler and Aubry 
1994; Hodges 1999b). Hodges (1999b) proposes 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. Snowshoe 
hares are generally associated with conifer forest cover types (Hodges 
1999b). 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). If snowshoe hare populations in southern boreal forests 
do fluctuate (Hodges 1999b), then southern lynx populations also may be 
expected to fluctuate.
    Therefore, lynx densities at the southern part of the range never 
achieve the high densities that occur in the northern boreal forest 
(Aubry et al. 1999). Comparisons between Canadian and contiguous U.S. 
lynx harvest returns and snowshoe hare densities over time suggest lynx 
numbers and snowshoe hare densities for the contiguous United States 
are substantially lower than those for Canadian provinces (Hodges 
1999a, 1999b; McKelvey et al. 1999b). We conclude that historic and 
current lynx densities in the contiguous United States also are 
naturally low relative to lynx densities in the northern boreal forest.
    Researchers believe cyclic increases in historic lynx harvest 
numbers in the contiguous United States were augmented by dispersal of 
transient animals from Canadian populations (Gunderson 1978; Henderson 
1978; Mech 1980; McKelvey et al. 1999b). The opinion of some 
individuals and agencies is that presence of lynx in some regions of 
the contiguous United States, particularly the Great Lakes, is solely a 
consequence of dispersal from Canada (G. Meyer, Wisconsin Department of 
Natural Resources, in litt. 1998; R. Sando, Minnesota Department of 
Natural Resources, in litt. 1998). Lynx are capable of dispersing 
extremely long distances (Mech 1977; Brainerd 1985; Washington 
Department of Wildlife 1993); for example, a male was documented 
traveling 616 kilometers (370 miles) (Brainerd 1985). Lynx disperse 
primarily when snowshoe hare populations decline (Ward and Krebs 1985; 
Koehler and Aubry 1994;

[[Page 16054]]

O'Donoghue et al. 1997; Poole 1997). Subadult lynx disperse even when 
prey is abundant (Poole 1997), presumably as an innate response to 
establish home ranges. An extreme example of the apparent emigration of 
lynx from Canada to the contiguous United States is the numerous 
occurrences of lynx that were frequently documented in atypical 
habitat, such as in North Dakota, during the early 1960s and 1970s. In 
these years harvest returns indicated unprecedented cyclic lynx highs 
for the 20th century in Canada (Adams 1963; Harger 1965; Mech 1973; 
Gunderson 1978; Thiel 1987; McKelvey et al. 1999b). We believe that 
many of these animals were dispersing and were either lost from the 
population because they were in areas that are unable to support lynx 
or they were able to return to suitable habitat.

Distribution and Status

    The complexities of lynx life-history and population dynamics, 
combined with a general lack of reliable historic or current lynx data 
for the contiguous United States, make it difficult for us to ascertain 
the past or present population status of lynx in the contiguous United 
States. Lynx population dynamics in the contiguous United States may 
not be the same as in the northern boreal forests of Canada and Alaska. 
Regarding lynx in the northern boreal forests of Canada and Alaska, we 
know the following--northern lynx populations undergo extreme 
fluctuations in response to snowshoe hare population cycles; lynx 
disperse when hare populations decline; lynx are capable of dispersing 
long distances; recruitment of young into the population seems to cease 
during cyclic lows of snowshoe hare populations; and lynx maintain home 
ranges (Mowat et al. 1999). We do not know the extent to which the 
northern lynx populations influence lynx occurrence in the contiguous 
United States. Because of the naturally fragmented habitat and lower 
density hare populations in the contiguous United States, we expect 
lynx in the contiguous United States to occur at naturally lower 
densities than in the north.
    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, referring 
to both as ``lynxcats.'' Therefore, long-term lynx trapping data is not 
available for most States. 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. Long-term trapping data have been used to 
understand population trends for various species; however, because 
trapper effort can change, trapping returns may not accurately reflect 
population trends. Data showing few lynx trapped could be a result of 
decreased trapper effort, not necessarily a decreased population. These 
factors hamper our understanding of lynx population dynamics and status 
in the contiguous United States and preclude us from drawing definitive 
conclusions about lynx population trends. Data are too incomplete to 
infer much beyond simple occurrence (McKelvey et al. 1999b) and 
distribution of lynx in the contiguous United States. However, despite 
these difficulties, trapping data is the best information available on 
lynx presence throughout much of its range in the contiguous United 
States and therefore was relied upon in our analysis.
    Data that would help us determine whether resident populations of 
lynx existed historically or exist currently in many States are 
generally unavailable. Given the available data and the propensity of 
lynx to disperse, at this time it is impossible to determine with 
certainty whether reports of lynx in many States were--(1) merely 
dispersing animals from northern populations that were effectively lost 
from the metapopulation because they did not join or establish resident 
populations, (2) animals that were a part of a resident population that 
persisted for many generations, or (3) a mixture of both members of 
resident populations and dispersing animals.
    There are several plausible explanations for a lack of lynx 
records, such as (1) the true absence of lynx, (2) lynx populations are 
at a cyclic low, (3) lack of adequate surveys, or (4) decreased trapper 
effort. We suspect that some areas in the contiguous United States 
naturally act as ``sinks'' for lynx where mortality is higher than 
recruitment and lynx are lost from the overall population (McKelvey et 
al. 1999a). Sink habitats are most likely those places on the periphery 
of the southern boreal forest in the contiguous United States where 
habitat becomes more fragmented and more distant from larger lynx 
populations.
    In the following discussions, we describe available lynx data, 
habitat, and other elements that frame our understanding of lynx in the 
various regions and States where lynx have been reported within the 
contiguous United States.
    Within the contiguous United States, the lynx range extends into 
different regions that are separated from each other by ecological 
barriers consisting of unsuitable lynx habitat. These regions are the 
Northeast, the Great Lakes, the Northern Rocky Mountains/Cascades, and 
the Southern Rocky Mountains. In general, lynx in each of these regions 
are associated with habitats that are southern extensions of the boreal 
forest (Aubry et al. 1999). Differences in local climate, primarily 
precipitation, and effects of elevation have resulted in climax forest 
types that differ in the eastern regions compared to the West (Buskirk 
et al. 1999b). The climax forest in the East is primarily deciduous or 
mixed deciduous/coniferous whereas in the West the climax forest is 
coniferous (Buskirk et al. 1999b). While the four regions of lynx range 
in the contiguous United States are ecologically unique and discreet, 
in each of these regions the lynx is associated with the southern 
boreal forest and, with the exception of the Southern Rockies, they are 
each geographically connected to the much larger population of lynx in 
Canada. For a more detailed description of the significance of each 
region within the overall U.S. population, see the ``Distinct 
Population Segment'' section.
    Northeast Region--Based on an analysis of cover types and elevation 
zones containing most of the lynx occurrences, McKelvey et al. (1999b) 
determined that, at the broad scale, most lynx occurrence records in 
the Northeast were found within the ``Mixed Forest-Coniferous Forest-
Tundra'' cover type at elevations ranging from 250 to 750 meters (820 
to 2,460 feet). This habitat type in the northeast U.S. 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 more fragmented and 
begins to diminish to the south and west, with a disjunct segment 
running north-south through Vermont, an extensive patch of habitat in 
the Adirondacks of northern New York, and with a few more distant and 
isolated patches in Pennsylvania (see Figure 8.23 in McKelvey et al. 
1999b). Within this habitat type, the highest frequency of lynx 
occurrences were in the Picea rubens (red spruce), Abies balsamea 
(balsam fir), Acer saccharum (sugar maple), Betula spp. (birch), Fagus 
grandifolia (beech) forest (McKelvey et al. 1999b).
    The entire region south of the St. Lawrence River must be 
considered in

[[Page 16055]]

an assessment of lynx in the northeastern United States. Movement of 
lynx across the St. Lawrence River is believed to occur infrequently 
(R. Lafond, Quebec Ministry of the Environment, pers. comm. 1999); 
therefore, emigration from lynx populations of northern Quebec to the 
region south of the St. Lawrence River is limited. However, 
northeastern U.S. lynx and snowshoe hare habitat and populations are 
contiguous with those south of the St. Lawrence River in southeastern 
Quebec and western New Brunswick and, presumably, together constitute a 
metapopulation. Lynx should encounter little difficulty moving between 
southeastern Quebec and Maine and New Hampshire, because habitat is 
continuous and without barriers. In this region, we conclude the core 
of lynx habitat historically was found in western Maine, northern New 
Hampshire, southeastern Quebec, and western New Brunswick.
    Harvest records from southeastern Quebec provide evidence that lynx 
persist in this region. Quebec instituted a lynx management plan 
requiring that trapping seasons for lynx be closed for 3 years during 
the lows in the cycles; most recently these seasons were closed during 
1995, 1996, and 1997 (Environment et faune Quebec 1995). Outside of 
these closed seasons, harvest returns in the 1990s ranged from 100 (in 
1990 and 1993) to nearly 275 (in 1998) (R. Lafond, in litt. 1999). In 
New Brunswick, the lynx has been listed as endangered since 1982; 
during 1996 revisions, it was categorized as a ``regionally endangered 
species'' (Cumberland et al. 1998). Although the lynx harvest season in 
New Brunswick has been closed, lynx were incidentally caught throughout 
the 1990s, evidence of the continued occurrence of lynx in New 
Brunswick (Cumberland et al. 1998).
    Maine--In Maine, lynx accounts are irregular and anecdotal 
(McKelvey et al. 1999b; Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and 
Wildlife, in litt. 1997; R. Joseph, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in 
litt. 1999). Twenty-eight verified records exist for Maine since 1862 
(McKelvey et al. 1999b). Anecdotal information plus historical and 
recent records provide evidence of presence, reproduction, and 
persistence of lynx in several northern and western townships (R. 
Joseph, in litt. 1999), indicating the historical residency of lynx. 
Lynx had a bounty placed on them in Maine from 1832 to the closure of 
hunting and trapping seasons in 1967. Maine classifies lynx as a 
species of special concern (Matula 1997), and currently hunting or 
trapping seasons for lynx are closed.
    Although no reliable population estimates exist, in 1994 it was 
suggested that 200 animals or fewer occur Statewide (Maine Department 
of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife 1994). Lynx tracks were detected 
during track surveys in the 1990s (Maine Department of Inland Fisheries 
and Wildlife, in litt. 1997, 1998). In 1999, Maine and Service 
biologists radio-collared six lynx, three adult males and three adult 
females, and recorded two sub-adults and two kittens associated with 
radio-collared adults. This finding established with certainty current 
reproduction in Maine (J. Organ, in litt. 1999) and indicates the 
existence of a resident population. However, available data are not 
adequate for determining either population trend (increasing or 
decreasing) or size.
    New Hampshire--New Hampshire is the only northeastern State that 
maintained a record of historic lynx harvest (Orff 1985 in McKelvey et 
al. 1999b; see Figure 8.1 in McKelvey et al. 1999b). Lynx were 
intermittently bountied in New Hampshire until 1965. Most of the lynx 
harvest occurred in the 1930s, ranging from 1 to 20 per year. Between 
1940 and 1964, lynx harvests were lower, ranging from 0 to 3 lynx being 
caught per year. For 11 years, the harvest was zero (McKelvey et al. 
1999b). 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 1980, the lynx has been 
listed as an endangered species by the New Hampshire Department of Fish 
and Game. Winter track surveys in 1986 in portions of the White 
Mountain National Forest did not detect lynx (Litvaitis et al. 1991). 
Litvaitis et al. (1991) hypothesized that lynx were extirpated from New 
Hampshire as increasing agriculture and timber harvesting in the 1970s 
precluded them from dispersing into the State from southeastern Quebec. 
Only two reports of lynx in New Hampshire exist for the 1990s (M. 
Amaral, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in litt. 1999). Although lynx 
reports are scarce, to our knowledge, no lynx surveys have been 
completed in New Hampshire in recent years. Therefore, we suspect that 
lynx are present in New Hampshire because habitat remains contiguous 
with Maine.
    Vermont--In Vermont, only four verified records of historic lynx 
occurrence exist (McKelvey et al. 1999b). In the mid-1900s, it was 
reported that Vermont had not had a documented breeding population of 
lynx for several decades (Osgood 1938 in Vermont Department of Fish and 
Wildlife 1987). In fact, we have no evidence of a breeding population 
ever occurring in Vermont. Since 1972, the lynx has been listed by the 
State as endangered. The last verified occurrence was from 1968, with 
periodic reports since then. Vermont naturally supports less lynx 
habitat than we previously presumed, based on analyses by McKelvey et 
al. (1999b). Furthermore, lynx habitat in Vermont is somewhat isolated 
from that in New Hampshire. The State of Vermont currently considers 
lynx to be extirpated (A. Elser, Vermont Department of Fish and 
Wildlife, in litt. 1998). Therefore, we conclude that lynx occurrence 
in Vermont is poorly documented, and, based upon the limited extent and 
dispersed nature of suitable habitat, lynx were probably never abundant 
or persistent over time. Currently, lynx are not thought to occur in 
Vermont.
    New York--Historically, lynx reportedly occurred in most northern 
regions of New York, particularly in the Adirondack Mountains and the 
Catskill Mountains (McKelvey et al. 1999b; K. Gustafson, pers. comm. 
1994). Miller (1899 in Brocke 1982) believed that, by the 1880s, the 
population was approaching extirpation. McKelvey et al. (1999b) found 
23 verified lynx occurrences since 1900, primarily from the Adirondack 
Mountains. The most recent verified record was from 1973 (McKelvey et 
al. 1999b). Historically, the Adirondacks apparently supported lynx 
habitat, although it was isolated from habitats and lynx populations to 
the north.
    An effort to reintroduce lynx into the Adirondack Mountains 
occurred during 1988-1990 (Brocke et al. 1990; D. Major, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1998), but the reintroduction is believed 
to have failed. A collared lynx from the reintroduction effort was 
found near Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (M. Amaral, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, pers. comm. 1997) and another as far away as northern New 
Jersey (K. Gustafson, New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, pers. 
comm. 2000). No verified occurrences in New York have been reported 
recently. In New York, lynx are legally classified as a small game 
species with a closed season. We conclude the lynx is extirpated from 
New York.
    Pennsylvania/Massachusetts--In the proposed rule, Pennsylvania and 
Massachusetts were considered to be a part of the historic range of 
lynx. However, the inherent isolation and small sizes of habitat 
patches both currently and historically, combined with the few accounts 
of lynx occurrence in these States, led us to

[[Page 16056]]

conclude that lynx were merely dispersing animals in these States (J. 
Belfonti, The Nature Conservancy, in litt. 1994). Without the habitat 
and prey to support lynx, we concluded that these animals were lost 
from the gene pool and that Pennsylvania and Massachusetts were not 
within the historic range of lynx.
    In summary, we have firm documentation that lynx occur in Maine and 
that they are reproducing. We conclude that a resident lynx population 
historically occurred and currently occurs in Maine. Lynx historically 
occurred in New Hampshire, but recent records of lynx occurrence in New 
Hampshire are rare. Suitable habitat exists contiguous to Maine. 
Historically, Vermont and New York have had relatively few records of 
lynx and none exist from the 1990s, with the exception of animals 
introduced into New York. It is possible that lynx have been extirpated 
from New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York. We no longer include 
Pennsylvania and Massachusetts within the historic range of lynx 
because these States are isolated from resident populations and lack 
suitable habitat. Therefore, we concluded that the low number of lynx 
occurrence records represented dispersing animals that were likely lost 
from the population.
    We conclude, based on documentation of lynx reproduction and 
individual animals in Maine, the substantive lynx harvest in 
southeastern Quebec, and the connectivity of boreal forest south of the 
St. Lawrence River in Quebec, New Brunswick, Maine, and New Hampshire, 
that in the Northeast a population of lynx continues to exist in the 
core of the region in the north; however, the range appears to have 
retracted northward. Connectivity with lynx populations north of the 
St. Lawrence River in Canada has been reduced from historic levels 
because of development along the St. Lawrence River and ice breaking to 
allow year-round shipping.
    Great Lakes Region--The majority of lynx occurrence records in the 
Great Lakes Region are associated with the ``mixed deciduous-coniferous 
forest'' type (McKelvey et al. 1999b). Within this general forest type, 
the highest frequency of lynx occurrences were in the Acer saccharum 
(sugar maple), Tilia spp. (basswood), Pinus banksiana (jack pine), P. 
strobus (white pine), and P. resinosa (red pine) forest types (McKelvey 
et al. 1999b). These types are found primarily in northeastern 
Minnesota, northern Wisconsin, and the western portion of Michigan's 
upper peninsula.
    Although the mixed deciduous-coniferous forest covers an extensive 
area in this region, we consider much of this area to be marginal 
habitat for lynx because it is a transitional forest type at the edge 
of the snowshoe hare range. Habitat at the edge of hare range supports 
lower hare densities (Buehler and Keith 1982) that may not be 
sufficient to support lynx reproduction. Furthermore, snow depths 
within appropriate habitat that allow lynx a competitive advantage over 
other carnivores (i.e., coyotes (Canis latrans)) occur only in limited 
areas in northeastern Minnesota, extreme northern Wisconsin, and 
Michigan's upper peninsula.
    The historic and current status of lynx in the Great Lakes Region 
is uncertain. Minnesota has a substantial number of lynx reports, 
primarily trapping records (McKelvey et al. 1999b), as expected because 
of the connectivity of the boreal forest with that of Ontario, Canada, 
where lynx occur. Wisconsin and Michigan have substantially fewer 
records of lynx (McKelvey et al. 1999b). Researchers have debated 
whether lynx in this region are simply dispersing lynx emigrating from 
Canada, are members of a resident population, or are a combination of a 
resident population and dispersing individuals (McKelvey et al. 1999b; 
R. Sando, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, in litt. 1998). In 
recent decades, lynx dynamics in the Great Lakes appear to have been 
driven by immigration because lynx occurrence records did not show a 
response to local cycles of hare abundance (McKelvey et al. 1999b), as 
would have been expected of a resident lynx population. Available 
information, does not indicate that resident populations exist, but it 
does indicate that recent cyclic highs in the Great Lakes lynx data are 
at least partially Canadian in origin (McKelvey et al. 1999b).
    Minnesota--The majority of lynx occurrence records are from the 
northeastern portion of the State; however, dispersing lynx have been 
found throughout Minnesota outside of typical lynx habitat (Gunderson 
1978; Mech 1980; McKelvey et al. 1999b). Until 1965, lynx had a bounty 
placed on them in Minnesota. In 1976, the lynx was classified as a game 
species, and harvest seasons were established (M. DonCarlos, Minnesota 
Department of Natural Resources, in litt. 1994). 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. 1999b). 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 influenced by influxes from Canada, 
particularly in recent decades (Henderson 1978; Mech 1980; McKelvey et 
al. 1999b; M. DonCarlos, in litt. 1994). When an anticipated lynx 
cyclic high for the early 1980s did not occur, the harvest season was 
closed in 1984 (M. DonCarlos, in litt. 1994) and remains closed today. 
Outside of harvest data, 76 verified lynx records exist for Minnesota 
(McKelvey et al. 1999b).
    With available data, we cannot verify whether a resident population 
existed historically in Minnesota. Reproduction and maintenance of home 
ranges by lynx was documented in the early 1970s (Mech 1973, 1980), 
which may be evidence of the existence of a resident population. The 
early 1970s also were a period when the second highest lynx harvest 
returns in the 20th century occurred throughout Canada. High numbers of 
lynx trapped in Minnesota during this period were likely due in part to 
immigrants from Canada (McKelvey et al. 1999b). Lynx were consistently 
trapped over 40 years during cyclic lows, which may indicate that a 
small resident population occurred historically.
    Current information is insufficient to determine whether a resident 
population of lynx exists in Minnesota and, if so, whether there has 
been a decline in numbers. In northeastern Minnesota, where deep snow 
accumulates, suitable lynx and snowshoe hare habitat is likely present. 
Much of this area is protected as designated wilderness, including the 
Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Furthermore, these habitats are contiguous 
with boreal forest in southern Ontario. Trapping records for Ontario 
districts adjacent to the Minnesota border demonstrate consistent 
occurrence of lynx in the area over the past 10 years (N. Dawson, 
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, in litt. 1999). The only recent 
verified records of lynx in Minnesota were two lynx in 1992 and one in 
1993 (M. DonCarlos, in litt. 1994). However, no lynx surveys or 
research have been conducted in Minnesota to document presence, 
absence, or population trend. A lynx survey was initiated this year as 
a joint effort by the Service, the Forest Service and the University of 
Minnesota. Although habitat and prey conditions appear suitable in the 
northeastern portion of the State, we have received no information that

[[Page 16057]]

substantiates presence of a resident lynx population currently in 
Minnesota.
    Wisconsin--Thiel (1987) concluded that, historically, Wisconsin did 
not support a permanent, self-sustaining lynx population; rather, lynx 
presence was associated with cyclic lynx population fluctuations in 
Canada resulting in increased dispersal. Verified reports of lynx in 
Wisconsin are few (29 records from 1870 to 1992) (McKelvey et al. 
1999b); over half of these reports are associated with unprecedented 
cyclic highs that occurred throughout Canada in the early 1960s and 
1970s. Between 1948 and 1956, 19 lynx were harvested in the State; 
annual harvests were low, ranging from 0 (in 1954) to 4 (in 1952) 
(Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 1993). In 1992, two lynx 
mortalities were reported in Wisconsin (Wydeven 1993; C. Pils, in litt. 
1994). Lynx tracks have been detected during wolf surveys in the 1990s 
(Wydeven 1998).
    A bounty on lynx existed until 1957. Lynx were placed on the 
protected species list in 1957 and were classified as State endangered 
in 1972 (C. Pils, in litt. 1994). Because of the lack of breeding 
records, Wisconsin reclassified the lynx as a ``protected'' species 
with a closed season (G. Meyer, in litt. 1998).
    We have no evidence to determine whether a lynx population resided 
in Wisconsin historically or resides currently; however, Wisconsin 
Department of Natural Resources suggested that a breeding population 
may have existed in the State prior to the 1900s (G. Meyer, in litt. 
1998). Most of northern Wisconsin forests are mixed deciduous-
coniferous forest (McKelvey 1999b). We believe this transitional forest 
type at the edge of the snowshoe hare range may be unable to support 
hare densities sufficient to sustain a resident lynx population. An 
exception may be in extreme northern portions of Wisconsin, where more 
suitable habitat exists and deep snows accumulate.
    Michigan--In Michigan, historical reports suggest that the Canada 
lynx was resident and widespread throughout the upper and lower 
peninsula in the 19th century (Harger 1965). However, records verifying 
these accounts are scarce; 44 verified records exist from the mid 1800s 
until 1983 (McKelvey et al. 1999b). Lynx were believed extirpated from 
Michigan's lower peninsula in 1928, and by 1938 they were considered 
rare or extinct throughout the State (Harger 1965). Lynx persisted on 
Isle Royale in Lake Superior into the late 1970s (Peterson 1977 in 
Baker 1983; M. Romanski, Isle Royale National Park, in litt. 1998). 
Sixteen of 44 verified lynx records for Michigan are associated with an 
extreme cyclic high in Canada in the early 1960s (Harger 1965; McKelvey 
et al. 1999b). Only two verified records of lynx exist for Michigan 
(from the upper peninsula) since the 1960s (McKelvey et al. 1999b; G. 
Burgoyne, Jr., Michigan Department of Natural Resources, in litt. 
1998). Michigan listed the lynx as ``rare'' in 1974; in 1983 it was 
listed as threatened and in 1987, its status was upgraded to endangered 
(G. Burgoyne, Jr., in litt. 1998). Although suitable habitat and snow 
depths likely exist in Michigan's upper peninsula, too few records 
exist to substantiate either the historic or current presence of a 
resident lynx population in Michigan.
    In summary, using the best available information we cannot 
determine whether resident lynx populations occur currently or 
historically in the Great Lakes Region. Within this region, we consider 
northeastern Minnesota to be most likely to support a resident lynx 
population based on the presence of boreal forest that is contiguous 
with that of Ontario, where lynx are known to exist, and the number of 
lynx records from this area. We suspect that there may have been a 
small resident population historically in northeastern Minnesota; 
however, we recognize the lack of evidence to clearly support either 
the past or current existence of a resident population in Minnesota. 
Because of the paucity of records from Wisconsin and Michigan and the 
presence of habitat that we think is marginal for lynx, we suspect 
records of lynx in Wisconsin and Michigan most likely are transient 
animals that are dispersing, rather than individuals from resident 
populations. Accurate mapping of lynx habitat in the Great Lakes Region 
would enable us to define where to expect resident lynx to occur in 
this region.
    Northern Rocky Mountain/Cascades Region--In this region, the 
majority of lynx occurrences are associated at a broad scale with the 
``Rocky Mountain Conifer Forest''; within this type, most of the 
occurrences are in moist Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas fir) and 
western spruce/fir forests (McKelvey et al. 1999b). Most of the lynx 
occurrences are in the 1,500-2,000 meters (4,920-6,560 feet) elevation 
class (McKelvey et al. 1999b). These habitats are found in the Rocky 
Mountains of Montana, Idaho, eastern Washington, and Utah and the 
Cascade Mountains in Washington and Oregon. The majority of verified 
lynx occurrences in the U.S. and the confirmed presence of resident 
populations are from this region. The boreal forest of Washington, 
Montana, and Idaho is contiguous with that in adjacent British Columbia 
and Alberta, Canada.
    Washington--In Washington, resident lynx populations were 
historically found in the northeast and north-central regions and along 
the east slope of the Cascade Mountains (Washington Department of 
Wildlife 1993). Records of lynx exist from the Mount Rainier National 
Park area in the central Cascades, south in the Cascades nearly to the 
Oregon border on Mount Adams, and in the Blue Mountains in southeastern 
Washington (Taylor and Shaw 1927 in Koehler and Aubry 1994; Dalquest 
1948; Washington Department of Natural Resources 1996a). Washington has 
a long record of verified lynx occurrences over the past century 
(McKelvey et al. 1999b).
    Trapping data kept since 1961 reflect cyclic patterns (McKelvey et 
al. 1999b). The largest harvests were taken in 1969-1970 (31 lynx) and 
1976-1977 (39 lynx) (Washington Department of Wildlife 1993). Trapping 
restrictions were implemented in 1977-1978, and lynx hunting and 
trapping seasons were closed in 1991 (Washington Department of Wildlife 
1993). In the years 1987-1989, immediately prior to the season being 
closed, harvest increased substantially despite restrictive quotas and 
shortened seasons (see Figure 8.7 in McKelvey et al. 1999b). We suspect 
that this increase in trapped animals may have represented a cyclic 
increase, as was evident in harvest data from British Columbia during 
this time frame (see Figure 8.6 in McKelvey et al. 1999b; M. Badry, 
British Columbia Ministry of Environment, in litt. 1999). Lynx harvest 
data from British Columbia demonstrate cyclic fluctuations for the past 
13 seasons, as well as the continued presence of lynx, in regions 
contiguous with Washington (M. Badry, in litt. 1999).
    Established snow track survey routes are conducted to detect the 
presence of lynx within the six designated ``Lynx Management Zones'' 
across the north-central part of Washington (Richardson 1999; 
Washington Department of Natural Resources 1996a). Results of these 
surveys show that currently, lynx occupy four of these zones--Okanogan, 
Kettle Range, Little Pend Oreille, and Salmo Priest--but have not 
documented lynx presence in the Wedge or Vulcan Mountain, the two 
smallest zones delineated in Washington (Richardson 1999). Recent 
preliminary DNA survey results indicate the presence of lynx in the 
southern and central Cascades in Washington (Weaver and Amato 1999), 
and recent records of lynx reproduction also exist for Washington in 
the northern Cascades (Koehler 1990;

[[Page 16058]]

Friends of the Loomis Forest, in litt. 1999).
    Although Washington has the best lynx data in the contiguous U.S., 
we cannot identify population changes or trend from this data. It is 
clear that resident lynx populations exist in Washington. The lynx 
population in Washington has been roughly estimated at 96-191 
(Washington Department of Wildlife 1993) and 225 individuals (Brittell 
et al. 1989). However, these population estimates may be high because 
of assumed similar habitat suitability and lynx densities across the 
range, which is not the case (Washington Department of Wildlife 1993). 
Since 1993, the lynx has been listed as a State threatened species 
(Washington Department of Wildlife 1993). Richardson (1999) recommended 
retaining the lynx as a threatened species in the State because the 
status of the lynx had not changed appreciably in Washington.
    Oregon--Historic lynx records exist from nine counties in Oregon 
(Bailey 1936; Nellis 1971). McKelvey (1999b) documented 12 verified 
lynx records for Oregon in the past century. Based on the time frames 
when collected and locations in atypical habitat, some of these records 
likely were dispersing transient individuals. Recent observations of 
lynx have been reported from the Cascades and the Blue Mountains in 
northeastern Oregon (Csuti et al. 1997; R. Anderson, Wallowa-Whitman 
National Forest, in litt. 1998), and preliminary DNA survey results 
also suggest the presence of lynx in the Cascade Range in Oregon 
(Weaver and Amato 1999). Lynx have rarely been reported harvested in 
Oregon, although the season for lynx is essentially open because the 
State does not regulate lynx harvest, however we do not believe any 
lynx have been harvested because there are no records of lynx trapping 
or pelts collected in Oregon (C. Carson, pers. comm., USFWS, Office of 
Management Authority (OMA), 2000). Based on the limited available 
information, we cannot substantiate the historic or current presence of 
a resident lynx population in Oregon.
    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. 
(1999b) located a number of lynx specimen records from Idaho collected 
during the early 1900s. Harvest records for Idaho are unreliable 
because no distinction was made between lynx and bobcats until 1982 
when Idaho Department of Fish and Game initiated a mandatory pelt 
tagging program. Anecdotal reports compiled by Lewis and Wenger (1998) 
indicated the occurrence of lynx in atypical habitats. Based on the 
time frames when collected, these records likely were dispersing 
transient individuals. Between 1960 and 1991, 35 verified records exist 
for Idaho, with 13 of these from 1982 to 1991 (McKelvey et al. 1999b). 
From 1991 until recently, there had been no verified records of lynx 
from Idaho (McKelvey et al. 1999b); however, until the past year, no 
lynx surveys were conducted in Idaho. Preliminary results from recent 
DNA surveys suggest the presence of lynx in northern and north-central 
Idaho (J. Weaver, Wildlife Conservation Society, in litt. 1999).
    Prior to 1977, the species was considered a predator, subject to 
unrestricted harvest with no closed season and no bag limit. In 1990, 
in response to concern over the status of lynx in Idaho, the Idaho 
Department of Fish and Game instituted a Statewide harvest quota of 
three lynx per year. In 1997/1998, Idaho closed the lynx trapping/
hunting season because no lynx had been captured in several years.
    Although records of lynx in Idaho are relatively common and boreal 
forest habitat is contiguous with adjacent States and Canada where lynx 
populations are known to exist, we cannot clearly substantiate either 
the historic or current presence of resident lynx populations in Idaho, 
nor can we identify population changes or trend with the available 
information.
    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. 1999b; P. Graham, Montana Department of 
Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, in litt. 1998). Reproduction has been 
documented (Brainerd 1985). Many records exist of lynx harvested in 
eastern Montana's Great Plains Region in the 1960s (Hoffman et al. 
1969); however, we suspect these were dispersing transient animals 
associated with cyclic highs in northern lynx populations during the 
early 1960s.
    Since 1950, Montana lynx harvest records exhibit cycles (McKelvey 
et al. 1999b), although accurate harvest records were not kept until 
1977 when lynx were classified as a furbearer. The harvest data reflect 
the extreme highs of the early 1960s and 1970s that were documented 
throughout Canada. Since 1977, Montana's largest lynx harvest occurred 
in both 1979 and 1984 when 62 lynx were taken in each season (McKelvey 
et al. 1999b; B. Giddings, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and 
Parks, in litt. 1994). These harvest returns were substantially lower 
than those recorded in the early 1960s and 1970s, leading to concern 
that lynx populations in Montana were at or near their lowest levels in 
the past several decades (Hash 1990; S. Conn, Montana Trappers 
Association, in litt. 1990). The State established quotas that were 
incrementally decreased from 135 in 1982 down to a Statewide quota of 2 
beginning in 1991 (B. Giddings, in litt. 1994). In 1999, Montana's lynx 
harvest season was closed.
    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 has recovered and is 
distributed throughout what it determined to be ``predicted lynx 
habitat'' (P. Graham, in litt. 1998). Montana Department of Fish, 
Wildlife, and Parks estimated the lynx population as 1,040 lynx in 1994 
(B. Giddings, in litt. 1994). This estimate was determined using a 
habitat area/density index, which is likely inaccurate, given broad 
assumptions regarding habitat suitability and lynx distribution.
    We conclude that a resident population of lynx is distributed 
throughout its historic range in Montana. However, available data are 
not sufficient to determine either population trend (increasing or 
decreasing) or estimates of population size. Furthermore, we now 
question the interpretations we made in the proposed rule as well as 
those made by the other sources that harvest returns in the 1980s and 
1990s reflected substantially reduced populations (see ``Factor B'' in 
the ``Summary of Factors'' section). We now know that harvest returns 
in the early 1960s and 1970s represented unprecedented cyclic highs for 
the 20th century (McKelvey et al. 1999b). Therefore, it is possible 
that lower lynx harvest returns in the 1980s were not unusual compared 
to harvest returns prior to 1960. Lynx harvest returns for British 
Columbia and Alberta since 1919 demonstrate the variability of cyclic 
amplitudes throughout the past century (McKelvey et al. 1999b) and lead 
us to suspect that cycles in Montana were similar.
    Wyoming--Most historical and recent records of lynx in Wyoming are 
from the northwestern mountain ranges (Reeve et al. 1986; McKelvey et 
al. 1999b). McKelvey et al. (1999b) found only 30 verified records 
Statewide since 1856. Documented reports of lynx in Yellowstone 
National Park are rare (S. Consolo-Murphy, Yellowstone National Park, 
pers. comm. 1994); no recent verified records exist from the Greater 
Yellowstone Ecosystem (McKelvey et al.

[[Page 16059]]

1999b). However, no lynx surveys have been conducted in this area. 
Elsewhere, lynx have been reported from the Big Horn Mountains in 
north-central Wyoming (Reeve et al. 1986; McKelvey et al. 1999b). Until 
1957, lynx had bounties place on them in the State. Since 1973, the 
lynx has been listed as a protected non-game species and harvest was 
closed. Because of connectivity with lynx populations and habitat in 
Montana, we suspect that lynx were historically resident in 
northwestern Wyoming.
    In 1996 the Wyoming Game and Fish Department began a lynx study in 
west-central Wyoming. Production of kittens was documented in 1998 
(Squires and Laurion 1999). This may indicate the presence of a 
resident population in this local area (Ruggiero et al. 1999b). 
However, using available information we are unable to determine status 
or trend of lynx throughout Wyoming.
    Utah--There are few historic reports of lynx in Utah (McKay 1991; 
McKelvey et al. 1999b). Nearly all the reliable lynx reports are from 
the Uinta Mountain Range along the Wyoming border (McKay 1991). 
McKelvey et al. (1999b) found only 10 verified records of lynx in Utah 
since 1916; no verified records exist since 1991. However, recent 
unverified reports of lynx in the Uintas persist (Bates, Utah 
Department of Wildlife, pers. comm. 1999). The lynx is listed as a 
State sensitive species with closed harvest seasons. Based on the 
limited available information we cannot substantiate either the 
historic or current presence of a resident lynx population in Utah.
    In summary, we believe the Northern Rockies/Cascades Region 
supports the most viable resident lynx populations in the contiguous 
U.S., while recognizing that, at best, lynx in the contiguous U.S. are 
naturally rare. Strong evidence exists to support the presence of 
resident lynx populations distributed throughout much of the forest 
types considered lynx habitat in Montana and Washington. We expect that 
resident lynx populations exist in contiguous habitats in Idaho and 
northwestern Wyoming. We believe that lynx have always occurred 
intermittently in Oregon and Utah, although we cannot determine the 
historic or current presence of resident populations in either of these 
States. Recently initiated DNA surveys in all the States within this 
region should further refine our understanding of the status of lynx in 
this region.

Southern Rockies

    Colorado 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. 1999b). These habitats likely act as a barrier that 
reduces or precludes opportunities for immigration and emigration from 
the Northern Rocky Mountains/Cascades Region and Canada, effectively 
isolating lynx in the southern Rocky Mountains in Colorado and 
southeastern Wyoming (Halfpenny et al. 1982; Koehler and Aubry 1994). A 
majority of the lynx occurrence records in Colorado and southeastern 
Wyoming, are associated with the ``Rocky Mountain Conifer Forest'' 
type. The occurrences in the Southern Rockies were generally at higher 
elevations (1,250 to over 3,750 meters (4,100-12,300 feet)) than were 
all other occurrences in the West (McKelvey et al. 1999b).
    Colorado--The montane and subalpine forest ecosystems in Colorado 
are naturally highly fragmented (Thompson 1994), which we believe 
limits the size of lynx populations. A total of 78 lynx reports rated 
as positive (22) or probable (56) exist in State records since the late 
1800s (J. Mumma, Colorado Division of Wildlife, in litt. 1998); 
although McKelvey et al. (1999b) considered only 17 of these records 
``verified.'' The last verified lynx specimens were taken in 1974 
(Halfpenny et al. 1982). No verified records of lynx exist since 1974; 
however, extensive survey efforts have resulted in 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). The lynx 
has been listed as a State endangered species since 1976 (Colorado 
Division of Wildlife et al. 1997) and harvest of the species is 
currently closed.
    Few, if any, native lynx continue to exist in Colorado (J. Mumma, 
in litt. 1998). As a result, 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 attempt to reestablish a viable lynx population. Forty-one lynx 
were released into the wild beginning in early spring 1999. It is too 
early to predict the success of this effort.
    Wyoming--``Rocky Mountain Conifer Forest'' in southeastern Wyoming 
is contiguous with that of Colorado. None of the reports of lynx in the 
Medicine Bow and Laramie Ranges in southeastern Wyoming have been 
confirmed (Reeve et al. 1986). However, McKelvey et al. (1999b) found 
two specimens collected prior to 1900 in southeastern Wyoming. There is 
a general lack of information in Wyoming, particularly southeastern 
Wyoming, that limits our ability to assess historical and current 
status of the lynx.
    In summary, we believe that a resident lynx population historically 
occurred in the Southern Rockies Region in both Colorado and 
southeastern Wyoming, based on the records of lynx in Colorado and the 
persistence of contiguous habitat in southeastern Wyoming with the 
Colorado habitat. This resident population may now be extirpated.
    Other Reports or Sightings--Lynx observations in Nevada, North 
Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, Indiana, Ohio, and Virginia are 
considered individuals dispersing subsequent to periods of cyclic high 
lynx numbers in Canada (Hall and Kelson 1959; Burt 1954 in Brocke 1982; 
McKelvey et al. 1999b; S. Johnson, Indiana Department of Natural 
Resources, in litt. 1994; P. Jones, Ohio Department of Natural 
Resources, in litt. 1994; W. Jobman, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in 
litt. 1997; Smithsonian Institute, in litt. 1998). During the early 
1960s, lynx moved into the Great Plains and the Midwest Region of the 
U.S. associated with an unprecedented cyclic high in Canada (Gunderson 
1978; Mech 1980; DeStefano 1987; South Dakota Natural Heritage Program, 
in litt. 1994). These records are outside of the southern boreal 
forests where most lynx occurrences are found (McKelvey et al. 1999b). 
We conclude that these unsuitable habitats are unable to sustain lynx 
and that these records represent dispersing individuals that are lost 
from the metapopulation unless they return to boreal forest. We do not 
consider these States to be within the contiguous U.S. range of lynx.

Distinct Population Segment

    For a species to be listable under the Endangered Species Act 
(Act), it must be a ``species'' as defined in the Act. The Act defines 
``species'' as a species, subspecies, or Distinct Population Segment 
(DPS) of a vertebrate species. On February 7, 1996, the Service and the 
National Marine Fisheries Service published final policy guidance 
concerning recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments for 
consideration under the Act (61 FR 4722). We follow the Vertebrate 
Population Policy when considering listing a vertebrate species as 
endangered or threatened in only a

[[Page 16060]]

portion of its range. In developing the proposed rule and final rule 
for the lynx, we used the Vertebrate Population Policy to evaluate 
whether the lynx population in the contiguous United States constitutes 
a DPS under the Act.
    Under the Vertebrate Population Policy, two elements, discreteness 
and significance, must be considered to determine whether a species' 
population meets the definition of a DPS. If a population is discrete 
and significant, its status is evaluated using the five listing factors 
described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act to determine if it meets the 
definition of either threatened or endangered.
    According to the Vertebrate Population Policy, a species' 
population can be considered discrete from the remainder of the taxon 
if it satisfies either one of the following conditions--(1) ``it is 
markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a 
consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral 
factors,'' or (2) ``it is delimited by international governmental 
boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation, 
management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms 
exist.''
    We have determined that resident populations of lynx existed 
historically and currently exist within the contiguous United States 
(see ``Status'' section). In Canada, management of forest lands and 
conservation of wildlife habitat varies depending on Provincial 
regulations. Canada has no overarching forest practices legislation, 
such as the United States National Forest Management Act, governing 
management of national lands and/or providing for consideration of 
wildlife habitat requirements. Additionally, in Canada, lynx harvest 
regulations, such as length of season and quotas, vary, being regulated 
by individual Provinces or, in some cases, individual trapping 
districts. Therefore, we conclude that the contiguous United States 
population of the lynx is discrete based on the international boundary 
between Canada and the contiguous United States due to differences in 
management of lynx and lynx habitat.
    According to the Vertebrate Population Policy, a population segment 
can be considered significant based on considerations that include, but 
are not limited to, the following--(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 the taxon,'' (3) 
``Evidence that the discrete population segment represents the only 
surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant 
elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic range,'' and 
(4) ``Evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly 
from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics.''
    Lynx in the contiguous United States may be considered biologically 
and ecologically significant simply because of the climatic, 
vegetational, and ecological differences between lynx habitat in the 
contiguous United States and that in northern latitudes in Canada and 
Alaska (Buskirk et al. 1999b). In the contiguous United States, the 
distribution of lynx is associated with the mosaic of southern boreal 
forest and subalpine coniferous forest in the West and southern boreal 
forest/hardwoods in the East; whereas in Canada and Alaska lynx inhabit 
the classic boreal forest ecosystem known as the taiga (McCord and 
Cardoza 1982; Quinn and Parker 1987; Agee 1999; McKelvey et al. 1999b) 
(see ``Background'' and ``Distribution and Status'' sections).
    Lynx and snowshoe hare population dynamics in portions of the 
contiguous United States are different from those in northern Canada. 
We conclude that historic and current lynx and snowshoe hare densities 
in the contiguous United States are naturally low relative to lynx and 
hare densities in the northern boreal forest (see ``Background'' and 
``Distribution and Status'' sections). Because the southern boreal 
forest in the contiguous United States is naturally highly fragmented 
and contains more hare predators, it is unable to support the extremely 
high peak densities of snowshoe hares as in the northern boreal forest 
of Canada and Alaska (Wolff 1980; Buehler and Keith 1982; Hodges 
1999a,1999b; McKelvey 1999a). Therefore, lynx densities at the southern 
part of the range never achieve the high densities of the northern 
boreal forest (Aubry 1999).
    After review and consideration of lynx status and management in the 
contiguous United States and Canada, and lynx and snowshoe hare life-
history, habitat, and population dynamics, we have determined that the 
lynx population in the contiguous United States is discrete and 
significant and, therefore, qualifies as a DPS to be considered for 
listing under the Act.
    Within the contiguous United States population segment, the range 
of the lynx is divided regionally by ecological barriers of unsuitable 
lynx habitat. These regions are-- (1) the Northeastern Region, 
including Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York; (2) the Great 
Lakes Region, including Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota; (3) the 
Northern Rocky Mountain/Cascades Region, including Washington, Oregon, 
Idaho, Montana, northwestern Wyoming, and Utah; and (4) the Southern 
Rocky Mountains Region, including Colorado and southeastern Wyoming.
    McKelvey et al. (1999b) illustrate lynx population dynamics 
emanating from central Canada to the periphery. The authors use 
Canadian and United States lynx trapping and occurrence data to display 
lagged synchronous cycles (cycles with similar peaks and lows in 
population size) (McKelvey et al. 1999b), providing evidence of the 
interconnectedness of lynx population dynamics in the contiguous United 
States with lynx population dynamics in the Canadian boreal forest. All 
of the different regions that support lynx within the contiguous United 
States are directly contiguous with lynx habitat or lynx populations in 
Canada, except the Southern Rockies, although the connectivity of the 
Northeast Region is largely limited to areas south of the St. Lawrence 
Seaway: southern Quebec and New Brunswick.
    Within the contiguous United States, all four regions are isolated 
from each other by expanses of unsuitable habitats that limit or 
preclude lynx movement between these regions. Unsuitable habitat along 
the southeastern Great Lakes isolates the Northeastern and Great Lakes 
regions; the Great Plains isolates the eastern regions from the West. 
Although there may be some limited potential for dispersal between the 
Southern and Northern Rockies, lynx in the Southern Rockies are 
considered to be isolated from lynx populations in the Northern 
Rockies/Cascades Region by the Green River basin and the Red Desert. We 
have no expectation that lynx in these individual regions influence the 
presence or persistence of lynx within another region of the contiguous 
United States. Therefore, we believe each of these four regions are 
discrete.
    When considering whether a population meets the significance test, 
policy requires us to evaluate the population as it relates to the 
entire range of the taxon. In the case of the lynx, the range of the 
taxon is extensive and exists mainly in Canada and Alaska. When we 
evaluated the significance of the small discrete regions in the 
contiguous United States to the entire range of the taxon in North 
America, we determined that none of these regions individually 
constitute significantly unique or unusual ecological settings; 
therefore, they could not be separated from the contiguous U.S. DPS as 
a whole. Within all four regions of the

[[Page 16061]]

contiguous United States, the distribution of the lynx is associated 
with the southern boreal forest.
    We have concluded that none of the four regions, individually, 
fulfill both the discreteness and significance criteria as provided 
under the policy. Therefore, we conclude that the listable entity is 
the contiguous United States DPS of the lynx, consisting of the 
Northeast, the Great Lakes, the Northern Rockies/Cascades, and the 
Southern Rockies regions.
    Within the contiguous United States, the relative importance of 
each region to the persistence of the DPS varies. The Northern Rockies/
Cascades Region supports the largest amount of lynx habitat and has the 
strongest evidence of persistent occurrence of resident lynx 
populations, both historically and currently. In the Northeast (where 
resident lynx populations continue to persist) and Southern Rockies 
regions, the amount of lynx habitat is naturally limited and does not 
contribute substantially to the persistence of the contiguous United 
States DPS. Much of the habitat in the Great Lakes Region is naturally 
marginal and may not support prey densities sufficient to sustain lynx 
populations. As such, the Great Lakes Region does not currently 
contribute substantially to the persistence of the contiguous United 
States DPS. Collectively, the Northeast, Great Lakes, and Southern 
Rockies do not constitute a significant portion of the range of the 
DPS. We conclude the Northern Rockies/Cascades Region is the primary 
region necessary to support the continued long-term existence of the 
contiguous United States DPS. However, the role that each region plays 
in the long-term conservation of the species will be explored further 
in recovery planning for the species.

Previous Federal Action

    The lynx was added to Appendix II of the Convention on 
International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) of Wild Flora and 
Fauna in 1977. The species was classified as a category 2 candidate 
species in the December 30, 1982, Vertebrate Notice of Review (47 FR 
58454), meaning that more information was necessary to determine 
whether the species' status was declining. In response to a petition 
received on August 22, 1991, we published a notice of a 90-day petition 
finding on October 6, 1992, that we did not have substantial 
information to indicate that listing the North Cascades population of 
the lynx as endangered may be warranted (57 FR 46007). A lawsuit was 
filed challenging the October 6, 1992, finding. On July 9, 1993, we 
published a notice indicating that we had reviewed the North Cascades 
90-day petition after receiving new information and again found that we 
did not have substantial information to indicate that listing the 
population may be warranted (58 FR 36924). In a settlement agreement 
dated November 30, 1993, we agreed to conduct a status review 
throughout the lower 48 States to determine if the species was 
threatened or endangered, and to complete the review and publish the 
finding by November 15, 1994. On February 2, 1994, we published a 
notice announcing continuation of the status review (59 FR 4887).
    On April 27, 1994, we received a petition to list the conterminous 
U.S. population of ``North American'' lynx as threatened or endangered. 
Additionally, the petitioners requested that the Southern Rocky 
Mountain population of the ``North American'' lynx in Wyoming and 
Colorado be emergency-listed. We published a notice on August 26, 1994, 
that the petition presented substantial information that listing may be 
warranted, but that we determined emergency listing was not warranted 
for the Southern Rocky Mountain population (59 FR 44123).
    On December 27, 1994, we published a notice (59 FR 66507) of our 
12-month finding that listing the lynx in the contiguous United States 
was not warranted because of the lack of residency in lynx populations 
in the lower 48 States and our inability to substantiate that threats 
such as ``trapping, hunting, poaching, and present habitat 
destruction'' actually ``threaten the continued existence of the lynx 
in the wild.'' On January 30, 1996, the Defenders of Wildlife and 14 
other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging our finding.
    On March 27, 1997, the court issued an opinion and order setting 
aside the not warranted finding and remanding it back to us for further 
consideration. We were ordered to publish a 12-month finding on the 
status of the lynx within 60 days. On May 27, 1997, we published a 12-
month finding (62 FR 28653) that the lynx population in the contiguous 
United States was warranted for listing under the Act but precluded by 
higher priority listing actions. This warranted-but-precluded finding 
automatically elevated the lynx to candidate species status.
    On September 15, 1997, Defenders of Wildlife et al. filed suit in 
response to our finding that listing the Canada lynx population in the 
contiguous United States was warranted but precluded. On February 12, 
1998, a settlement agreement was reached that called for us to finalize 
a proposed rule to list the Lynx in the contiguous United States by 
June 30, 1998. The proposed rule to list the contiguous United States 
DPS of the Canada lynx as threatened was published on July 8, 1998 (63 
FR 36994).
    On July 8, 1999 (64 FR 36836), we extended the listing deadline by 
6 months to receive and evaluate comments on new information contained 
in a report, ``The scientific basis for lynx conservation in the 
contiguous United States'' (Science Report), prepared by a team led by 
the Forest Service's Rocky Mountain Research Station (Ruggiero et al. 
1999c). As a result, the new listing deadline became January 8, 2000. 
The Act permits such an extension for the purpose of soliciting 
additional data when there is substantial disagreement regarding the 
sufficiency or accuracy of the available data relative to the 
determination.
    The Act requires listing determinations to be made using the best 
scientific and commercial data available. However, the 1998 settlement 
agreement allowed only 4 months within which to prepare the proposed 
rule to list the lynx, much less time than the 9 months allowed by the 
Act to conduct a status review to make a listing determination. 
Consequently, we were not able to gather nor consider the best 
scientific and commercial data available at the time of publication of 
the proposed rule; instead we relied primarily on data we had gathered 
during the lynx status review in 1994. Therefore, this final rule 
treats information available since 1994 as new information; whereas, 
typically, new information is that information made available 
subsequent to the proposed rule.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the July 8, 1998, proposed rule and associated notifications (63 
FR 58910), all interested parties were requested to submit comments or 
suggestions on the proposed rule, particularly on the following 
topics--(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data 
concerning any threat (or lack thereof) to this species; (2) Additional 
information concerning the range, distribution, and population size of 
the species; (3) Current or planned activities in the subject area and 
their possible impacts on the species; and (4) Additional information 
pertaining to the promulgation of a special rule to provide States and 
Tribes the opportunity to maintain the lead role in protection, 
management, and recovery of the species through the voluntary

[[Page 16062]]

development and implementation of a conservation plan. In the proposed 
rule, we announced that 10 public hearings on the proposal would be 
held in various locations throughout the range of the lynx in the 
contiguous United States. One additional public hearing was announced 
on August 26, 1998 (63 FR 45445).
    Open houses and public hearings, providing an additional forum for 
public comment on the proposed rule, were held in Colorado, Idaho, 
Montana, Oregon, Washington, Wyoming, Maine, and Wisconsin. The 60-day 
comment period on the proposed rule, originally closing on September 
30, 1998, was twice extended by request. The first extension was 
announced on October 2, 1998, and extended the comment period to 
October 14, 1998 (63 FR 53010). The second extension was announced on 
October 19, 1998, and extended the comment period on the proposed rule 
until November 16, 1998 (63 FR 55839).
    On July 8, 1999 (64 FR 36836), we extended the listing deadline by 
6 months to receive and evaluate comments on new information contained 
in a report, ``The scientific basis for lynx conservation in the 
contiguous United States'' (Science Report), prepared by a team led by 
the Forest Service's Rocky Mountain Research Station (Ruggiero et al. 
1999c). The Act permits such an extension for the purpose of soliciting 
additional data when there is substantial disagreement regarding the 
sufficiency or accuracy of the available data relative to the 
determination. On August 18, 1999, we announced that we had reopened 
the comment period for an additional 38 days to allow the public to 
provide additional comment on the proposed rule based on new 
information contained in the Science Report (64 FR 44883).
    Prior to making our final listing determination on the lynx, we 
held the 11 announced public hearings, and allowed for a total of 140 
days of public comment on the proposed rule and Science Report. 
Appropriate Federal and State agencies, tribal governments, county 
governments, scientific organizations, and other interested parties 
were contacted and requested to comment during the initial comment 
period, notified of the extensions, and were again contacted when the 
comment period was reopened to allow evaluation of the Science Report. 
Notices of the proposed rule and public hearings were sent to over 
1,200 individuals, and public notices were published in 63 newspapers 
within the contiguous U.S. range of the lynx, including the Spokesman 
Review, Spokane, Washington; Wenatchee World, Wenatchee, Washington; 
The Oregonian, Portland, Oregon; The La Grande Observer, La Grande, 
Oregon; The News Review, Roseburg, Oregon; The Daily Courier, Grants 
Pass, Oregon; The Bend Bulletin, Bend, Oregon; The Idaho Statesman, 
Boise, Idaho; Great Falls Tribune, Great Falls, Montana; Independent 
Record, Helena, Montana; The Missoulian, Missoula, Montana; The 
Billings Gazette, Billings, Montana; Bozeman Daily Chronicle, Bozeman, 
Montana; The Daily Inter Lake, Kalispell, Montana; The Western News, 
Libby, Montana; Casper Star-Tribune, Natrona County, Wyoming; Wyoming 
Tribune Eagle, Laramie County, Wyoming; The Cody Enterprise, Cody, 
Wyoming; The Dubois Frontier, Fremont County, Wyoming; Jackson Hole 
News, Jackson, Wyoming; Pinedale Roundup, Sublette County, Wyoming; The 
Riverton Ranger, Fremont County, Wyoming; Thermopolis Independent 
Record, Thermopolis, Wyoming; Detroit Free Press, Detroit, Michigan; 
Lansing State Journal, Lansing, Michigan; Daily Mining Gazette, 
Michigan; Marquette Mining Journal, Marquette, Michigan; Iron Mountain 
News, Iron Mountain, Michigan; Escanaba Press, Escanaba, Michigan; The 
Evening News, Michigan; North Country Sun, Michigan; Ontonagon Herald, 
Ontonagon, Michigan; L'Anse Sentinel, L'Anse, Michigan; The Munsing 
News, Munsing, Michigan; Manistique Pioneer Tribune, Manistique, 
Michigan; The Newberry News, Newberry, Michigan; Iron River Reporter, 
Iron River, Michigan; The Menominee County Journal, Michigan; 
Minneapolis Star Tribune, Minneapolis, Minnesota; St. Paul Pioneer 
Press, St. Paul, Minnesota; Duluth News Tribune, Duluth, Minnesota; Ely 
Echo, Ely, Minnesota; Grand Forks Herald, Grand Forks, Minnesota; 
Bemidji Pioneer, Bemidji, Minnesota; International Falls Journal, 
International Falls, Minnesota; Virginia Mesabi News, Minnesota; Cook 
County News, Minnesota; Grand Rapids Herald Review, Minnesota; 
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Wisconsin State 
Journal, Madison, Wisconsin; Wausau Herald, Wausau, Wisconsin; Florence 
Mining News, Florence, Wisconsin; Spooner Advocate, Spooner, Wisconsin; 
Rhinelander News, Rhinelander, Wisconsin; Vilas County News Review, 
Wisconsin; Superior Daily Telegram, Superior, Wisconsin; Bangor Daily 
News, Bangor, Maine; Manchester Union Leader, Manchester, New 
Hampshire; Burlington Free Press, Burlington, Vermont; Albany Times 
Union, Albany, New York; Rocky Mountain News, Denver, Colorado; Boulder 
Daily Camera, Boulder, Colorado; and The Daily Sentinel, Grand 
Junction, Colorado.
    We received a total of 3,548 responses on the proposed rule, 166 
oral and 3,382 written comments. Of these comments, 7 were from Federal 
agencies; 58 were from State, county, city governments or schools; 
3,261 were from individuals; 214 were from organizations and industry; 
5 were from tribal governments, and 3 were from Canada. Most of these 
responses were received in the form of a form letter or postcard. Of 
these commentors, 2,676 supported listing the Canada lynx, 780 opposed 
listing, and 92 expressed no position.
    In response to the reopening of the comment period on August 18, 
1999, to receive comment on the Science Report, we received an 
additional 379 responses. Of these, 239 supported a listing, 115 
opposed the listing, and 25 provided comment on the Science Report 
only. All written and oral statements presented at the public hearings 
and received during the public comment periods, including comments on 
the Science Report and peer review comments, are addressed below and 
within the text of this rule. Comments of a similar nature are grouped 
into general issues. These issues and our response to each are 
discussed below.
    Issue 1--Several commentors believed that there are insufficient 
and/or inadequate data to support evidence of lynx existence and viable 
population status within the lower 48 States or at the southern fringes 
of the range. They believed lynx should be managed in Canada rather 
than by the Act in the United States. Numerous commentors strongly 
opposed listing the lynx in Oregon and other individual States, 
claiming there has never been a self-sustaining breeding population of 
lynx in a particular State. Several commentors were concerned that much 
of the information used to develop the range maps for lynx in the 
United States may represent only dispersing individuals and does not 
indicate viable populations capable of successful reproduction and 
recruitment. Similarly, several individuals commented that the 
distribution maps in the Science Report do not accurately reflect 
occupied range and that there is no evidence that lynx currently exist 
in many of the States that the map identifies as occupied.
    Response--The scientific basis for our findings and conclusions in 
the proposed rule and those in the Science Report were questioned by 
many of the affected State wildlife agencies and others that responded 
during the public

[[Page 16063]]

comment period. When making a listing determination, we are required to 
use the best available scientific and commercial information. To 
accomplish this, section 4(b)(6)(B) of the Act allows for a 6-month 
extension of a final determination for the purpose of soliciting 
additional information if there is substantial disagreement regarding 
the sufficiency or accuracy of the available data. In the case of the 
lynx finding, because there was substantial disagreement regarding the 
sufficiency or accuracy of the available data, we extended for 6 months 
the deadline for a final listing determination on the proposal to list 
the contiguous United States DPS (64 FR 36836). The 6-month extension 
allowed us to receive and evaluate new information contained in the 
Science Report, a scientific report on lynx prepared by a team of 
scientist assembled by the Forest Service's Rocky Mountain Research 
Station in 1998. The Science Report is a comprehensive compilation and 
assessment of historic and current lynx occurrence records and 
distribution, scientific literature, lynx and prey ecology, habitat 
correlations and threats to the continued existence of lynx in the 
contiguous United States. The Science Report is the only comprehensive 
assessment of lynx in the contiguous United States and was used, as was 
the new information obtained during the comment period, in our final 
listing determination (see ``Background,'' ``Distribution and Status,'' 
and ``Summary of Factors'' sections).
    Current and best available information, including the Science 
Report, verified the persistence and presence of lynx in the contiguous 
United States and recent records of lynx in Oregon (see ``Distribution 
and Status'' section). However, with the limited information available 
on the species, we cannot ascertain whether a resident lynx population 
exists currently or existed historically in Oregon. We believe that 
many of the lynx records in the contiguous United States, including 
Oregon, are of transient animals that dispersed during cyclic 
population increases (see ``Background'' and ``Distribution and 
Status'' sections). Regardless, the Act, and the Service in 
administering the Act, do not make a distinction between resident 
populations, breeding populations, and transient or breeding 
individuals when considering a species for listing. However animals 
that are considered ``dispersing,'' and found in unsuitable habitat are 
considered lost from the metapopulations, because they are unlikely to 
survive unless they return to boreal forest. Therefore, dispersing 
individuals were not considered in this listing. Further, the fact that 
lynx are managed in Canada does not relieve us from our statutory 
responsibilities to protect the wildlife of the United States. We have 
determined that the contiguous United States population of lynx is a 
DPS under the Act and warrants listing as a threatened species. This 
determination, therefore, includes all lynx within the contiguous 
United States, whether they be transient lynx or resident populations.
    The lynx distribution maps developed for the Science Report were 
produced by overlaying lynx occurrence records on maps of primary 
vegetation types (McKelvey et al. 1999b). The authors included all 
occurrence records made available by State, tribal, and Federal 
agencies, published and unpublished reports, and museum and harvest 
records. Furthermore, they considered the reliability of the records. 
Although there may be errors for some individual data points, these 
data provide a good basis for us to evaluate lynx occurrence and 
distribution in the contiguous United States. The maps defined 
vegetation types for which most lynx occurrences are associated. They 
are not maps of occupied habitat.
    Issue 2--Many commentors believed we have insufficient or 
inadequate data to show that a sufficient prey base historically 
existed or currently exists in the lower 48 States to support lynx.
    Response--The Act requires that the Service make listing 
determinations solely on the basis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available. Where there is little information available 
we use our best scientific judgement and that of experts in the field. 
Available snowshoe hare information as it applies to lynx is summarized 
by Hodges (1999a, 1999b) in the Science Report. Additionally, we relied 
on the availability of the primary habitat types used by both snowshoe 
hares and lynx as an indicator of suitable habitat and likely presence 
of one or both species (see ``Distribution and Status'' and ``Factor 
A'').
    Issue 3--Many commentors believed there were insufficient or 
inadequate data to support a listing and that the decision-making 
process concerning the proposal to list the lynx was being driven by 
political pressure and lawsuits. One commentor also believed that the 
limited quantity of evidence gathered by the Service does not meet the 
standard of sound science required by the Act and that the proposed 
rule did not acknowledge the strengths and limitations in the extant 
body of research related to Canada. For example, trapper harvest data 
do not account for trapper effort which may be affected by pelt prices, 
social change or climatic conditions. Several commentors wanted to know 
what the effects of trapping on lynx population status and potential 
recovery were and if the mortality from accidental trapping or animal 
damage control activities were significant to the overall population. 
They similarly commented that the Science Report failed to provide 
quantified data and conclusions justifying additional protection under 
the Act and believed that additional studies were needed and should be 
initiated and completed. They suggested that we defer a decision until 
more information is available.
    Response--While lawsuits have had an important procedural impact in 
our listing process, whether the species warrants listing under the Act 
is a substantive biological determination and has remained our 
responsibility. We have carefully assessed the best scientific and 
commercial data available, as required by the Act. We recognize that 
there are limitations in the extant body of data, including the 
trapping information, and have taken those limitations into 
consideration when evaluating the data. As described in ``Factor B'' in 
the ``Summary of Factors'' section, harvest returns are affected by 
factors that influence trapper effort and success, such as changes in 
socioeconomic conditions, season length, quotas and trapping 
restrictions, and ease of access. However, we also recognize the 
harvest data provided information on the presence and persistence of 
lynx within the contiguous United States (see ``Distribution and 
Status'' section). Furthermore, harvest data for lynx in Canada has 
similarly provided information about the persistence of lynx in 
adjacent habitats in Canada and increased our understanding of lynx 
population dynamics (see ``Background,'' ``Distribution and Status,'' 
and ``Factor B'' sections). We have determined that the occurrence of 
lynx within the contiguous United States is influenced to varying 
degrees by immigration of lynx from Canada.
    We carefully assessed the effects of trapping during our review of 
the species' status (see ``Factor B'' and ``Factor E'' in the ``Summary 
of Factors'' section). The effects of trapping on lynx populations are 
variable depending on factors such as whether lynx taken are a part of 
a resident population or dispersing individuals that are unlikely to 
reproduce and contribute to a population, fitness of the lynx 
population in a given area, connectivity within a larger 
metapopulation, the

[[Page 16064]]

impact of other threats to the population, and the additive nature of 
these threats. If the population is doing well in an area and there are 
no threats to its continued existence, trapping mortality would not 
likely jeopardize the population. However, if other threats to a 
resident population exist, the additive nature of additional losses to 
the population may prove to be significant, at least on a local scale. 
Mortality from accidental trapping or animal damage control activities 
would be considered incidental and in most cases would not be 
significant; we have no information to indicate that the loss of such 
individuals has negatively affected the overall ability of the 
contiguous United States DPS to persist.
    We agree that additional studies of lynx are necessary to better 
understand the dynamics and requirements of lynx populations in the 
contiguous United States (see ``Distribution and Status'' section). 
However, the Act does not allow us to defer a listing decision based on 
the need for more research. Most scientists would agree that there is 
always a need for more research, but listing decisions cannot be 
postponed based on this premise when known threats to a species are 
present that may result in a species' trend toward extinction.
    Issue 4--Several wildlife professionals stated that the effects of 
overharvesting lynx during the 1970s and 1980s were overstated in our 
proposed rule and that it does not explain current population levels. 
If lynx were overharvested in the past, they should have had sufficient 
time to recover by now. They stated that overutilization is no longer a 
potential threat nor an additive threat to the continued existence of 
lynx.
    Response--We made our determination to propose the species for 
listing based on the available information at the time. We concluded 
that low numbers of lynx in the contiguous United States and Canada 
were the residual effects of substantial overtrapping that occurred in 
the 1970s and 1980s. We no longer believe that to be true (see ``Factor 
B'' in the ``Summary of Factors'' section). New information explains 
that the cyclic lynx highs of the early 1960s and 1970s that are 
reflected in harvest records were unprecedented high levels for the 
20th century. Harvest returns that we believed to be abnormally low, 
were being compared to harvest records during the unprecedented high 
levels of the 1960s and 1970s rather than to data for cycles over a 
longer period of time. Comparisons of the recent records to earlier 
records from the 20th century indicated comparable harvest records. We 
conclude that, in the contiguous United States, lynx populations are 
naturally at low densities; therefore, what seem to be low population 
levels compared to those of the northern boreal forest in Canada and 
Alaska likely are normal for lynx at the southern portion of their 
range where optimal habitat is naturally limited (see ``Factor B''of 
the ``Summary of Factors'' section).
    We recognize the limitations of using harvest data to evaluate the 
status of a vertebrate population (see ``Distribution and Status'' 
section and ``Factor B'' of the ``Summary of Factors'' section). There 
can be numerous reasons for a smaller harvest return one year compared 
to previous returns, such as trapper effort, weather, or low pelt 
prices. States in the contiguous United States substantially restricted 
or closed their lynx harvest seasons by 1990, resulting in less 
information with which to evaluate the current status of lynx. We now 
believe that ongoing precautions taken by States and Provinces to 
restrict lynx trapping since the 1980s possibly prevented the 
overharvest of resident populations of lynx. We concur with Mowat et 
al. (1999) that it is possible lynx were overharvested in local areas 
but that in time, particularly with the protection given lynx from 
trapping closures in the contiguous United States, dispersal by lynx 
from healthy populations has led and in the absence of significant 
threats will lead to the repopulation of such areas.
    Issue 5--Numerous individuals commented that the proposed rule and 
the Science Report failed to demonstrate that there are significant 
threats to the survival of the lynx, claiming that there is little 
evidence in the proposed rule or the Science Report to support claims 
that current management practices, including timber harvesting and 
human access, adversely affect lynx; that lynx are old growth 
obligates; that either bobcat or coyotes are direct competitors for 
prey with lynx; that lynx habitat throughout the lower 48 States has 
been fragmented, degraded or reduced by human activity; or that this 
has resulted in lynx declines. Additionally, these commentors asked how 
important were localized threats to the overall status of the species 
and if we knew enough about the threats to assess the cumulative 
effects to lynx.
    Response--In the proposed rule, we identified numerous potential 
threats to the continued existence of lynx based on information 
available at the time. Since then we have significant new information 
regarding the magnitude and imminence of some of the factors identified 
as threats in the proposed rule. However, there is still a lack of 
quantifiability information to determine whether some of the possible 
threats have or would actually result in lynx declines. Both the 
``Summary of Factors'' and ``Background'' sections discuss the new 
information we have obtained and how it has been assessed in our 
decision, particularly regarding habitat (Factor A) and competition 
issues (Factor E). Because a substantial amount of lynx habitat in the 
contiguous United States occurs on federally managed lands, 
particularly in the West, we conclude that the factor threatening lynx 
in the contiguous United States is the lack of guidance in existing 
Federal land management plans for conservation of lynx and lynx 
habitat. Implementation of lynx conservation through revision of 
Federal land management plans may sufficiently remove threats to the 
species such that it no longer warrants listing.
    Issue 6--Many State agencies believed the proposed rule failed to 
demonstrate that there has been significant extirpation of lynx within 
the lower 48 States or that a significant range reduction has occurred. 
There is disagreement on the status and historic range of lynx within 
some States. Furthermore, they believe that lynx do not occur 
throughout predicted habitat. They requested information on the basis 
of our determination of whether a resident or remnant lynx population 
existed within a State and if the low numbers were the result of poor 
monitoring, marginal habitat or poor rates of immigration from source 
populations. They believed the Science Report likewise failed to assess 
lynx population size, status, and trends.
    Response--The Act requires us to make listing determinations on the 
best available scientific and commercial information. Data are often 
not available to make statistically rigorous inferences about a 
species' status (e.g., abundance, population trends, and distribution). 
The extant body of data concerning lynx population status, trends, and 
historic range is limited. Current information about lynx in the 
contiguous United States allows us to understand the distribution of 
lynx. However, the available data for most States do not allow us to 
assess whether resident populations were historically or are currently 
present (see ``Distribution and Status'' section). The scientific 
community is just beginning to study issues such as specific habitat 
and prey requirements necessary to support lynx populations, role of 
dispersing animals in metapopulation dynamics, and lynx

[[Page 16065]]

demographics. However, given these uncertainties, we are still charged 
with determining whether the species warrants listing under the Act. 
After reviewing the best available information, obtained through a 
comprehensive effort involving review of historic and current 
occurrence records, including harvest records for both Canada and the 
United States; sightings and track records; personal communications 
with lynx, hare, and forest ecology experts; and a review of all 
available literature, we have made several conclusions about the status 
of lynx in the contiguous United States as described in the 
``Distribution and Status'' and ``Finding'' sections.
    In the proposed rule we attempted to identify whether each of the 
States historically supported or currently support resident populations 
of lynx. The Act does not make a distinction between protection of 
resident and migratory or transient species, or between resident 
populations and those supported by immigration from Canada. Whether a 
species resides in whole or in part in the United States, it is 
eligible for protection under the Act. In many instances we cannot be 
certain whether the lynx was historically resident in a region or was 
wholly made up of transient animals from Canada or other parts of its 
range, or a combination of these (see ``Background'' and ``Distribution 
and Status'' sections). However, given the available information from 
occurrence records, habitat maps, and comparisons of harvest records 
from the United States and Canada, we concluded that certain areas, 
such as the Northern Rockies/Cascades Region, continue to support self-
sustaining resident lynx populations, while in other areas or regions 
we were unable to determine the historic or current presence of a 
resident lynx population based on available information (see 
``Distribution and Status'' section).
    Issue 7--Numerous commentors made the following statements: The 
proposed rule failed to demonstrate that the contiguous United States 
population represents a DPS and, given the large areas of habitat still 
directly connected to Canada, evidence of movement across the 
international border, and the failure to demonstrate that the United 
States' population is significant, designation of a contiguous United 
States DPS for lynx is not warranted. The Vertebrate Population Policy 
does not provide authority for using an international boundary and 
differences in management programs as a basis for determining 
discreteness. Likewise, the ``significant gap'' criterion in the policy 
was not intended to be applied to populations on the edge of a species' 
range. There is no evidence that lynx in the United States are capable 
of long-term survival if isolated from the larger population in Canada. 
There is no evidence that lynx populations within the contiguous 48 
States were once connected. The idea that semi-isolated subpopulations 
of lynx separate from each other and from Canada can be supported 
within the United States is contrary to what is known about lynx 
ecology. Lynx in the United States are part of a trans-border 
population and should be managed in cooperation with Canada. 
Conversely, several commentors believe that lynx in the southern 
portion of Canada have sharply declined and that we cannot rely on 
immigration from Canada, nor Canadian management of lynx, to maintain 
lynx in the United States. Several commentors believe that the lynx 
deserves protection under the Act based solely on its United States' 
population.
    Response--The Service's Vertebrate Population Policy, published in 
the Federal Register on February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722) specifies that a 
population segment may be found to be discrete if it satisfies one of 
two conditions. One of the two conditions states, ``It is delimited by 
international governmental boundaries within which differences in 
control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or 
regulatory mechanisms exist.'' We have determined that lynx occur in 
both resident populations and as transients in the contiguous United 
States and conclude that this population satisfies the above 
requirement for discreteness based on the international boundary 
between Canada and the contiguous United States and the differences in 
management of lynx between Canada and the United States (see ``Distinct 
Population Segment'' section). While we recognize that portions of the 
contiguous United States DPS of lynx are part of a trans-border 
population, when using the international boundary as a criterion for 
establishing discreteness, the Vertebrate Population Policy does not 
make a distinction of whether there is movement between the two 
populations. While we recognize that this movement occurs, and we 
believe that immigration from Canada may strongly influence the 
persistent occurrence of lynx in some portions of the United States' 
population (see ``Distribution and Status'' section), this does not 
negate the international boundary for establishing discreteness between 
Canadian' and United States' lynx populations under our policy.
    Based on the discreteness of a population, our Vertebrate 
Population Policy requires that we consider the significance of the 
population to the taxon to which it belongs. We believe there are 
climatic and vegetational differences in lynx habitat between Canada 
and the United States, as well as ecological differences between lynx 
in the contiguous United States and northern populations in Canada and 
Alaska (see ``Distinct Population Segment'' section). Therefore, the 
contiguous United States' population meets the significance criteria 
for establishment of a DPS.
    Additionally, we believe the criterion relating to a ``significant 
gap'' in the species' range applies to any discrete unit that exhibits 
significance regardless of whether it is on the edge of the species' 
range. For example, there may be situations where populations at the 
edge of a species range may have unique genetic characteristics or may 
have adapted to unique or unusual ecological conditions.
    Finally, after we established that the United States' population of 
lynx is discrete and significant, we then applied the listing criteria 
to the contiguous United States' population of lynx and determined that 
it meets the definition of a threatened species under the Act (see 
Factors A-E in the `` Summary of Factors'' section).
    Issue 8--Many commentors believed that lynx in different regions of 
the United States, isolated in island populations and divided 
regionally by ecological barriers, even State boundaries, are 
biologically significant and should be considered for listing 
separately so that each population can be protected and managed 
according to its needs. They think that, for a wide-ranging species 
such as lynx, the status of the lynx population in Montana should have 
no bearing and should not provide a baseline for populations struggling 
to survive elsewhere in the lower 48 States. In particular, they stated 
that the Southern Rockies meets the definition of a DPS and that it 
should be listed as endangered because it is likely on the verge of 
extirpation, is genetically isolated, faces continued threats, and 
meets the definition of an unusual or unique ecological setting. These 
commentors stated that loss of lynx in the Southern Rockies would 
result in a significant gap in its range. Furthermore, there is 
scientific consensus that lynx were once viable in Colorado and 
southern Wyoming. Conversely, some commentors believe lynx at the 
southern edge of the range

[[Page 16066]]

should be excluded from listing. They stated that existing data suggest 
that lynx exist in the lower 48 States, especially east of Montana, 
only as a rare and transitory species at the edge of its range, 
dependent on continued immigration from Canada.
    Response--We recognize that, within the contiguous United States, 
the distribution of the lynx is divided into four geographically 
isolated regions; the Northern Rockies/Cascades, Southern Rockies, 
Great Lakes and Northeast (see ``Distribution and Status'' and 
``Distinct Population Segment'' sections). In evaluating whether these 
qualified as separate DPSs or should be considered one, we analyzed 
whether lynx in these individual regions qualified as both discrete and 
significant according to our DPS policy. We concluded that within the 
United States they were geographically isolated and, therefore, 
qualified as discrete. When considering whether a population meets the 
significance test, policy requires that our evaluation take into 
account the population as it relates to the entire range of the taxon. 
In the case of the lynx, the range of the taxon is extensive and exists 
mainly in Canada and Alaska. Only a small portion of the range extends 
into the United States. The Southern Rockies and Northeast regions 
account for an extremely small fraction of the entire range of the 
taxon. We determined that none of the regions individually constitute 
significantly unique or unusual ecological settings. Within all four 
regions of the contiguous United States the distribution of lynx is 
associated with the southern boreal forest. The important element for 
lynx is forest structure that provides food and cover for snowshoe 
hares and cover for lynx dens, not the specific vegetation found within 
the boreal forest. Therefore, the individual regions could not be 
considered individually significant under our Vertebrate Population 
Policy and could not be separated from the contiguous United States DPS 
as a whole. We determined that, individually, none of the four regions 
fulfill both the discreteness and significance criteria as required 
under the Vertebrate Population Policy (see ``Distinct Population 
Segment'' section). Therefore, we conclude that the listable entity is 
the contiguous United States DPS of the lynx, consisting of the 
Northeast, the Great Lakes, the Northern Rockies/Cascades, and the 
Southern Rockies regions.
    Within the contiguous United States, the relative importance of 
each region to the persistence of the DPS varies. The Northern Rockies/
Cascades Region supports the largest amount of lynx habitat and has the 
strongest evidence of persistent occurrence of resident lynx 
populations, both historically and currently. In the Northeast, Great 
Lakes, and Southern Rockies regions, the amount of lynx habitat is 
relatively limited and does not contribute substantially to the 
persistence of the contiguous United States DPS. We conclude the 
Northern Rockies/Cascades Region is the primary region necessary to 
support the continued long-term existence of the contiguous United 
States DPS.
    Issue 9--Several individuals believed that we failed to take into 
account the increased abundance of mountain lions as a threat to lynx 
and that the rule should acknowledge this concern and discuss this 
factor as potentially affecting Canada lynx.
    Response--At the time we wrote the proposed rule to list the lynx 
as a threatened species, we did not address mountain lion competition 
with lynx because we had no information that it was a potential threat. 
Subsequently, the Science Report has identified the potential threat of 
mountain lion competition (Aubry et al. 1999; Buskirk et al. 1999a). 
Definitive data on the potential threat of mountain lions on lynx are 
lacking. However, because known incidents of mountain lions killing 
lynx are rare, we presume they occupy different ecological niches 
(particularly in winter), and because they depend on different prey, we 
conclude that the population-level effect of mountain lions on lynx is 
minimal (see ``Factor E'' of the ``Summary of Factors'' section).
    Issue 10--Some commentors believed we did not provide for adequate 
public participation in commenting on the Science Report or in response 
to the listing proposal.
    Response--Prior to making our final listing determination on the 
lynx, we held 11 public hearings and allowed for a total of 140 days of 
public comment on the proposed rule and Science Report. Our proposed 
rule to list the lynx as threatened, published in the Federal Register 
on July 8, 1998, opened a 60-day comment period during which we 
requested comments and materials concerning the proposed rule. At the 
same time we announced that 10 public hearings on the proposal would be 
held in various locations throughout the range of the lynx in the 
contiguous United States. One additional public hearing was announced 
on August 26, 1998 (63 FR 45445). Open houses and public hearings, 
providing a forum for verbal comment on the proposed rule, were held in 
Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, Wyoming, Maine, and 
Wisconsin. Announcements of the proposed rule and public hearings were 
made in local newspapers throughout the range of the lynx. The comment 
period on the proposed rule, originally closing on September 30, 1998, 
was twice extended by request. From the time a proposed rule is 
published, the Act allows 12 months in which to make and publish a 
final determination on a listing action. We extended the 1-year period 
for the lynx final listing determination for 6 months in a July 8, 
1999, Federal Register announcement (64 FR 36836), specifically to 
allow for review, evaluation, and comment on the Science Report because 
there was substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency and 
accuracy of the information. On August 18, 1999, we announced in the 
Federal Register that we were reopening the comment period for an 
additional 38 days to allow the public to review and comment on the 
proposed rule based on new information contained in the Science Report, 
which was placed on the Internet for accessibility. Press releases were 
issued to ensure the public was aware of the reopened comment period. 
While we received requests to extend the comment period on the Science 
Report, we declined to do so because of the time frames the Act allows 
for completion of a final listing determination, the amount of public 
notice about the Science Report and rapid availability of the Science 
Report to interested parties via the Internet.
    Issue 11--Several individuals believe the lynx should be listed as 
endangered, not threatened because they believe the lynx is in danger 
of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range, that it is 
part of our cultural heritage and should be protected. They stated that 
in light of the uncertainties about the existing information collected 
on lynx status and threats, the Service should be cautious and protect 
existing populations of lynx while additional information is collected. 
If listed as endangered the lynx would receive the full protection of 
the Act. Listing would focus more attention on the precarious status of 
the species and encourage State wildlife agencies to do more 
educational outreach and encourage conservation on private lands. These 
commentors also stated that a listing would increase attention given to 
lynx by Federal land management agencies and would provide the 
oversight that is needed to ensure conservation and recovery activities 
are implemented and are effective. Some commentors also believed that 
failure to list the lynx as

[[Page 16067]]

endangered would be contrary to the settlement agreement and other 
court-ordered stipulations, as well as the Service's listing priority 
guidance. They stated that the proposed rule to list the lynx as 
threatened rather than endangered is inconsistent with the prior 
``warranted'' petition finding of May 27, 1997, in which the Service 
assigned the lynx its highest listing priority number because of the 
magnitude and imminence of the threats. Conversely, some commentors 
believed that a listing as threatened was more appropriate and would 
provide the opportunity and resources to plan a conservation strategy 
at the landscape scale.
    Response--When evaluating whether a species, or in this case a DPS, 
should be listed as threatened or endangered, we first assess the 
current status of the DPS and then analyze the degree, magnitude and 
imminence, of the threats to its continued existence. If we conclude 
that a DPS of a species is likely to go extinct in the foreseeable 
future, then we must list it as endangered. If we conclude that it is 
likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future then we must list 
it as threatened. While we made an extensive effort to find and assess 
all the available information on the status of lynx in the contiguous 
United States, the best scientific information available does not 
provide a clear picture as to the current status of the species (see 
``Distribution and Status'' section). The lack of information on lynx 
does not allow us to determine with certainty whether the species' 
population trend is stable, increasing or declining. However, we can 
make several inferences from the available data. Resident populations 
continue to exist in the Northern Rockies/Cascades and Northeast 
regions. Available information provides evidence that within the 
contiguous United States, lynx continue to occur in most places with 
historical evidence of persistence except for possible range reductions 
in the Northeast and Southern Rockies. Given available information on 
current and historical lynx occurrence and threats, as identified in 
the ``Summary of Factors'' section, we conclude that the contiguous 
United States DPS of the lynx is threatened (see ``Finding'' section).
    In the proposed rule, various threats were identified as 
potentially affecting lynx populations (see ``Summary of Factors'' 
section), including competition, habitat loss and fragmentation, and 
the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (in the form of land 
management plans) to protect the species. However, there is 
inconclusive evidence that any of these factors, with the exception of 
inadequate regulatory mechanisms, may actually adversely affect the 
contiguous United States' lynx population. At the local level, 
particularly in the Southern Rockies, habitat loss and fragmentation 
may negatively affect lynx (see ``Factor A'' and ``Factor E'' of the 
``Summary of Factors'' section). However, at the DPS scale, we conclude 
the factor threatening lynx is the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms, specifically the lack of guidance for conservation of lynx 
and lynx habitat in Federal land management plans (see ``Factor D'' of 
the ``Summary of Factors'' section). A substantial number of the 
primary areas of lynx occurrence are on Federal lands (see ``Factor A'' 
of the ``Summary of Factors'' section) where programs, practices and 
activities allowed by current plans may cumulatively impact lynx.
    In the settlement agreement dated February 12, 1998, we agreed to 
publish a proposed rule to list the lynx within the contiguous United 
States under section 4 of the Act. At the time, we had not determined 
whether it warranted threatened or endangered status. In the 
``warranted but precluded'' petition finding of May 27, 1997, we 
assigned the lynx a listing priority number of 3. Guidelines for 
assigning listing priority numbers, published in the Federal Register 
on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098), describe a system for considering 
three factors in assigning a species a numerical listing priority on a 
scale of 1-12. The three factors are magnitude of threat (high or 
moderate to low), immediacy of threat (imminent or non-imminent), and 
taxonomic distinctiveness (monotypic genus, species or subspecies/
population). For a population, such as the contiguous United States' 
Canada lynx population, listing priority numbers of 3, 6, 9, or 12 are 
possible. At the time of the ``warranted but precluded'' finding we 
concluded that the overall magnitude of threats to lynx was high and 
that the threats were imminent. Therefore, a priority number of 3 was 
assigned. New information indicates that threats are at a much lower 
magnitude than previously believed (see ``Summary of Factors'' 
section).
    Issue 12--Several commentors were concerned that we did not propose 
a special 4(d) rule for incidental take of lynx along with the proposed 
listing. They encouraged us to cooperate with the respective States and 
Tribes in the development of a 4(d) rule and wondered what type of 
Federal oversight role would follow the issuance of a special rule.
    Response--Section 4(d) of the Act provides that whenever a species 
is listed as threatened, the Secretary of Interior will issue 
regulations deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the 
conservation of the species.
    We have issued regulations that generally apply to threatened 
wildlife virtually all the prohibitions that section 9 of the Act 
establishes with respect to endangered wildlife. These prohibitions, in 
part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the 
United States to ``take'' any listed wildlife species; to harass, harm 
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, or collect any threatened or 
endangered species or to attempt to engage in any such conduct (16 
U.S.C. section 1532 (19)).
    Our regulations for threatened wildlife also provide that a 
``special rule'' under section 4(d) of the Act can be tailored to 
define the section 9 prohibitions for particular threatened species. In 
that case, the general regulations applying most section 9 prohibitions 
to threatened species do not apply to that species, and the special 
rule is to contain the prohibitions (and exemptions) necessary and 
appropriate to conserve that species.
    Such regulations generally are issued and published as special 
rules in the Federal Register along with or following a listing. This 
final rule includes a special 4(d) rule that addresses the taking and 
export of captive lynx. To address incidental take of lynx while 
engaged in otherwise lawful hunting and trapping for bobcat we are 
currently consulting under section 7 of the Act with the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service's Office of Management Authority which issues CITES 
permits for export of bobcat pelts. Additionally, we have worked with 
State and Tribal agencies and are currently preparing an additional 
special 4(d) rule to address incidental take of lynx resulting from 
otherwise lawful hunting and trapping for species other than bobcat 
(and other than lynx). This proposed amendment to the special rule will 
describe the Federal oversight that will be required if the rule is 
implemented. We hope to publish the proposed special rule in the 
Federal Register as soon as possible following this listing rule.
    Issue 13--One commentor asked what role the Draft Lynx Conservation 
Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) would play in the long-term conservation 
of lynx if the species were listed. Another commentor was concerned 
about conferencing with other Federal agencies to conserve lynx and how 
we

[[Page 16068]]

intended to work with other agencies to identify and implement 
protective lynx measures. They suggested that a comprehensive review of 
the Forest Service Forest Management Plans is needed to assess their 
impacts upon potential lynx habitat and that management plans should be 
revised to improve snowshoe hare and lynx habitat. Many commentors also 
stated that Federal agencies should manage and protect public lands in 
a manner that will increase snowshoe hare habitat.
    Response--The LCAS was developed to provide a consistent and 
effective approach to conservation of lynx on Federal lands in the 
contiguous United States (United States Forest Service et al. 1999). It 
was developed by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 
National Park Service, and the Service. The overall goals of the LCAS 
were to develop recommended lynx conservation measures, provide a basis 
for reviewing the adequacy of the Forest Service and BLM Land and 
Resource Management Plans with regard to lynx conservation, to 
facilitate section 7 conferencing and consultation under the Act should 
the lynx be listed (see ``Factor D'' of the ``Summary of Factors'' 
section) and to guide future recovery efforts. The ``Draft Biological 
Assessment of the Effects of National Forest Land and Resource Plans 
and Bureau of Land Management Land Use Plans on Canada Lynx'' (DBA) 
identified potential effects resulting from 57 Forest Service Land and 
Resource Management Plans and 56 BLM Land Use Plans within the 16-State 
area where lynx were proposed for listing (United States Forest Service 
and Bureau of Land Management 1999).
    Section 7(a)(4) of the Act states that Federal agencies shall 
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed 
under section 4 of the Act or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat proposed to be designated for such 
species. Conferencing is a process of early interagency cooperation 
involving informal or formal discussions between a Federal agency and 
the Service regarding the likely impact of an action on proposed 
species or critical habitat. It is designed to help Federal agencies 
identify and resolve potential conflicts between an action and species 
conservation early in a project's planning and to develop 
recommendations to minimize or avoid adverse effects to proposed 
species or proposed critical habitat. With this final rule to list the 
lynx within the contiguous United States as threatened, conferencing is 
no longer applicable and any agency actions that may affect the lynx 
will need to be addressed under consultation in accordance with section 
7(a)(2) of the Act.
    For the lynx, the Forest Service, BLM, National Park Service, and 
the Service recognized that Federal agencies have a significant role in 
the conservation of lynx. They established a Lynx Steering Committee in 
1998 consisting of representatives from each agency. The Steering 
Committee provides oversight and guidance to teams established to 
address various lynx conservation issues on Federal lands. One team 
developed the LCAS; another team developed the Science Report; a third 
team prepared a biological assessment to evaluate the effects of Forest 
Service and BLM Land Management Plans on lynx. All of these efforts are 
intended to plan and implement sound conservation actions and 
management decisions for lynx on Federal lands.
    Issue 14--Numerous commentors were concerned about the economic, 
social, and cultural effects of listing the lynx. They believed a 
listing would result in increased burdens on local economies affecting 
jobs, culture and way of life, and that the cost of implementing a lynx 
conservation and recovery program is not an efficient allocation of tax 
dollars.
    Response--When drafting the Act, Congress found in section 2(a)(1) 
that, ``various species of fish, wildlife and plants in the United 
States have been rendered extinct as a consequence of economic growth 
and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation.'' In 
keeping with this finding, listing decisions, other than critical 
habitat designations, are not subject to economic analyses. The purpose 
of listing a species is to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon 
which endangered species and threatened species depend may be 
conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered 
species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be 
appropriate to conserve the various species facing extinction. In 
accordance with 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A) and 50 CFR 424.11(b), listing 
decisions are made solely on the basis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available. In adding the word ``solely'' to the 
statutory criteria for listing a species, Congress specifically 
addressed this issue in the 1982 amendments to the Act. The legislative 
history of the 1982 amendments states-- ``The addition of the word 
`solely' is intended to remove from the process of the listing or 
delisting of species any factor not related to the biological status of 
the species. The committee strongly believes that economic 
considerations have no relevance to determinations regarding the status 
of species * * *,'' H.R. Rep. No. 567, Part I, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 20 
(1982). Therefore, we have not considered the impacts of listing on 
economic development in making this listing determination. However, 
economic impacts will be considered in the designation of critical 
habitat.
    Issue 15--We received numerous comments concerning the impact of a 
listing on the status of introduced lynx in Colorado and requests that 
these animals be declared a 10(j) ``nonessential experimental 
population.''
    Response--The term ``experimental population'' as defined in the 
Act, refers to any population (including any offspring arising solely 
therefrom) of an endangered species or a threatened species released 
outside the current range of the species to further its conservation. 
Experimental populations can only be established when they are wholly 
separate geographically from nonexperimental populations of the same 
species. Since there is no clear evidence of the absence of a lynx 
population within the area prior to reintroduction, establishment of an 
``experimental population'' would not be possible and was not pursued 
in Colorado. The lynx that were recently introduced into Colorado from 
Canada and Alaska were released prior to this rule and the resulting 
placement of the species on the list of threatened and endangered 
species. Therefore, as of this final rule, they are considered resident 
lynx and do not qualify as an experimental population. Further, these 
reintroduced lynx are included as part of the listed entity and placed 
on the list of threatened and endangered species as of the effective 
date of this final rule.
    Issue 16--Several commentors believed that there is a very limited 
potential, or none at all, for re-establishment, recolonization, and 
population expansion of historic lynx habitat because of habitat 
changes, human-induced mortality, and bobcat and mountain lion 
competition with lynx. They believed the lynx decline is the result of 
global warming, a natural factor which has allowed the prey 
generalists, and bobcat and mountain lion, to move into lynx territory 
and outcompete this less adaptable specialist.
    Response--We recognize that some historic lynx habitat may no 
longer be suitable for recolonization of lynx because of habitat 
changes. However,

[[Page 16069]]

we do not agree that global warming or the expansion of the bobcat 
range has resulted in eliminating historic habitat from recolonization 
by lynx. There is no evidence that either the bobcat or mountain lion 
outcompete the lynx for habitat and food resources (see ``Factor E'' of 
the ``Summary of Factors'' section). The lynx, bobcat, and mountain 
lion co-evolved in similar, yet spatially segregated environments. The 
lynx is specially adapted for deep snow habitats while the bobcat and 
mountain lion are not. This special adaptation allows the lynx to 
outcompete bobcat and mountain lion in deep snow environments. Because 
we have limited understanding of lynx habitat requirements, it is 
difficult to determine precisely the amount of habitat available 
historically or currently. In the majority of the range of lynx in the 
contiguous United States, suitable habitat remains available (see 
``Factor A'' of the ``Summary of Factors'' section). There is no 
evidence to support global warming as a threat to the lynx.
    Issue 17--Several commentors stated that in lieu of listing, we 
should pursue candidate conservation mechanisms that eliminate the need 
to list. Efforts should be focused on landscape planning, developing 
conservation agreements, forest management plans and lynx conservation 
criteria in lieu of listing. A multi-species forest planning process, 
incorporating not only species but special habitats and unique 
biological communities, would be a better approach, providing more 
protection to lynx and other wildlife communities, than a single 
species listing under the Act. They believed that managing for only one 
species might be detrimental to other species or communities.
    Some commentors stated that we failed to take into account the 
continuing forest fragmentation and increased competition brought on by 
road construction, excessive timber harvest, off-road back country use 
and ski area development. They stated that we should implement strong 
standards to prevent excessive logging, road development, and other 
human developments in important lynx habitat. Lynx conservation can 
only be achieved at the landscape scale. They further believed that we 
failed to take into account the adequacy, inadequacy, political 
pressures, and limitations of current State and Forest Service programs 
and questioned the role of these existing programs for lynx as 
regulatory mechanisms.
    Response--We fully support candidate conservation mechanisms, 
landscape planning, and changes in forest planning as mechanisms to 
conserve candidate species and species at risk. We are signatories to 
numerous candidate conservation agreements across the country. The Act 
requires us to consider conservation efforts by the States and others 
in listing decisions. However, to conclude that a conservation effort 
removes the need to list a species, we must determine that the 
conservation effort is sufficiently certain to be implemented and 
effective.
    In the case of amending forest management plans, we have 
specifically identified current Federal regulatory mechanisms as a 
threat to lynx because of the ongoing and potential future actions 
allowed by current Land and Resource Management Plans. Changes in land 
management plans to manage these potential threats would result in a 
significant reduction to the current threats facing the species and, 
therefore, would strongly factor in future lynx status determinations. 
In the case of State regulatory and conservation mechanisms, we also 
have identified that existing State programs will be essential in lynx 
conservation and recovery (see ``Issue 19'').
    Issue 18--Numerous State agencies believe that Federal intervention 
is not necessary to manage and protect the lynx and that State 
regulatory protection is adequate. Some States hold that they are 
already doing everything they can to protect and conserve the lynx. 
They further believe that States are in a better position to manage the 
lynx in the future, as they maintain the bulk of the information and 
management expertise and that we should, as an interim step, assist the 
respective States and other Federal agencies in gathering biological 
information and implementing management plans through funding or joint 
ventures. They questioned how the Act provides for a species' recovery.
    Response--The role of the Service, as mandated by the Act, is more 
encompassing than is the role of individual States, or even groups of 
States. States are responsible for the management of species within 
their boundaries and to their credit, most if not all States have 
implemented lynx management measures. The Service, pursuant to the Act, 
must evaluate the status of a species throughout its entire range and, 
when determined necessary, provide for its conservation and recovery. 
In the case of the lynx, this includes 14 separate States. While some 
States may still harbor resident populations of lynx, the status of 
lynx in other States is unclear. The Service, as a Federal agency, is 
responsible for coordinating recovery of a species such as the lynx 
that crosses State boundaries and occupies substantial amounts of 
habitat on Federal lands. Furthermore, we have identified the major 
threat to lynx as the inadequacy of Federal regulatory mechanisms to 
provide for the long-term conservation of the species. Listing the lynx 
under the Act confers substantive protections not otherwise provided by 
State management.
    We agree that the States maintain management expertise and 
knowledge of lynx within their boundaries, particularly concerning 
evidence of resident populations or individuals and local snowshoe hare 
abundance. Much of the available information on lynx status and threats 
comes from the reports of State wildlife agencies. States have already 
taken significant steps within their jurisdiction to conserve lynx. 
With the exception of Oregon, all States within lynx range have closed 
lynx trapping seasons. In some cases they have been closed for more 
than 2 decades. New York and Colorado have attempted lynx 
reintroduction as a means to re-establish viable populations. Long-term 
conservation of the lynx will not only be dependent on the States 
continuing their respective conservation programs, but on Federal 
agencies improving their efforts to conserve lynx and, where necessary, 
amending regulations, policies and/or practices for the conservation of 
the species.
    When a species is listed under the Act, additional protections and 
prohibitions are applied. These efforts further conservation in several 
ways. When a species is listed under the Act as either threatened or 
endangered, it becomes illegal to ``take'' the species without a permit 
or incidental take statement from the Service. The term ``take'' means 
to harass, harm, hunt, should, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, 
or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. ``Harm'' is further 
defined to include significant habitat modification or degradation that 
results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing 
behavioral patterns, such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. 
``Harass'' is defined as actions that create the likelihood of injury 
to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal 
behavior patterns, which include but are not limited to breeding, 
feeding, or sheltering. Federal agencies are required to conserve 
species listed under the Act and to consult with the Service on any 
actions that may affect the species. Furthermore, the Act requires that 
the Service develop and implement a species recovery plan unless such a 
plan will not promote the recovery of the

[[Page 16070]]

species. When a species is considered recovered, it can then be removed 
from the list of threatened and endangered species.
    Issue 19--One commentor stated that if the lynx were listed, 
restrictions imposed, such as limitations on trapping, would interfere 
with Tribal treaty rights.
    Response--We have been communicating with Tribal governments 
regarding development of a special 4(d) rule (see ``Issue 12'') that 
would address the incidental take of lynx resulting from otherwise 
legal trapping and hunting for species other than lynx on Tribal lands. 
Under Executive Order 13084 ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments'' (63 FR 27655, May 14, 1998) we are to inform and 
receive input from Tribal governments of any actions, such as listings 
under the Act, that may affect Tribes and to work to resolve any 
conflicts. However, there are certain circumstances where we cannot 
resolve issues to everyone's satisfaction. The Act applies to Tribal, 
as well as all other lands within the United States, and, therefore, 
the prohibitions brought on by the listing of a species, also apply. 
There are numerous Tribes within the range of the lynx that might be 
affected by this listing. On some Tribal lands lynx harvest seasons 
have already been closed. We will continue to work with Tribal 
governments to avoid or minimize conflicts should they arise.
    Issue 20--In response to our reopening of the comment period for 
review of the Science Report we received numerous specific comments on 
the adequacy, accuracy and reliability of the Science Report. One 
commentor believed we should convene a Blue Ribbon panel to review the 
Science Report and make those deliberations part of the record. The 
information should be shared with the States and collaborative 
workshops conducted to ensure that all information is thoroughly 
evaluated and judged fairly against standards that are supportable.
    Response--We employed a seldom-used section of the Act, section 
4(b)(6)(B), in extending the time frame for issuance of a final listing 
rule by 6 months. We reopened the comment period on the lynx proposed 
rule specifically to allow for review, evaluation, and comment on the 
Science Report because there was substantial disagreement regarding the 
sufficiency and accuracy of the data relative to the listing 
determination in the proposed rule. We solicited comments on the 
Science Report from hundreds of agencies, Tribal governments, 
organizations, scientific experts, and individuals. All comments 
received have been incorporated into the administrative record for this 
rule and have been reviewed and incorporated into our decision making 
process.
    While we recognize that there are limitations to the Science Report 
and have attempted to explain these throughout this rule, we also 
believe that it provides a comprehensive review of the current 
knowledge concerning the lynx in the contiguous United States. 
Therefore, we could not ignore it during our review. We have conducted 
an exhaustive review of the Science Report and all available literature 
and data on lynx in the United States, as well as the extensive 
comments we received on the proposed listing. Because of the wide range 
of the species, sizable list of interested parties and time 
limitations, it was not possible to convene a workshop of all 
interested parties specifically to discuss the Science Report. However, 
we have been in contact with specialists knowledgeable about lynx, 
hares, forest ecology and management, and potential lynx competitors to 
discuss various issues about the Science Report. This also is part of 
the administrative record for this finding.
    Issue 21--Numerous responses addressed and opposed a proposed 
reintroduction of lynx into Idaho.
    Response--We received extensive comment on this particular issue 
and are addressing it here for clarification purposes. We have not 
proposed a reintroduction effort for Idaho. At this time, we have not 
proposed any reintroduction efforts for lynx. Past reintroduction, both 
in New York and in Colorado, have been initiated and conducted by State 
wildlife agencies because they believed the lynx had been extirpated or 
extremely reduced in numbers in specific, historically occupied 
habitat. In recent years, Idaho Department of Fish and Game considered 
reintroducing lynx into the State. If during the course of recovery 
planning for lynx, reintroduction are proposed, we would conduct 
extensive public outreach, with public hearings and comment periods, to 
determine the feasibility of such a project.

Peer Review

    On July 1, 1994, we published a notice in the Federal Register 
announcing our interagency policy to clarify the role of peer review in 
activities we undertake under authority of the Act (59 FR 34270). This 
Interagency Cooperative Policy on Peer Review states that it is the 
policy of the Service to incorporate independent peer review in listing 
decisions during the public comment period in the following manner--(1) 
Solicit the expert opinions of a minimum of three appropriate and 
independent specialists regarding pertinent scientific and commercial 
data and assumptions relating to the taxonomy, population models, and 
supportive biological and ecological information for species under 
consideration for listing; and (2) Summarize in the final decision 
document the opinions of all independent peer reviewers received on the 
species under consideration.
    In accordance with this policy, in a letter dated August 21, 1998, 
we solicited the expert, independent professional opinion of six peer 
reviewers. We specifically asked the reviewers to address the following 
questions--(1) Does the information referenced and described in the 
``Distribution and Status'' section of the proposed rule support the 
Service's conclusions regarding the status of the lynx in the 
contiguous United States; and (2) Does the information referenced and 
described in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' section 
of the proposed rule support the Service's conclusions about threats to 
the lynx in the contiguous United States? We also requested the 
reviewers advise us of other available information that would assist us 
in making a final listing decision.
    In response to our solicitation, we received two comment letters. 
Both commentors stated that they believed the status and threats to the 
lynx were reliably documented in the proposed rule. The commentors 
provided some additional information concerning an ongoing survey for 
lynx populations and the status of lynx in Idaho, Washington, and 
Wyoming, and also commented that our conclusion that resident 
populations of lynx historically occurred in Massachusetts, 
Pennsylvania, and Utah, and possibly Vermont and New Hampshire, was 
problematic. This information has been incorporated into our discussion 
of the status of the species. The same response also indicated that the 
forest practice of precommercial thinning was a greater threat than we 
had indicated and felt that conservation of lynx across southern Canada 
was important to conservation of lynx across the northern United 
States. These comments also have been incorporated into our analyses.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act and regulations (50 CFR part 424) promulgated 
to

[[Page 16071]]

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) are discussed below.

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

    Factors affecting lynx habitat include 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. People change forests through 
timber harvest, fire suppression and conversion of forest lands to 
agriculture. Forest fragmentation may eventually become severe enough 
to isolate habitat into small patches, thereby reducing the viability 
of wildlife that are dependent on larger areas of forest habitat 
(Litvaitis and Harrison 1989).
    Since the publication of the proposed rule, we received new 
information related specifically to lynx--habitat associations 
(McKelvey et al. 1999b; United States Forest Service and Bureau of Land 
Management 1999), the distribution and ownership of lynx forest types 
as well as the amount of habitat in specific Federal land allocations 
(United States Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 1999), the 
types and effects of different forest management practices (United 
States Forest Service et al. 1999), the effects of fire suppression 
(Agee 1999), and some probable implications of forest management 
practices on lynx forest types (McKelvey et al. 1999d).
    New information suggests that lynx in the contiguous United States 
occur at naturally low densities. Lynx are limited to moist, cool 
boreal forests that support some minimum density of snowshoe hares, 
where winters are snowy (Ruggerio et al. 1999b). Snowshoe hares in the 
contiguous United States occur at low levels compared to northern 
reaches of their range in Canada and Alaska (Hodges 1999a, 1999b). Two 
important human influences on snowshoe hare habitat are timber harvest 
and fire suppression; however, our knowledge of how lynx populations 
respond to these specific impacts is limited.
    In all regions of the lynx range in the contiguous United States, 
timber harvest and its related activities are a predominant land use 
affecting lynx habitat. 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.
    For example, intensive tree harvesting (large-scale clearcutting) 
can eliminate the mosaic of habitats and mix of forest stand age 
classes that promote lynx survival, including late successional seral 
stages that support lynx denning and red squirrel habitat, and early 
successional snowshoe hare habitat. The response of lynx populations to 
particular vegetative mosaics is unknown. However, timber harvest can 
result in reduced cover, unusable forest openings, and large monotypic 
stands with sparse understories that are unfavorable for lynx and 
snowshoe hare, the primary lynx prey (Brittell et al. 1989; de Vos and 
Matel 1952; Harger 1965; Hatler 1988; Koehler 1990; K. Gustafson, pers. 
comm. 1994; J. Lanier, pers. comm. 1994). Some studies indicate that 
lynx avoid openings such as clear-cut, unforested areas, and grasslands 
(Koehler et al. 1979; Koehler and Brittell 1990; Murray et al. 1994). 
Snowshoe hares also are unlikely to use such areas because of the lack 
of cover (Koehler et al. 1979; Koehler and Aubry 1994; H. Golden, 
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, pers. comm. 1994). Mechanical 
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 (United States Forest Service et al. 1999a). 
Reductions in cone-bearing mature and older forests can result in 
decreases in habitat for red squirrel, an important alternate lynx prey 
(Koehler 1990; O'Donoghue 1997; Apps 1999; Mowat et al. 1999).
    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. 1999d). Hodges 
(1999a, 1999b) illustrated that snowshoe hare densities are highest in 
regenerating stands with very high stem densities. Regeneration harvest 
can be used to create high quality snowshoe hare habitat, especially 
where natural regeneration would be expected to provide dense young 
vegetation. Although large openings may initially be underused by 
snowshoe hare and lynx, regeneration harvest units in appropriate 
habitat types eventually (in 15 years or more depending on the type of 
forest) achieve early successional stages in forests preferred by 
snowshoe hares (Monthey 1986; Quinn and Parker 1987; Koehler 1990; 
Koehler and Brittell 1990; Washington Department of Wildlife 1993; 
McKelvey et al. 1999c). Lynx can readily move across landscapes 
fragmented by commercial forestry (Squires and Laurion 1999). Larger 
openings can often more closely resemble vegetative patterns that 
follow natural disturbance events, and decrease amounts of edge 
favorable to generalist predators (McKelvey et al. 1999c).
    Natural 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 
1999) and will be discussed separately below for western and eastern 
regions.
    McKelvey et al. (1999b) used lynx occurrence data to describe lynx 
distribution patterns and habitat associations. The primary vegetation 
classes encompassing the majority of lynx occurrences in the West were 
Rocky Mountain Conifer and Pacific Northwest Conifer, including 
Douglas-fir and western spruce/fir and fir/hemlock. In the Great Lakes, 
the primary vegetation class was Mixed Deciduous-Coniferous, and in the 
Northeast, Mixed Forest-Coniferous Forest-Tundra. These broad 
vegetation classes include areas that because of elevation or other 
physical factors are not considered lynx habitat and cannot easily be 
deleted from the data. Therefore, accurate assessments of the total 
amount of lynx habitat within these regions is not possible. However, 
we assume that the areas encompassed within these vegetation classes 
contain the majority of lynx habitat types in the regions. We also 
assume that pockets of lynx habitat may occur outside these broad 
vegetation classes. With these assumptions in mind, where our 
discussion is based on lynx/habitat associations as reported in 
McKelvey et al. (1999b), we shall refer to the landscapes characterized 
by these broad vegetation classes as lynx forest types.

Northern Rockies/Cascades and Southern Rockies

    In the western regions, most lynx forest types occurs on Federal 
lands. Of all western forest types, the western boreal forests 
(subalpine fir/spruce forests which provide lynx habitat) have the 
highest proportion of reserved land, largely because they are primarily 
in public ownership and are the least productive timberland, making 
land use

[[Page 16072]]

trade-offs between preservation and extraction less controversial than 
for other public lands (Agee 1999). Human land use that changed areas 
of forest land, disturbance patterns, and dominant tree species is much 
less prevalent in the West than in the Great Lakes or Northeast boreal 
forest (Agee 1999). Broad-scale habitat assessments generally support 
these conclusions.
    Large amounts of lynx forest types occur on Federal lands, within 
both developmental and nondevelopmental allocations within the western 
regions. Lands in developmental allocations are managed for multiple 
uses, such as recreation and timber harvest. Lands within 
nondevelopmental allocations are to be managed to allow natural 
ecological processes to dominate (United States Forest Service and 
Bureau of Land Management 1999). Nondevelopmental lands contain large 
portions of wilderness or other natural areas (D. Prevedal, United 
States Forest Service, in litt. 1999). Timber harvest and construction 
of roads typically do not occur or are very limited in lands managed in 
nondevelopmental allocations. Large proportions of Federal lands in 
each of the western regions are managed under nondevelopmental 
allocations. In an assessment of the Columbia River Basin of eastern 
Washington and Oregon, Idaho, and western Montana, more than 35 percent 
of cold forest types encompassing subalpine fir/spruce habitats, were 
in designated wilderness, wilderness study areas, or other 
administrative natural areas (United States Department of Agriculture 
and United States Department of the Interior 1997).
    Raphael et al. (1999) developed a broad-scale landscape model for 
lynx that assessed conditions across the Columbia River Basin. The 
model was based on the changes from historic to current amounts of 
habitat, landscape mosaics, disturbance regimes, vegetation structures, 
road densities, and human population. The model produced two outcomes, 
a habitat outcome and a population outcome. We acknowledge that such 
coarse-scale analyses may not reflect finer-scale environmental 
requirements that potentially account for a large amount of variation 
in lynx demographics. Preliminary results of the model suggest that 
lynx habitat is broadly distributed and of high abundance (relative to 
historic conditions) across the historic range of the species in the 
Columbia River Basin, and provides opportunity for intraspecific 
interactions for the species (Raphael et al. 1999). The model's 
population outcome for lynx suggests that the potential distribution of 
lynx in this area is restricted and characterized by patchiness and/or 
areas of low abundance. There is opportunity for subpopulations in most 
of the specie's range in this area to interact as a metapopulation; 
however, some subpopulations are essentially isolated.
    At finer scales of analysis, the Forest Service and BLM concluded 
that many Forest and BLM administrative units have land and resource 
management plans that may adversely affect lynx due to timber harvest 
activities (United States Forest Service et al. 1999; United States 
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 1999). These plans may 
affect individual lynx or local lynx populations primarily in the 
developmental allocation areas of the Northern Rockies/Cascades and 
Southern Rockies regions, although the assessment did not quantify the 
level of impact.
    Since publication of the proposed rule, we have received 
information related to past and projected timber harvest levels and 
precommercial thinning activities on Federal lands in the West. Timber 
harvest levels on Federal lands in the West have declined consistently 
and dramatically (approximately 80 percent) over the past decade or 
longer (R. Gay, United States Forest Service, in litt. 1999). Timber 
harvest in specific lynx forest types also has concurrently declined in 
the Northern Rockies (B. Ballenbacher, United States Forest Service, in 
litt. 1999; B. Ferguson, United States Forest Service, pers. comm. 
1999) and Cascades (Fred Zenson, United States Forest Service, pers. 
comm. 1999), and the Southern Rockies (B. Short, United States Forest 
Service, in litt. 1999).
    The Forest Service's projected need for future precommercial 
thinning on Forest Service lands over the next decade in the Northern 
Rockies, Cascades, and Southern Rockies will affect less than 
approximately 1-4 percent of primary lynx forest types within each of 
these regions (B. Ballenbacher, United States Forest Service, in litt. 
1999; B. Ferguson, United States Forest Service, pers. comm. 1999; B. 
Short, in litt. 1999; F. Zenson, United States Forest Service, pers. 
comm. 1999). Past thinning and timber harvest impacted similarly low 
proportions of lynx forest types on Federal lands in the Northern 
Rockies (B. Ballenbacher, in litt. 1999; B. Ferguson, pers. comm. 
1999), Cascades (F. Zenson, pers. comm. 1999) and the Southern Rockies 
(B. Short, in litt. 1999). Precommercial thinning has occurred in 
approximately one-fifth (B. Ballenbacher, in litt. 1999) to one-half 
(B. Short, in litt. 1999) of the early successional vegetation created 
by timber harvest in lynx forest types on western Federal lands over 
the past decade. This likely reduced snowshoe hare habitat quality at 
local scales, adversely affecting individual lynx. However, considering 
the overall proportions of lynx forest types affected, timber harvest 
and precommercial thinning on Federal lands are not currently 
conducted, nor are they likely in the projected future to be conducted, 
at levels likely to impact lynx at the population level.
    However, the Northern Rockies encompass more privately owned lynx 
forest types than elsewhere in the West. Almost one-third of lynx 
forest types are in private ownership. Although we lack specific 
information, large portions of this habitat likely occur on privately 
owned corporate timber lands where timber harvest and thinning occurs. 
There are no data available on these private lands which would allow us 
to make a conclusion concerning the quality of lynx and snowshoe hare 
habitat. However, there is a potential for current and future 
management of these lands to adversely affect lynx.
    Most lynx forest types in the West occur on Federal lands, and 
large Federal acreage of this habitat in the Northern Rockies/Cascades 
and Southern Rockies are managed in nondevelopmental status, where 
timber harvest activities and precommercial thinning generally do not 
occur. Nondevelopmental allocations on Federal lands require that 
natural ecological processes play a dominant role in the landscape 
(United States Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 1999), as 
opposed to developmental lands, which are managed for multiple uses, 
such as recreation and timber harvest.
    Large portions of nondevelopmental lands occur in the Northern 
Rockies and Cascades regions, which encompass most of the lynx forest 
types in Wyoming, Utah, Montana, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. We 
recognize the importance of wildlands and nondevelopmental lands in the 
Northern Rockies/Cascades Region to provide lynx habitat that is 
buffered from many human impacts, creating the most likely stronghold 
for lynx populations in the contiguous U.S.
    In the Northern Rockies, nearly 50 percent of the 35 million acres 
of lynx forest types is in nondevelopmental allocations on Forest 
Service lands or occurs in National Parks. In the Northern Rockies, 67 
percent of the lynx forest types are managed by the Forest Service, 5 
percent by the BLM, and 28 percent are in other ownerships (see

[[Page 16073]]

``Table 1''). The Forest Service and BLM manage over 24 million acres 
of lynx forest types. Of federally managed lynx forest types, 57 
percent (roughly 14 million acres) lies within areas with 
nondevelopmental status. Sixty-seven percent of this 14 million acres 
lie within wilderness or scenic river designations (D. Prevedal, in 
litt. 1999), both of which provide restrictions on land use beneficial 
to lynx. Additional large tracts of lynx forest types occur in Glacier 
(735,310 acres) and Yellowstone (1,910,590 acres) National Parks (D. 
Prevedal, in litt. 1999). However, the 43 percent of federally managed 
lynx forest types that are in developmental status are managed for 
multiple uses that may, on local scales, conflict with lynx 
conservation.

 Table 1.--Amount of Lynx Forest Types in Geographic Regions in the Contiguous U.S., Amount of Lynx Forest Types
  (LFT) on Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lands, and Federal Land Allocations in Lynx
                 Forest Types (Data From U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 1999)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Total                 Total acres               Percent FS/   Percent all
                                    acres LFT,     Total     FS/BLM LFT     Percent    BLM LFT in      LFT in
         Geographic region              all      acres LFT  nondeveloped  LFT on FS/  nondeveloped  nondeveloped
                                    ownerships   on FS/BLM   allocations      BLM      allocations   allocations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cascades..........................       4.2 M       4.1 M        3.6 M           99           87            85
Northern Rockies..................      34.3 M      24.8 M       14.1 M           72           57            41
Southern Rockies..................       6.5 M       5.3 M        1.4 M           82           25            23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Cascades and Southern Rockies regions encompass substantively 
smaller proportions of lynx forest types. In the Cascades Region, 99 
percent of lynx forest types are managed by the Forest Service, less 
than 1 percent by the BLM, and less than 1 percent is in other 
ownerships (see ``Table 1''). The Forest Service and BLM manage 
approximately 4 million acres of lynx forest types. Of federally 
managed lynx forest types, 87 percent (3.5 million acres) lies within 
areas with nondevelopmental allocations and 13 percent occur in areas 
of developmental status, where multiple use management occurs. Ninety 
percent of this 3.5 million acres is in wilderness or in key watersheds 
under the Pacific Northwest Forest Plan, and the remaining 10 percent 
is in matrix lands including late successional reserves, which allows 
limited timber harvest such as salvage harvest (D. Prevedal, in litt. 
1999). In Washington and Oregon, the National Park Service manages an 
additional 200,000 acres of lynx forest types (D. Prevedal, in litt. 
1999).
    In the Southern Rockies, 76 percent of the lynx forest types are 
managed by the Forest Service, about 5 percent by the BLM, and 19 
percent is in other ownerships (see ``Table 1''). Federally managed 
lynx forest types amount to over 5 million acres. Of the federally 
managed lynx forest types, only 25 percent (1.4 million acres) lies 
within areas with nondevelopmental status while the other 75 percent 
are in developmental status and are managed for multiple uses that may, 
on local scales, conflict with lynx conservation.
    Considering the Northern Rockies, Cascades and Southern Rockies, a 
cumulative total of 56 percent of Forest Service and BLM lands is 
managed in nondevelopmental status, comprising over 40 percent of lynx 
forest types, allowing for 44 percent to be managed for multiple uses 
which may conflict with lynx conservation. National Parks in the 
western regions add several million acres of lynx forest types in more 
or less undeveloped status.
    We conclude that timber harvest activities and precommercial 
thinning may reduce the quality of snowshoe hare habitat and red 
squirrel habitat in local areas of the Northern Rockies/Cascades and 
Southern Rockies, and thus may negatively affect lynx at local scales. 
Furthermore, the large percentage of Federal lands in developmental 
status and managed for multiple use may, on local scales, conflict with 
lynx conservation. However, based on the large proportion of lynx 
forest types managed in nondevelopmental status compared to the 
proportion of managed lynx forest types affected, current regional 
effects of timber harvest and thinning appear to occur at levels that 
are not likely threatening the Northern Rockies/Cascades and Southern 
Rockies lynx populations.
    Federal land management in developmental allocations often 
maintains conditions suitable for lynx, and these lands constitute 
important landscapes providing regional connectivity. Construction of 
roads, timber harvest, and fire suppression occur in developmental 
allocations. However, recent studies of lynx have documented lynx 
presence and reproduction in a variety of managed landscapes (Koehler 
1990; Staples 1995; Apps 1999; Squires and Laurion 1999; J. Organ, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1999). Lynx occurrence records 
provide evidence that lynx continue to be broadly distributed 
throughout lynx forest types in the Northern Rockies/Cascades and 
Southern Rockies (McKelvey et al. 1999b), both inside and outside of 
the nondevelopmental allocation areas within the last decade (U.S. 
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 1999).
    Because of the preponderance of lynx forest types on Forest 
Service, BLM, and National Park system lands, Federal land management 
assumes the largest single role in the conservation of lynx in western 
portions of its range. We believe that the large amounts of lynx forest 
types managed in nondevelopmental allocations, especially in designated 
wilderness areas, protects lynx in the Northern Rockies/Cascades and 
Southern Rockies and contributes to the likelihood of persistence of 
lynx into the future. The forests upon which lynx depend have had less 
timber harvest, road construction, and have been modified much less 
than other drier forests (U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land 
Management 1997). In addition, significant portions of these forests 
are within areas that do not have roads and have habitat that has been 
classified as wilderness. Natural fires are more likely allowed to burn 
in wilderness or areas without roads, which helps retain diversity in 
structural stages and create habitat mosaics in forests for the future. 
Also, in the Northern Rockies/Cascades Region there are strong habitat 
connections to lynx populations in

[[Page 16074]]

Canada. The Northern Rockies/Cascades Region has the highest potential 
for maintaining a viable lynx population within the DPS, based upon the 
large amount of lynx forest types, the large portions of habitat in 
nondevelopmental management, and strong regional connections to lynx 
forest types and lynx populations in Canada.
    Natural fire has an important role in forest ecology in western 
mountain ranges of the United States. Some researchers believe that 
fire suppression during the past 50 years has allowed certain forest 
types to mature, thereby reducing habitat suitability for snowshoe 
hares and Canada lynx (Brittell et al. 1989; Fox 1978; Koehler 1990; 
Washington Department of Wildlife 1993; T. Bailey, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, in litt. 1994; W. Hann, U.S. Forest Service, in litt. 
1999).
    However, others argue that fire suppression is most likely 
affecting lynx habitat in areas where the historical frequency of fires 
is shorter than the length of time fires have been suppressed (P. 
Stickney, U.S. Forest Service, pers. comm. 1994; Agee 1999). Fire 
suppression in areas with a history of infrequent fire has probably not 
had much impact (Habeck 1985; Agee 1993). In the western boreal forest 
zone, long natural fire return intervals (150-300 years) signify that 
removal of fire has not been as significant as in the West with lower-
severity fire regimes and return intervals (30-90 years), even though 
fire suppression has been in effect for much of this century (Agee 
1993, Agee 1998 in Agee 1999). More frequent fires of lower intensity 
do occur in some boreal forest types (W. Hann, in litt. 1999), although 
they typically comprise a small proportion of the total area burned 
(Agee 1999). In forests with high-severity fire regimes, a number of 
smaller fires burn a small proportion of the forests, while fewer 
larger fires account for most of the area burned (McKelvey and Busse 
1996 in McKelvey et al. 1999d; Agee 1999). Lynx forest types in the 
West include a preponderance of forest types with long natural fire 
return intervals and high-fire intensity (S. Arno, U.S. Forest Service, 
in litt. 1998; Agee 1999), which suggests that removal of fire in lynx 
forest types has not been as significant as in the lower-severity fire 
regimes of the West (Agee 1998 in Agee 1999).
    In the Northern Rockies, most of the wilderness areas in Montana 
and Idaho have fire management plans that affect more than 5 million 
acres that allow naturally caused fires to burn during certain periods 
and in certain areas (N. Warren, U.S. Forest Service, in litt. 1999). 
In Wyoming and Utah, one-third of the wilderness areas also have 
completed similar fire plans, with the remaining plans close to 
completion (B. Noblit, U.S. Forest Service, in litt. 1999). Glacier and 
Yellowstone National Parks allow natural fires to burn under many 
conditions. In the Cascades, two of three wilderness areas have fire 
management plans in place (B. Naney, U.S. Forest Service, Okanogan, 
pers. comm. 1999). Further, the 1994 Federal Wildland Fire Policy 
directs the Department of the Interior and the Department of 
Agriculture to use a full range of potential responses to fire, from 
full suppression to allowing more fires to burn large areas thereby 
allowing fires to assume a larger role in maintaining forest health in 
the future (B. Meuchel, pers. comm. 1999; D. Milburn, pers. comm. 
1999). However, natural fire regimes are not necessarily restored 
because prescriptive criteria to manage these natural wildland fires 
remain conservative.
    Currently, outside large wilderness areas in all western regions, 
most fires are suppressed. Most fires (98 percent) are successfully 
extinguished when small and only a small proportion of fires burn large 
areas (B. Meuchel, U.S. Forest Service, pers. comm. 1999; D. Milburn, 
U.S. Forest Service, pers. comm. 1999). Fires are extinguished largely 
due to costs, firefighter safety, local human safety and property 
concerns. The majority of these fires occur outside lynx forest types 
at lower elevations in drier forests. However, fires igniting in the 
lynx forest types outside, and some fires inside, wilderness are 
suppressed, which can reduce the amount of early seral forests compared 
to natural conditions and/or change species composition and structural 
components of forests (W. Hann, in litt. 1999). The total area that 
would have burned had such fires been allowed to burn is likely not 
substantive when compared to the proportion of the landscape burned by 
the large, high-intensity fires typical of lynx forest types. However, 
the resulting pattern of vegetation mosaic and the mix of stand age 
classes may be altered, as the large fires may burn areas more 
uniformly due to lack of fire breaks that would have been created by 
past, smaller fires (D. Milburn, pers. comm. 1999). Other natural 
processes such as insects, disease, and wind-throw also can play a role 
in affecting the vegetation mosaics.
    Based on available information on fire suppression and upon 
available habitat assessments, we conclude that at the present time, 
fire suppression effects are less evident in lynx forest types than in 
many other forest types in the West. In the Cascades, fire return 
intervals in many lynx forest types are very long, 200-500 years (Agee 
1999). Mixed-severity fire regimes were not common; therefore, fire 
suppression is not a factor limiting lynx in the Cascades. In the 
Northern and Southern Rockies, fire intervals also are long and fire 
regimes are typically intense (Agee 1999). Where mixed-severity fire 
regimes occur in the Northern and Southern Rockies, lynx habitat 
quality may be affected at some local scales, especially outside of 
wilderness areas, resulting in adverse effects to individual lynx. 
However, considering a larger scale, the current effects of fire 
suppression alone are not threatening the Northern Rockies/Cascades and 
Southern Rockies lynx at the population level at this time.
    While recent studies of lynx have documented lynx presence and 
reproduction in a variety of managed landscapes (Koehler 1990; Staples 
1995; Apps 1999; Squires and Laurion 1999; J. Organ, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1999), we remain concerned about the 
maintenance of lynx habitat conditions, especially since a large 
percentage of lands managed by the Forest Service and BLM are in 
developable status and allow programs, practices and activities that 
may impact lynx and their primary prey, snowshoe hare. Lynx occur 
naturally at very low densities in the contiguous United States (see 
``Background'' section). It is imperative that snowshoe hare and 
alternate prey populations be supported by habitat on Federal lands 
into the future, to ensure the persistence of lynx in the contiguous 
United States. Substantive declines in prey species, especially 
snowshoe hare, may result in a prey base insufficient to support lynx 
populations. Therefore, amendment of Forest Plans to provide protection 
for lynx and lynx habitat is needed to conserve habitat for lynx and 
its prey on Federal forest lands. Without such amendments, the species 
is threatened.

Northeast

    In the Northeast Region, softwoods that provided Canada lynx 
habitat were logged extensively during the late 1800s and early 1900s 
(Jackson 1961; Barbour et al. 1980; Belcher 1980; Irland 1982). Over a 
short time period, timber extraction during this era resulted in the 
replacement of late-successional conifer forest with extensive tracts 
of very early successional habitat, which eliminated cover for lynx and 
hare (Jackson 1961; Keener 1971). In the Northeast Region, slash, 
accumulated during logging operations, fueled wildfires that burned 
vast acreage of softwood forest (Belcher 1980; J. Lanier, pers. comm. 
1994). This

[[Page 16075]]

sudden alteration of habitat may have resulted in sharp declines in 
snowshoe hare numbers over large areas, subsequently reducing lynx 
numbers (Jackson 1961; Keener 1971; K. Gustafson, pers. comm. 1994; J. 
Lanier, pers. comm. 1994).
    The impacts of the logging conducted in the Northeast Region during 
the late 1800s continue to affect lynx forest types. In Maine, softwood 
cover and dense sapling growth provided improved snowshoe hare habitat 
after timber harvest and fires in late successional forests (Monthey 
1986). However, in the western sections of the Northeast Region, 
extensive tracts of predominantly softwood forests that were harvested 
and burned-over during the late 1800s and early 1900s were subsequently 
replaced with regenerating hardwoods (D. Degraff, pers. comm. 1994; J. 
Lanier, pers. comm. 1994). Hardwood forests do not typically supply 
adequate cover for snowshoe hares (Monthey 1986). For a period of time, 
this extensive area would have provided the early successional habitat 
used by snowshoe hare. However, such extensive tracts may not have 
provided a suitable mosaic of forest habitats and as succession 
progressed, these large tracts eventually became unsuitable for both 
snowshoe hare and lynx. Declines in snowshoe hare habitat may have 
occurred during the 1940s and 1950s as a result of large-scale forest 
maturation (Litvaitis et al. 1991).
    In Maine, large tracts of forest (some as large as 36-square mile 
townships) were harvested in the 1960s to reduce the incidence of 
spruce budworm. During early successional stages, these forests may 
provide high quality hare habitat. However, these large tracts create a 
simplified, monotypic forest over large areas, not a mosaic of forest 
stands. Passage of the State Forestry Practices Act has required clear-
cut size to be substantially reduced. The Maine Department of 
Conservation recently analyzed Statewide timber production on Maine's 
17 million acres of forest land (Gadzik et al. 1998). The report 
indicated 25 percent of the forest was in seedling/sapling stages, 
which likely includes quality snowshoe hare habitat. However, the 
report concludes that increasing the number of acres under high-yield 
silvicultural practices, which will likely include precommercial 
thinning, to a cumulative total of 9 percent of Maine's forest land by 
the year 2015 is necessary to sustain the current timber harvest levels 
into the future. Such high-yield techniques may temporarily reduce 
snowshoe hare habitat quality, but the long-term effects on lynx on a 
landscape scale are not known.
    Forested habitat in the Northeast has increased because of land-use 
changes during the past century (Irland 1982; Litvaitis 1993), 
including the abandonment of agriculture in many areas. In some areas 
there may be a gradual upward trend in the coniferous component as 
spruce and fir regenerate beneath hardwood species (D. Degraff, pers. 
comm. 1994). Several of the northeastern States support adequate, if 
not abundant, snowshoe hare populations (C. Grove, Green Mountain 
National Forest, pers. comm. 1994; F. Hurley, in litt. 1994; J. Lanier, 
pers. comm. 1994).
    In 1990, the Forest Service published a report that examined the 
Northern Forest Lands in New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine 
(Harper et al. 1990). Eighty-four percent of northern forest lands in 
the region are currently privately owned and 16 percent are in public 
ownership. According to another analysis, the Forest Service manages 
only 7 percent of lynx forest types in the Northeast, of which 23 
percent is managed in nondevelopmental status (U.S. Forest Service and 
Bureau of Land Management 1999). Federal land management will have 
minimal effect on the persistence of lynx in the Northeast, due to the 
small amount of lynx forest types managed by the Forest Service.
    Commercial forestry continues to be the dominant land use on 60 
percent of the private lands in northeastern forests. The rapid pace of 
subdivision for recreational home sites has been identified as a 
concern in maintaining the integrity of Northeast forests (Harper et 
al. 1990), though this is not currently posing a significant threat to 
lynx. At higher elevations and northern latitudes in the Northeast, red 
spruce and balsam fir are important components of snowshoe hare 
habitat. Declines in red spruce forests have been documented, and 
drought, acid deposition, and other human-generated pollutants have 
been suggested as principal causes (Scott et al. 1984). Historic 
declines in some forest types may have contributed to reducing the 
quality of lynx habitat in the Northeast. Current lynx research in 
Maine is contributing to our knowledge about lynx habitat use in the 
Northeast (J. Organ, pers. comm. 1999).
    In Northeast forests, fire return intervals are very long, due to 
the moist maritime influence (Agee 1999). Thus, fire did not 
historically play a significant role in creating early successional 
habitats. Insect infestations and wind were the primary disturbance 
events that created early successional habitats. While current fire 
suppression on public and private lands may have localized effects, it 
is not likely affecting overall lynx forest types in the Northeast. We 
conclude that fire suppression in the Northeast does not threaten lynx 
subpopulations there.
    We conclude that most lynx forest types are in private, State, or 
county ownership in the Northeast. Timber harvest and associated 
activities exert the most influence on lynx forest types in the 
Northeast, although the extent of influence of current forest practices 
on lynx is not known.

Great Lakes

    In the Great Lakes Region, as in the Northeast, softwood forests 
were logged extensively during the late 1800s and early 1900s (Jackson 
1961; Barbour et al. 1980; Belcher 1980; Irland 1982) and over a short 
period resulted in the replacement of late-successional conifer forest 
with extensive tracts of very early successional habitat, which 
eliminated cover for lynx and hare (Jackson 1961; Keener 1971). 
Coniferous forests also were cleared for agriculture during this period 
in the Great Lakes.
    In the Great Lakes Region, the Forest Service manages about 19 
percent of the area within which lynx forest types occur, of which 40 
percent is managed in nondevelopmental status (U.S. Forest Service and 
Bureau of Land Management 1999). The remaining 80 percent of the area 
encompassing lynx forest types in the Great Lakes is in State, county, 
or Tribal lands, or is privately owned. Public or Tribal ownership 
accounts for 41 percent of all lynx forest types in the region (J. 
Wright, in litt. 1999 in U.S. Forest Service et al. 1999).
    Timber harvest levels on Federal lands in the Great Lakes have 
declined by approximately 20 percent over the past decade (R. Gay, U.S. 
Forest Service, in litt. 1999). While specific information on timber 
harvest levels or pulpwood production on non-Federal lands in the Great 
Lakes was not available, timber harvest is generally prevalent on these 
lands. Past habitat fragmentation likely occurred from forestry 
management programs, agricultural conversions, residential development 
and highways. As in the Northeast, regenerating forests now occupy 
abandoned farmlands in northern portions of the Great Lakes. However, 
mixed conifer/hardwood stands are often replaced by pure deciduous 
seral stands, which have been maintained in deciduous stages in recent 
years because of the importance of aspen as a crop tree (Agee 1999). In 
the East, hare densities were higher in

[[Page 16076]]

coniferous forests than deciduous (Litvaitis et al. 1985; Fuller and 
Heisey 1986). On managed timber lands in all ownerships, the 
maintenance of aspen seral components to produce pulpwood precludes the 
establishment of coniferous forest types, which in turn likely 
diminishes snowshoe hare habitat quality, adversely impacting lynx.
    In the Great Lakes, natural fire regimes are frequent and intense 
(Agee 1999). Fire suppression in the Great Lakes area has changed the 
dominant successional pathways, perhaps permanently (Agee 1999). 
However, in the northeastern portion of Minnesota fires are allowed to 
burn in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. This portion of the Great Lakes 
Region may provide the highest quality lynx habitat, as the largely 
coniferous forests here more closely resemble the northern boreal 
forests of Canada than do the transitional coniferous/deciduous forests 
to the south. On other Federal lands in the Great Lakes, fire 
suppression policies are such that fire is unlikely to assume its 
natural role in creating a mosaic of vegetation communities and age 
classes across the landscape. Escaped fires and other natural processes 
such as insects, disease, and wind throw maintain natural mosaics to 
some degree. Lynx foraging habitat is likely to be maintained at levels 
less than would be provided under natural disturbance regimes. Fire 
suppression is likely reducing the quality of lynx habitat in the Great 
Lakes.
    Most lynx forest types are in private, State, or county ownership 
in the Great Lakes and timber harvest is prevalent on these lands. We 
conclude that timber harvest and fire suppression may be impacting lynx 
and prey habitat in the Great Lakes Region.
    However, we further conclude that timber harvest and fire 
suppression may have regional or local impacts but do not currently 
threaten the contiguous United States population. Considering the 
entire United States distinct population segment, we remain concerned 
about maintenance of lynx habitat conditions, especially in areas 
outside nondevelopmental lands in the West. It is imperative that 
snowshoe hare and alternate prey populations be supported by habitat on 
Federal lands into the future, to ensure the persistence of lynx in the 
contiguous United States. We conclude that the single factor 
threatening the contiguous United States distinct population segment of 
lynx is the lack of guidance for conservation of lynx and snowshoe hare 
habitat in National Forest Land and Resource Plans and BLM Land Use 
Plans (see ``Factor D'' of the ``Summary of Factors'' section). This 
lack of guidance allows the potential for future degradation of lynx 
habitat on Federal lands through timber management and other Federal 
activities (see ``Factor D'' of the ``Summary of Factors'' section).

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

    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 overtrapping that was 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).
    Since the publication of the proposed rule, we have received 
substantive new information related to relative numbers of lynx in the 
northern and southern portions of its range. We now understand that 
lynx in the contiguous United States always existed at low densities, 
comparable to lynx populations of the northern boreal forest during 
cyclic lows (Aubry et al. 1999) (see ``Background'' and ``Distribution 
and Status'' sections). These low densities of lynx do not appear to be 
the result of declining population trends. Rather, lynx are relatively 
rare in the contiguous United States because of habitats that are 
inherently unable to support cyclic, high-density snowshoe hare 
populations and are thus unable to sustain cyclic, high-density lynx 
populations.
    Trapping records are the best, long-term lynx data available. 
Harvest returns are generally indicative of, but do not represent, real 
population changes because of the number of factors that influence 
trapper effort and success, such as changes in socioeconomic 
conditions, season length, quotas and trapping restrictions, and ease 
of access (Hatler 1988; Mowat et al. 1999). Mowat et al. (1999) suggest 
that fur prices likely affect harvest over the short-term but that it 
may not be valid to compare and contrast inflation-adjusted prices and 
harvests that occurred decades apart. Mowat et al. (1999) conclude 
trapping can reduce lynx numbers and that lower lynx harvest levels in 
Canada in the first half of the 20th century were possibly a result of 
overtrapping. However, prior to 1921, harvest data were maintained by 
the Hudson Bay Company. Lower lynx harvest returns in Canada coincide 
with Hudson Bay Company's going out of business and Provinces starting 
to maintain harvest records; we surmise that the lower harvests are, at 
least in part, more likely an artifact of changes in recordkeeping.
    Human-induced mortality was generally believed to be the most 
significant source of lynx mortality (Ward and Krebs 1985). Trapping 
mortality was considered to be entirely additive (i.e., in addition to 
natural mortality) rather than compensatory (taking the place of 
natural mortality) (Brand and Keith 1979). However, Canadian 
researchers determined that natural mortality during the declining 
phase of the lynx cycle is high; therefore, trapping mortality during 
some portions of the cyclic decline may compensate for natural 
mortality (Hatler 1988; Poole 1994; Slough and Mowat 1996; Poole 1997; 
Mowat et al. 1999). Therefore, we recognize that trapping of lynx can 
be both additive and compensatory, depending on when it occurs in the 
cycle.
    From the mid-1970s until the late 1980s, prices of lynx pelts were 
at record highs throughout the United States and Canada (Todd 1985; 
Hatler 1988; Hash 1990). In Montana, the 1974 average pelt price was 
$63; by 1978 the average price increased over 500 percent to $348 (B. 
Giddings, in litt. 1994). Lynx pelt prices peaked in the mid-1980s at 
nearly $500 per pelt and remained above $200 per pelt for 12 years 
until 1989 (B. Giddings, in litt. 1994).
    In response to declining harvests in the late 1970s and 1980s, 
Washington, Montana, Minnesota, Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, 
Ontario, Quebec, and Alaska severely restricted or closed their lynx 
harvest seasons because of concern that lynx populations had been 
overexploited (Bailey et al. 1986; Hatler 1988; Hash 1990; Washington 
Department of Wildlife 1993; S. Conn, in litt. 1990; M. DonCarlos, in 
litt. 1994; B. Giddings, in litt. 1994; R. McFetridge, Alberta 
Environmental Protection, in litt. 1994; I. McKay, in litt. 1994).
    Based on information obtained since the proposed rule, we now 
recognize that the cyclic peak harvest returns of the early 1960s and 
1970s were unprecedented highs for the 20th century (e.g., Figures 8.3 
and 8.6 in McKelvey et al. 1999b; Figure 9.4 in Mowat et al. 1999). 
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 appear to have interpreted the lower returns to be caused by 
overtrapping when pelt prices

[[Page 16077]]

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.
    Trapping data for the contiguous United States during the 1970s and 
1980s is available from Minnesota, Montana, and Washington. Only 
Minnesota has long-term trapping records (Henderson 1978). Minnesota 
lynx harvest data indicate cycles approximately every 10-12 years 
(McKelvey et al. 1999b). Lynx harvest in Minnesota was relatively high, 
but also highly variable, ranging from as low as 0 to as high as 400 
per year over the 40 years of recordkeeping (Henderson 1978). The 
Minnesota harvest is believed to have consisted, at least partially, of 
lynx dispersing from Canada (Henderson 1978; McKelvey 1999b). The 
amplitude of Minnesota lynx harvest cycles was high and, therefore, the 
exceptionally high peaks of the early 1960s and 1970s that are evident 
in all other regions do not appear extraordinary in the Minnesota data. 
After two seasons in the mid-1970s when no lynx were harvested, a quota 
of five lynx was established from 1977 through the 1982 season. This 
quota presumably influenced trapper effort and likely was a factor in 
the reduced harvests in the late 1970s and early 1980s. However, the 
quota was always exceeded by at least three times the quota. Although 
the quota was further reduced to two in 1983, nine lynx were taken, 
providing evidence of the continued occurrence of lynx in Minnesota. 
The Minnesota lynx season has been closed since 1984. Given the history 
of lynx cycles reflected in Minnesota data, a cycle would have been 
expected to return between 1983 and 1985. However, strict season limits 
were in place or the season was closed so that evidence of cycles from 
harvest data is not available after the mid-1980s. During the decade 
preceding the 1984 closure, over 160 lynx were trapped despite 
restrictive quotas beginning in 1977. These levels of harvest do not 
differ substantially from previous cyclic lows considering the effects 
of restrictive quotas on trapper effort.
    Montana has maintained lynx harvest records since 1950 (see Figure 
8.5 in McKelvey et al. 1999b). The most conspicuous features of the 
data are the cyclic peaks in the 1960s and 1970s. There is no clearly 
evident peak in the 1950s. In the mid-1980s, in response to concerns 
that lynx were being overharvested when returns did not compare to 
those of the 1960s and 1970s, Montana set lynx trapping quotas. Over 
successive years, initial annual quotas were set at 135, 120, and 100, 
but were established without the benefit of long-term harvest data to 
gauge the range of cyclic highs and lows. These quotas were not filled. 
However, if returns in the 1950s are a better indication of average 
long-term harvest, it is possible that these quotas were 
unrealistically high. Further, despite the quotas, a small cyclic peak 
is evident in the early 1980s. Since 1991, the quota has been very low, 
two annually, and has been filled or slightly exceeded every season. 
The low quota likely affects trapper effort and masks any recent 
population cycles that could have been reflected in harvest data. 
Beginning with the 1999 season, all lynx trapping is closed in Montana 
unless another State is in need of lynx for a reintroduction, in which 
case five lynx can be taken and translocated to the reintroduction 
site.
    Harvest data for Washington is available only since 1960 (Figure 
8.7 in McKelvey et al. 1999b). Without harvest information prior to 
1960, we cannot know the range of cyclic lows and highs over time in 
Washington. The 1960s and 1970s cyclic highs are evident in the harvest 
data, but the data do not clearly track a 10-year cycle. Following the 
1970s peak, there were five seasons during which no lynx were 
harvested. As a result, low quotas were set and seasons were shortened. 
However, despite the low quotas and restricted seasons, harvest returns 
increased during the final three seasons of the 1980s and the numbers 
of lynx harvested were high relative to past records. The final season 
in 1989 was the fifth highest return ever recorded in Washington. 
Although the data is limited, the annual number of lynx harvested 
increased in the late 1980s, perhaps leading to or indicative of a 
cyclic high. No harvest data are available since a Statewide lynx 
trapping closure went into effect in 1990.
    At the time that Washington, Minnesota, and Montana closed their 
seasons, lynx were still being trapped, which demonstrates that lynx 
persisted in these States. We recognize that the States did not have 
lynx population trend information and so relied on trapping data, 
deciding to take conservative measures when trapping returns decreased.
    Mowat et al. (1999) suspected that high harvest pressure during the 
low phase in the lynx cycle of the mid-1980s or where trapping 
intensity was severe may have had more of an impact on lynx populations 
in the southern part of the range (southern Canada and the contiguous 
U.S.) than on northern lynx populations (Canada and Alaska) (Mowat et 
al. 1999). Mowat et al. (1999) also expected that dispersal by lynx 
from healthy populations will lead and has led to the repopulation of 
areas where overtrapping had depleted the local lynx population. 
Mortality of lynx through legal trapping has been virtually eliminated 
in the contiguous United States, except in locations where Tribal 
regulations permit the taking of lynx. We now believe that ongoing 
precautions taken by States and Provinces to restrict lynx trapping 
since the 1980s possibly prevented the overharvest of resident 
populations of lynx. However, the lack of available data (trapping or 
otherwise) for the past 15 years makes it difficult to discern the 
effect trapping restrictions may have had on resident populations.
    We conclude that in the contiguous United States, lynx populations 
occur at naturally low densities; the rarity of lynx at the southern 
portion of the range compared to more northern populations is normal. 
The rarity of lynx is based largely on limited availability of primary 
prey, snowshoe hares. At southern latitudes, low snowshoe hare 
densities are likely a result of the naturally patchy, transitional 
boreal habitat. Such habitat prevents hare populations from achieving 
high densities similar to those in the extensive northern boreal forest 
(Wolff 1980; Buehler and Keith 1982; Koehler 1990; Koehler and Aubry 
1994; Hodges 1999a, 1999b; McKelvey et al. 1999c). Comparatively low 
numbers of lynx in the contiguous United States occur not as a result 
of overtrapping, but because lynx and their prey are naturally limited 
by fragmented habitat, topography, and climate.
    Legal trapping activities for bobcat, coyote, wolverine and other 
furbearers create a potential for incidental capture of lynx. The 
threat to resident lynx from legal trapping for other species may be 
limited in many areas because bobcat or coyote trapping generally 
occurs outside of areas where lynx would be found, although we know 
that incidental capture occurs (Wydeven 1998; M. DonCarlos in litt. 
1994; R. Naney, U.S. Forest Service, pers. comm. 1999). Although we are 
concerned about the loss 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 the contiguous United States 
DPS to persist. Additionally, we

[[Page 16078]]

believe that lynx have been incidentally trapped throughout the past, 
and still they persist throughout most of their historic range.
    In summary, we conclude that past and present overutilization is 
not a factor threatening lynx.

Factor C. Disease or Predation.

    Disease and predation are not known to be factors threatening 
Canada lynx.

Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    For the reasons discussed below, existing regulatory mechanisms do 
not adequately address the needs of the lynx, or reduce the threats to 
the species or its habitat. Within the contiguous United States range 
of the lynx, all States, except Oregon, provide the lynx regulatory 
protection by specifically prohibiting hunting and trapping for lynx. 
However based on pelt tags records we believe that Oregons trapping 
programs have not resulted in take of any lynx (Carol Carson, pers. 
comm. OMA, 2000). Four States classify the lynx as endangered--Vermont 
(1972), New Hampshire (1980), Michigan (1987), and Colorado (1976). 
Lynx are classified as ``threatened'' in Washington (1993), 
``sensitive'' in Utah (1979), and ``species of special concern'' in 
Maine (1997), and in Wisconsin are ``protected'' (1997).
    Five States classify lynx as small game or furbearers with closed 
seasons--Idaho (1997), New York (1967), Minnesota (1984), Wyoming 
(1973), and Montana (1999). It is legal to harvest lynx in Oregon 
because the lynx is not protected under Oregon State Law. However based 
on pelt tags records we believe that Oregons trapping programs have not 
resulted in take of any lynx (Carol Carson, pers. comm. OMA, 2000). The 
contiguous United States range of the lynx extends across tribal 
reservation lands and ceded territories of numerous Tribes. Lynx 
trapping and hunting are permitted under the regulations of some 
Tribes, although the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the 
Flathead Nation have prohibited the trapping and taking of lynx since 
1986 (M. Pablo, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Tribal Council, 
in litt. 1998). In the Great Lakes Region, lynx harvest is prohibited 
on off-reservation ceded lands by the Voigt Intertribal Task Force of 
the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission and the 1854 
Authority of the Bois Forte and Grand Portage Bands (J. Schlender, 
Voigt Intertribal Task Force of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and 
Wildlife Commission, in litt. 1998; M. Schrage, Fond du Lac Resource 
Management Division, in litt. 1998; M. Myers and A. Edwards, 1854 
Authority, in litt. 1999). We conclude that current hunting and 
trapping regulations are not threatening the continued existence of the 
contiguous United States DPS; however, other regulatory mechanisms, as 
described below, are inadequate.
    Most States across the range of lynx have laws and regulations 
regarding environmental issues. Indirectly, these regulations may 
promote the conservation of lynx habitat on non-Federal lands; however, 
few are specific to lynx habitat conservation. Two programs in the 
Northeast and in Washington may provide some benefit to the species. 
The majority of lynx forest types in the Northeast occur on private 
land, ranging from small residential lots to large industrial timber 
company ownerships (Harper et al. 1990). The Northern Forest Lands 
Council has a charter to maintain traditional patterns of landownership 
and use in the Northeast; part of this effort includes a forest 
inventory (Northern Forest Lands Council, in litt. 1994). The 
maintenance of traditional patterns of landownership may prevent the 
fragmentation and/or development of lynx habitat.
    In response to the Washington State Wildlife Commission listing the 
lynx as threatened, the Washington Forest Practices Board allowed the 
three primary, non-Federal land managers of Washington lynx habitat to 
develop ``special wildlife management plans'' for lynx. Upon approval 
by Washington Division of Fish and Wildlife, these plans were adopted 
in lieu of the development of forest practices rules to protect lynx 
habitat under the State's critical habitat designation. These three 
land managers have adopted and implemented lynx habitat management 
plans in Washington--``Lynx Habitat Management Plan for Department of 
Natural Resources Managed Lands'' (Washington Department of Natural 
Resources 1996a), ``North American Lynx Habitat Management Plan for 
Boise Cascade Corporation'' (Whitwill and Roloff 1996), and a plan 
originally developed by Plum Creek Timber Company and adopted by 
Stimson Lumber Company ``Salmo-Priest and Little Pend Oreille Lynx 
Management Plan'' (Gilbert 1996; Duke Engineering and Services 1998). 
These plans represent efforts to improve habitat conditions for lynx in 
Washington, but only on State managed lands and those lands managed by 
the plan developers.
    A substantial amount of the primary areas of lynx occurrence is on 
National Forest Service lands (Cascades (99 percent), Northern Rockies 
(67 percent), Southern Rockies (76 percent), Great Lakes (19 percent), 
Northeast (7 percent)) (U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land 
Management 1999). National Forest Management Act regulations (36 CFR 
219.19) provide the following direction to the Forest Service--``Fish 
and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of 
existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species.'' 
Additionally, the lynx is classified as a sensitive species by all 
Forest Service regions within the contiguous United States lynx range. 
There is no regulatory mandate specific to sensitive species; however, 
the Forest Service Manual (FSM 2670.32) provides the following policy 
guidance for sensitive species--``avoid or minimize impacts to 
sensitive species; if impacts cannot be managed to maintain viable 
populations, a decision must not result in loss of existing native and 
desired non-native vertebrate species viability or create a significant 
trend toward Federal listing.'' At present, Federal land management 
plans do not adequately address lynx, as described below.
    The LCAS was developed to provide a consistent and effective 
approach to conserving lynx on Federal lands in the contiguous United 
States (U.S. Forest Service et al. 1999). 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 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, fragmentation or 
obstruction to lynx movement; roads or winter recreation trails that 
facilitate access to historical lynx habitat by competitors; and fire 
exclusion, which changes the vegetation mosaic maintained by natural 
disturbance processes. The risks identified in the LCAS are based on 
effects to either individual lynx or population segments, or both. 
Therefore, we do not necessarily consider all of the risks identified 
in the LCAS to be factors threatening the contiguous United States DPS 
of lynx. For example, one risk factor identified for the Southern 
Rockies Region is accidental death to

[[Page 16079]]

individual lynx from being hit by a vehicle while crossing roads. While 
this may result in incidental take of lynx, it is not considered to be 
a significant threat to the contiguous United States DPS.
    The DBA determined that Federal land management plans are likely to 
adversely affect the lynx (U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land 
Management 1999). The DBA identified potential effects resulting from 
57 Forest Service Land and Resource Management Plans (Plans) and 56 BLM 
Land Use Plans (Plans) within the 16-State area where lynx were 
proposed for listing. The direction found in the Plans was compared to 
direction proposed in the LCAS. If it were determined that a Plan may 
adversely affect either an individual lynx or a population segment 
through failure to meet any one of the programmatic conservation 
measures in the LCAS (U.S. Forest Service et al. 1999), then the Plan 
was deemed overall as likely to adversely affect lynx (U.S. Forest 
Service and Bureau of Land Management 1999). In other words, a risk was 
deemed harmful to lynx if the possibility of any adverse effect existed 
due to Plan direction or if the Plans did not address lynx conservation 
issues.
    The Federal agencies chose a conservative approach in determining 
whether Plans might result in adverse effects to lynx. The 
determination was based only on what the Plans directed or allowed, not 
on a quantitative assessment of the effects to lynx from actual actions 
as a result of past or current implementation of the Plans. We 
acknowledge that many activities allowed by Plans, such as timber 
harvest and road construction, are never carried out for a variety of 
reasons, such as funding limitations and environmental, wildlife or 
policy considerations (U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land 
Management 1999).
    The DBA identifies 15 criteria that contribute to some level of 
adverse effects to either an individual lynx or a population segment 
through failure to meet any one of the programmatic conservation 
measures in the LCAS. These criteria included, but are not limited to, 
precommercial thinning, fire management, landscape patterns, winter 
recreation, and monitoring. Individually, these criteria may not impart 
substantial impacts on the DPS, however, current Plans do allow actions 
that cumulatively could result in significant detrimental effects to 
the DPS. We cannot predict the future levels of impacts to lynx that 
would result from continued implementation of current Plans. However, 
the DBA concludes that there is reasonable potential for adverse 
effects to lynx as a result of actions directed or allowed by existing 
Plans. Because the Forest Service and BLM manage a substantial amount 
of lynx forest types in the contiguous United States, particularly in 
the West, it is imperative that lynx habitat and habitat for lynx prey 
be maintained and conserved on Federal lands. Though a large percentage 
of these lands are in nondevelopmental status, a large proportion 
remain subject to management under multiple use mandates. Until Plans 
adequately address risks such as those identified in the LCAS, we 
conclude that the lack of Plan guidance for conservation of lynx, and 
the potential for Plans to allow or direct actions that adversely 
affect lynx (as evidenced by the assessment in the DBA), is a 
significant threat to the contiguous United States DPS of the lynx. On 
February 4, 1977, the lynx was included in Appendix II of the CITES. 
The CITES is an international treaty established to prevent 
international trade that may be detrimental to the survival of plants 
and animals. A CITES export permit must be issued by the exporting 
country before an Appendix II species may be shipped. The CITES permits 
may not be issued if the export will be detrimental to the survival of 
the species or if the specimens were not legally acquired; however, 
CITES does not itself regulate take or domestic trade and therefore 
does not contribute to protection of the lynx in the United States.

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

    Based on mapping of lynx forest types for the contiguous United 
States (McKelvey et al. 1999b), we know that the southern boreal 
forests that support lynx and hares in the contiguous United States are 
naturally fragmented and disjunct compared with the northern boreal 
forests in Canada and Alaska (see ``Background'' section). Connectivity 
of appropriate habitat types and cover provide travel corridors between 
habitat patches, thereby increasing the likelihood of successful lynx 
dispersal. However, we know that lynx can traverse a variety of habitat 
types and obstacles, including rivers, nonforested habitats, and 
various types of roads, based on records of lynx occurrences in 
habitats and locations far from their traditional range and forest 
habitat types, such as Nebraska, Nevada, Iowa, and South Dakota (Aubry 
et al. 1999; McKelvey et al. 1999b; Ruggiero et al. 1999b).
    For most areas of the contiguous United States, we have no evidence 
that human-caused factors have significantly reduced the ability of 
lynx to disperse or have resulted in the loss of genetic interchange. 
No information is currently available to identify whether any genetic 
concerns exist for lynx in the contiguous United States.
    In western regions of lynx range, naturally fragmented patches of 
lynx habitat, typically occurring along mountain ranges, are often 
connected by a variety of intervening habitats, including shrub steppe, 
grassland, low-elevation forested or unforested valleys, and in some 
cases, desert. This natural fragmentation becomes more pronounced in 
the more southern extremes of lynx range. We have little information to 
compare these intervening landscapes to the historical condition, nor 
do we fully understand the environmental or physiological requirements 
of lynx as they attempt to disperse across them. We do know that much 
of the intervening landscapes between patches of lynx forest types in 
the Northern Rockies/Cascades is either used for agriculture or is 
Federal land; human population centers and other large human 
developments are limited across the western range of lynx.
    In the Northeast, development along the St. Lawrence seaway and ice 
breaking for winter navigation may reduce the ability of lynx to move 
between northern Quebec and the area south of the St. Lawrence that 
includes southern Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and the 
northeastern United States (R. Lafond, pers. comm. 1999). Historically, 
lynx populations in the Northeast were periodically supplemented with 
transient or dispersing individuals from northern Quebec (Litvaitis et 
al. 1991). South of the St. Lawrence, movement is still possible 
between southeastern Quebec, western New Brunswick, Maine and New 
Hampshire, because the habitat is contiguous along the Appalachian 
Mountains and there are no natural or human-caused barriers to 
dispersal.
    In the Great Lakes Region, winter navigation on the St. Mary's 
River between Ontario and Michigan's Upper Peninsula may reduce the 
ability of lynx to migrate across the St. Mary's shipping channel from 
Ontario to Michigan (Robinson and Fuller 1980).
    Lynx movements may be negatively influenced by high traffic volume 
on roads that bisect suitable lynx habitat. In southern British 
Columbia, lynx movements and selection of home ranges appear to be 
influenced by highways (Apps 1999). Apps (1999) surmised that highway 
influence on lynx varies according to local habitat conditions, roadway 
width, traffic

[[Page 16080]]

volume, and possibly gender and reproductive status of individual lynx. 
Given the distances and locations where known lynx within the southern 
boreal forest have moved, we know that lynx successfully cross many 
types of roads, including unpaved forest roads, secondary paved roads, 
State and interstate highways (Mech 1980; Smith 1984; Brainerd 1985; 
Aubry et al. 1999; Squires and Laurion 1999). We suspect that highways 
with high volumes of traffic and associated suburban developments 
inhibit lynx home range movement and dispersal, and may contribute to 
loss of habitat connectivity. Such highways occur in the Southern 
Rockies Region connecting cities, towns, and ski areas, and also in the 
Northern Rockies/Cascade Region through the Cascade Range along the 
Columbia River. However, no information currently exists to determine 
the level at which traffic volume or roadway design may influence lynx 
movements or create an impediment to movement.
    Although we assume that high-volume, high-speed traffic presents a 
barrier to dispersal, roads do not appear to be a significant direct 
cause of lynx mortality (Staples 1995; Ruggiero et al. 1999b). Few 
records exist of native lynx being killed by vehicles (Wydeven 1998; M. 
DonCarlos, in litt. 1994). None of the animals tracked by 
radiotelemetry in various studies throughout the contiguous United 
States were killed in vehicle accidents (Aubry et al. 1999). The 
majority of records of lynx mortalities from vehicle accidents are of 
recently translocated animals, who generally move large distances 
before settling (Brocke et al. 1991; Brocke et al. 1993; G. Byrne, 
Colorado Division of Wildlife, pers. comm. 1999). The high incidence of 
translocated lynx killed by cars is likely not typical of resident lynx 
populations in southern boreal forests (Aubry et al. 1999).
    At the time of the proposed rule, we thought that the existence, 
density, and human use of unpaved forest roads also negatively impacted 
resident lynx populations by causing displacement or avoidance by lynx 
and degradation of lynx habitat. Evidence now available indicates that 
lynx tolerate some level of human disturbance (Staples 1995; Aubry et 
al. 1999; Bailey and Staples 1999; Mowat et al. 1999). No evidence 
exists that human presence displaces lynx. Although information 
regarding indirect effects of roads on lynx populations is lacking, 
recent analyses on the Okanogan National Forest in Washington indicate 
that lynx show no preference or avoidance of forest roads, and that 
road density does not appear to affect lynx habitat selection (McKelvey 
et al. 1999c). Lynx have been documented using some types of roads for 
hunting and travel (Parker 1981; Koehler and Brittell 1990; Koehler and 
Aubry 1994). We find no information demonstrating that forest roads 
negatively impact resident lynx populations.
    In the proposed rule, we stated that increasing ease of human 
access into forests increased the vulnerability of lynx to intentional 
or unintentional shooting and trapping (Todd 1985; McKay 1991; 
Washington Department of Wildlife 1993; Koehler and Aubry 1994). We 
know that lynx are taken during legal trapping and hunting for other 
species, such as wolverine and bobcat, even when lynx seasons are 
closed (McKay 1991; Staples 1995; Wydeven 1998; M. DonCarlos in litt. 
1994; R. Naney, pers. comm. 1999 ). We do not know how many lynx may be 
purposefully poached, but are concerned about radio-collared lynx that 
have been killed but not reported (G. Byrne, pers. comm. 1999; M. 
Amaral, pers. comm. 1999). No reliable recordkeeping exists to 
determine how frequently such taking occurs, nor if it has increased 
because of the increasing accessibility of forests. Further, lynx were 
likely captured incidentally in the past during regulated and 
unregulated trapping for other predators, and still they have persisted 
throughout much of their historic range. We are concerned about the 
loss of lynx through legal or illegal trapping and shooting; however, 
we have no information to indicate that the loss of these individuals 
is negatively affecting the overall ability of the contiguous United 
States DPS to persist (see ``Factor B'' of this section).
    In the proposed rule, we considered displacement or elimination of 
lynx when competitors (e.g., bobcat, coyote) expand into lynx range (de 
Vos and Matel 1952; Parker et al. 1983; Quinn and Parker 1987) to be a 
significant threat to the contiguous United States DPS of lynx. At this 
time, there are no data on competition between lynx and other species; 
therefore, we have only information on behavior of possible competitors 
from which to gain some inferences about the possibility of competition 
and its impact on lynx.
    Coyote, bobcat, and mountain lion are hypothesized to be potential 
lynx competitors (Brocke 1982; McCord and Cardoza 1982; Parker et al. 
1983; Quinn and Parker 1987; Aubry et al. 1999; Buskirk et al. 1999a; 
Ruggiero et al. 1999b). In the Northeast and Great Lakes regions of the 
contiguous United States range of the lynx, bobcat and coyote ranges 
generally overlap with lynx. In the Northern Rockies/Cascades and 
Southern Rockies lynx generally overlap with bobcat, coyote and 
mountain lion. Lynx are highly evolved for hunting in deep snow: they 
have a morphological advantage because they are able to walk on snow 
rather than sink into it as do species with higher foot loads, such as 
the coyote, bobcat, or mountain lion (Murray and Boutin 1991; Buskirk 
et al. 1999a). Traditionally, where these species' ranges overlap with 
that of lynx, snow conditions exclude them from the winter habitats 
occupied by lynx (McCord and Cardoza 1982; Parker et al. 1983; Quinn 
and Parker 1987; Buskirk et al. 1999a).
    However, today competition may be facilitated through human 
alteration of forests, creating habitats that may be more suitable to 
potential lynx competitors (McCord and Cardoza 1982; Quinn and Parker 
1987; Buskirk et al. 1999a). The range of the coyote has significantly 
expanded, snowshoe hares are important prey for both coyotes and 
bobcats, mountain lion numbers appear to have increased, mountain lions 
have killed lynx, and snowtrails packed by humans facilitate the 
movement of potential lynx competitors into the deep snow habitats of 
the lynx.
    Researchers believe the coyote's original range prior to European 
settlement was the North American Great Plains but over the past 
century its range has substantially expanded in all directions (Nowak 
1979; 1999; Parker 1995). Nearly the entire North American range of the 
lynx now overlaps with that of the coyote. Coyotes expanded into the 
far western States in the mid to late 1800s, the western Great Lakes 
states in the early 1900s, and the Northeast by the 1950s (Nowak 1979, 
1999; Parker 1995). Coyotes are generalist predators, feeding on 
rabbits and hares, rodents, deer, and plants (Parker 1995). In northern 
latitudes, particularly in winter, where the diversity of food items is 
limited, snowshoe hares are a primary food item for coyotes (Parker 
1995; Staples 1995); the concern regarding competition with lynx stems 
primarily from diet overlap.
    Extirpation of the wolf (Canis lupus) is one factor believed to 
have enabled the coyote to extend its range (Parker 1995). As wolf 
populations expand in the Northern Rockies Region in Montana, Idaho, 
and Wyoming, and the Great Lakes Region in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and 
Michigan, we expect coyote populations may be reduced (Crabtree and 
Sheldon 1999). An indirect result may be a reduction in the potential 
for coyotes to affect lynx in areas of overlap between lynx and wolves.

[[Page 16081]]

    The range of the bobcat overlaps the lynx range within the 
contiguous United States and southern Canada. Like the coyote, the 
bobcat is a generalist predator that feeds on a wide variety of prey, 
including snowshoe hares (McCord and Cardoza 1982; Koehler and 
Hornocker 1991). Although lynx in the southern boreal forests evolved 
with bobcats, competition between these species is suspected because of 
their similar size and appearance (Buskirk et al. 1999a). Bobcats 
remain restricted to areas with low snow depths (Koehler and Hornocker 
1991; Buskirk et al. 1999a). Parker et al. (1983) speculated that 
bobcats displaced lynx from all areas on Cape Breton Island, Nova 
Scotia, except high elevations, where snow accumulation limited the 
bobcat's range. We have no evidence that competition with bobcats has 
negatively affected the contiguous United States DPS.
    Buskirk et al. (1999a) advanced the theory that mountain lions 
compete with lynx, based on a few records of mountain lions killing 
lynx and presumed increasing mountain lion populations. Interactions 
between lynx and lions would most likely occur during snowfree seasons 
because lions generally do not occupy the same winter habitats as lynx 
(H. Quigley, Hornocker Wildlife Institute, pers. comm. 1999). It is 
generally accepted that mountain lion numbers in the West have 
increased, therefore the rate of encounters between lynx and mountain 
lions has probably increased (H. Quigley, pers. comm. 1999). Deer 
(Odocoileus spp.) are the primary prey of mountain lions (Dixon 1982) 
and are an important food item for coyotes (Parker 1995) and bobcats 
(McCord and Cardoza 1982; Koehler and Hornocker 1991). In Idaho, 
mountain lion kills were frequently visited by bobcats and coyotes 
(Koehler and Hornocker 1991). Lions kill coyotes and bobcats, often in 
defense of food caches (Boyd and O'Gara 1985; Koehler and Hornocker 
1991). Lynx occasionally feed on ungulates or scavenge from carcasses 
(Brand et al. 1976); we expect interactions between mountain lions and 
lynx would most likely occur in defense of food caches, as with coyotes 
and bobcats. Despite numerous mountain lion studies within the western 
range of the lynx, incidents of lions killing lynx are extremely rare 
(H. Quigley, pers. comm. 1999). No evidence exists that mountain lions 
exert a population-level impact on lynx.
    Historically, interactions between lynx and potential competitors 
were limited in winter because most competitors cannot effectively move 
through the deep snow habitats of the lynx (Buskirk et al. 1999a). Now, 
ski and snowmobile trails and roads that are maintained for winter 
recreation and forest management create packed snow corridors that give 
other species access to lynx winter habitat (Koehler and Aubry 1994; 
U.S. Forest Service et al. 1999), although significant amounts of 
habitat remain relatively undisturbed by humans in the interior of 
large blocks of lynx forest types on Federal lands in the West, 
especially in designated wilderness and National Parks (U.S. Forest 
Service and Bureau of Land Management 1999). It appears that bobcats 
remain restricted to areas with low snow depths (Koehler and Hornock 
1991; Buskirk et al. 1999a), and that lynx and lion winter habitats 
typically do not overlap (H. Quigley, pers. comm. 1999).
    Coyotes use packed snowtrails and now occupy the winter habitats of 
lynx (Murray and Boutin 1991; Murray et al. 1994; Staples 1995; 
O'Donoghue et al. 1997, 1998a, 1998b) and, therefore, are a concern as 
a potential lynx competitor in winter. Studies of lynx, coyotes, and 
hares from the Yukon Territory and Alaska provide some information with 
which to consider potential for competition between lynx and coyote in 
winter (Murray and Boutin 1991; Murray et al. 1994; Staples 1995; 
O'Donoghue et al. 1997, 1998a, 1998b). Coyotes adapted their behavioral 
patterns for hunting in snow by selecting snow that was shallower and 
harder; whereas lynx successfully hunted in all habitats where hares 
were found (Murray and Boutin 1991; Murray et al. 1994; O'Donoghue et 
al. 1998a). Coyotes and lynx both preferred snowshoe hares over 
alternate prey during all phases of the hare cycle (O'Donoghue et al. 
1998a). During the snowshoe hare decline, lynx switched to hunting red 
squirrels, whereas coyotes switched to hunting voles (O'Donoghue et al. 
1998b). In Alaska, Staples (1995) believes that the 42 percent dietary 
overlap between lynx and coyote observed during a cyclic low in the 
hare cycle indicated the potential for competition; however, we are not 
aware of research or other evidence indicating that coyote competition 
has negatively affected the lynx populations in Canada. In fact, we 
expect that the variability of snow conditions and frequency of fresh 
snows in the winter habitats that support lynx continually reduce or 
alter the availability of snowtrails and shallow snow depths used by 
coyotes in lynx habitat, making it more difficult for coyotes to 
effectively hunt in these areas regularly during the winter. No 
evidence exists indicating that coyote competition has negatively 
affected the contiguous United States lynx DPS (Aubry et al. 1999).
    Little is known about lynx habits in snow-free seasons. A greater 
diversity of prey and habitats available during this time may reduce 
the negative effects of competition. Furthermore, because lynx have co-
evolved with bobcats and mountain lions, and in most areas lynx have 
coexisted with coyotes for many decades, we suspect some level of 
segregation of habitat and prey among these species. In summer in 
Idaho, coyotes, bobcats, and mountain lions used different topographic 
and habitat features, allowing habitat and prey resources to be 
partitioned among these species; coyotes used lower elevations than 
bobcats who used lower elevations than lions (Koehler and Hornocker 
1991). All of the elevations used in this study were within the range 
recorded for lynx occurrences in the West (McKelvey et al. 1999b); 
however, the data for lynx were not recorded by season. We suspect 
these data are more representative of elevations lynx use in winter 
rather than snow-free seasons because much of the lynx data are from 
trapping records, an activity that occurs during winter.
    In summary, we conclude lynx movements may be negatively influenced 
by high traffic volume on roads that bisect suitable lynx habitat, such 
as in the Southern Rockies and in some parts of the Northern Rockies/
Cascades Region. We suspect that highways with high volumes of traffic 
and associated suburban developments inhibit dispersal and movements 
within home ranges, and may contribute to loss of habitat connectivity. 
However, roads do not appear to be a significant direct cause of lynx 
mortality. We find no information demonstrating that forest roads 
negatively impact resident lynx populations. Packed snowtrails 
facilitate the movement of coyotes into formerly inaccessible deep snow 
habitats occupied by lynx; however, we have no evidence that 
competition with coyotes, mountain lions or bobcats is negatively 
affecting lynx at a population-level scale.

Finding

    We conclude that, in the contiguous United States, lynx populations 
occur at naturally low densities and that the rarity of lynx at the 
southern portion of their range compared to more northern populations 
is normal. This rarity is based largely on low densities of snowshoe 
hares, their primary prey. Low snowshoe hare densities are likely a 
result of naturally patchy, transitional

[[Page 16082]]

boreal habitat at southern latitudes that prevents hare populations 
from achieving densities similar to those in the extensive northern 
boreal forest of Canada. Low numbers of lynx reflected in harvest data 
for the contiguous United States are not a result of overtrapping, but 
of naturally limiting fragmentation, topography, and climate. Lynx in 
the contiguous United States are the southernmost extension of a larger 
metapopulation whose core is in central Canada.
    We conclude the single factor threatening the contiguous U.S. DPS 
of lynx is the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, 
specifically the lack of guidance for conservation of lynx in National 
Forest Land and Resource Plans and BLM Land Use Plans as described in 
Factor D. Until Plans adequately address risks such as those identified 
in the LCAS, and described generally in Factors A, B and E, we conclude 
that the lack of Plan guidance for conservation of lynx, as evidenced 
by the fact that Plans allow or direct actions that cumulatively 
adversely affect lynx (as indicated by the assessment in the DBA), is a 
significant threat to the contiguous U.S. DPS of lynx. Therefore, we 
find that listing the lynx within the contiguous United States as 
threatened is necessary.
    We conclude that Federal land management assumes the largest single 
role in the conservation of lynx in the contiguous United States 
because of the preponderance of lynx forest types on Forest Service, 
BLM, and National Park Service lands, particularly in the western 
United States. A substantial amount of lynx forest types occur on 
Forest Service and BLM lands (Northern Rockies-72 percent, Cascades-99 
percent, Southern Rockies-82 percent, Great Lakes-19 percent, 
Northeast-7 percent). We believe that the large amount of lynx forest 
types properly managed in nondevelopmental allocations, especially in 
designated wilderness areas, and amendments to existing land use plans, 
such that management of lynx forest types in developmental areas does 
not conflict with lynx conservation, will be a substantial benefit to 
lynx in the Northern Rockies/Cascades and Southern Rockies and will 
contribute significantly to the likelihood of conserving lynx into the 
future within the contiguous United States.
    It is imperative that snowshoe hare and alternate prey populations 
be supported by appropriate habitat management on Federal lands into 
the future to ensure the conservation of lynx in the contiguous United 
States. Substantive declines in prey species, especially snowshoe hare, 
may result in a prey base insufficient to support lynx persistence.
    Factors affecting lynx status vary among regions of the contiguous 
United States. The Northern Rockies/Cascades Region supports the 
largest amount of lynx habitat and has the strongest evidence of 
resident lynx populations, both historically and currently. This region 
has strong habitat connections to lynx populations in Canada, as well 
as large proportions of lynx habitat in wilderness and other areas with 
limited human influence. The Northern Rockies/Cascades Region has the 
highest potential to maintain a viable lynx population within the 
contiguous United States. Available evidence suggests that lynx 
populations within this region fluctuate, and we have no information 
suggesting a declining population trend. The primary factor affecting 
lynx in this region is the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms, specifically the lack of guidance for conservation of lynx 
in Federal land management plans.
    In the Southern Rockies Region, lynx habitat is naturally limited 
and highly fragmented, which leads us to conclude that lynx were rare 
historically. We conclude native lynx may now be extirpated from this 
region. The factors affecting lynx in this region are the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms, specifically the lack of guidance for 
conservation of lynx in Federal land management plans, and loss of 
habitat connectivity resulting from high-use highways and associated 
suburban development.
    The historic and current status of lynx in the Great Lakes Region 
is uncertain. We lack information to determine whether lynx in this 
region are simply dispersing from Canada, are members of a resident 
population, or are a combination of a resident population and 
dispersing individuals. Much of this region contains marginal habitat 
that may not sustain resident lynx populations. The factors affecting 
lynx in this region include the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms, specifically the lack of guidance for conservation of lynx 
in Federal land management plans, and timber harvest and fire 
suppression on non-Federal lands.
    In the Northeast, lynx reproduction and individual animals have 
recently been documented in Maine. Recent lynx harvests were 
substantial in adjacent southeastern Quebec. Therefore, we conclude 
that a resident population of lynx continues to exist in the core of 
the region; however, the range may have retracted northward. The main 
factor affecting lynx forest types in this region is timber harvest on 
non-Federal lands, although the extent of influence of current forest 
practices on lynx is not known.
    Within the contiguous United States, the relative importance of 
each region to the persistence of the DPS varies. The Northern Rockies/
Cascades Region supports the largest amount of lynx habitat and has the 
strongest evidence of persistent occurrence of resident lynx 
populations, both historically and currently. In the Northeast (where 
resident lynx populations continue to persist) and Southern Rockies 
regions, the amount of lynx habitat is naturally limited and does not 
contribute substantially to the persistence of the contiguous United 
States DPS. Much of the habitat in the Great Lakes Region is naturally 
marginal and may not support prey densities sufficient to sustain lynx 
populations. As such, the Great Lakes Region does not contribute 
substantially to the persistence of the contiguous United States DPS. 
Collectively, the Northeast, Great Lakes, and Southern Rockies do not 
constitute a significant portion of the range of the DPS. We conclude 
the Northern Rockies/Cascades Region is the primary region necessary to 
support the continued long-term existence of the contiguous United 
States DPS. However, the role that each region plays in the long-term 
conservation of the species will be explored further in recovery 
planning for the species.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(a) of the Act as--(i) 
the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, 
at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found 
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation 
of the species and (II) that may require special management 
considerations or protection and; (ii) specific areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon 
a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of 
the species. The term ``conservation'' as defined in section 3(3) of 
the Act means ``to use and the use of all methods and procedures 
necessary to bring any endangered or threatened species to the point at 
which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer 
necessary,'' that is, the species is recovered and can be removed from 
the list of endangered and threatened species.
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the

[[Page 16083]]

maximum extent prudent and determinable, the Secretary designate 
critical habitat at the time the species is determined to be endangered 
or threatened. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)) state that critical 
habitat is not determinable if information sufficient to perform 
required analysis of impacts of the designation is lacking or if the 
biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to 
permit identification of an area as critical habitat. Section 4(b)(2) 
of the Act requires us to consider economic and other relevant impacts 
of designating a particular area as critical habitat on the basis of 
the best scientific data available. The Secretary may exclude any area 
from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such 
exclusion outweigh the conservation benefits, unless to do so would 
result in the extinction of the species.
    In the proposed rule, we indicated that designation of critical 
habitat was not prudent for the Canada lynx because it could increase 
the vulnerability of lynx to poaching, because the species and its 
habitat are continually shifting spatially and temporally across the 
landscape making static designation of specific areas of little benefit 
to the species, and because designation of broad geographic areas would 
necessarily include many areas of unsuitable habitat that would not be 
used by and would not be critical to the species. We also indicated 
that designation of critical habitat was not prudent because we 
believed it would not provide any additional benefit beyond that 
provided through listing as threatened.
    In the last few years, a series of court decisions have overturned 
Service determinations regarding a variety of species that designation 
of critical habitat would not be prudent. Based on the standards 
applied in those judicial opinions, we have reexamined the question of 
whether critical habitat for Canada lynx would be prudent.
    The primary regulatory effect of critical habitat is the section 7 
requirement that Federal agencies refrain from taking any action that 
destroys or adversely modifies critical habitat. While a critical 
habitat designation for habitat currently occupied by this species 
would not be likely to change the section 7 consultation outcome 
because an action that destroys or adversely modifies such critical 
habitat also would be likely to adversely affect the species, there may 
be instances where section 7 consultation would be triggered only if 
critical habitat is designated. Examples could include unoccupied 
habitat or occupied habitat that may become unoccupied in the future. 
There also may be some educational or informational benefits to 
designating critical habitat. Therefore, we find that critical habitat 
is prudent for Canada lynx.
    As explained in detail in our Final Listing Priority Guidance for 
Fiscal Year 2000 (64 FR 57114), our listing budget is currently 
insufficient to allow us to immediately complete all of the listing 
actions required by the Act. Deferral of the critical habitat 
designation for Canada lynx allows us to concentrate our limited 
resources on higher priority critical habitat (including court ordered 
designations) and other listing actions, while allowing us to put in 
place protections needed for the conservation of Canada lynx without 
further delay. However, because we have successfully reduced, although 
not eliminated, the backlog of other listing actions, we anticipate in 
FY 2000 and beyond giving higher priority to critical habitat 
designation, including designations deferred pursuant to the Listing 
Priority Guidance, such as the designation for this species, than we 
have in recent fiscal years.
    We plan to employ a priority system for deciding which outstanding 
critical habitat designations should be addressed first. We will focus 
our efforts on those designations that will provide the most 
conservation benefit, taking into consideration the efficacy of 
critical habitat designation in addressing the threats to the species, 
and the magnitude and immediacy of those threats. We will develop a 
proposal to designate critical habitat for the Canada lynx as soon as 
feasible, considering our workload priorities. Unfortunately, for the 
immediate future, most of Region 6's listing budget must be directed to 
complying with court orders and settlement agreements, as well as due 
and overdue final listing determinations.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and 
conservation actions by Federal, State, and local agencies, private 
organizations, and individuals. The Act provides for possible land 
acquisition and cooperation with the States and requires that recovery 
actions be carried out for all listed species. The protection required 
of Federal agencies and the prohibitions against taking and harm are 
discussed, in part, below.
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as 
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if 
any is being designated. Regulations implementing this interagency 
cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. 
Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on 
any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a 
species proposed for listing or result in destruction or adverse 
modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is listed 
subsequently, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that 
activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy or 
adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a 
listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency 
must enter into formal consultation with us.
    The Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service recently 
signed a Lynx Conservation Agreement (Feb 2000) to promote the 
conservation of lynx and lynx habitat on Federal lands managed by the 
Forest Service. It identifies actions the signatories agree to take to 
reduce or eliminate adverse affects or risks to lynx and lynx habitat. 
Implementation of these actions within this agreement will provide 
immediate benefits to lynx.
    Section 9 of the Act and implementing regulations set forth a 
series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all 
endangered or threatened wildlife. The prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 
17.21 and 17.31, in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the 
jurisdiction of the United States to take (includes harass, harm, 
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt 
any of these), import or export, ship in interstate commerce in the 
course of commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate 
or foreign commerce any listed species. It also is illegal to possess, 
sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has 
been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service 
and State conservation agencies.
    Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered or threatened wildlife under certain 
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 
17.22, 17.23, and 17.32. Such permits are available for scientific 
purposes, to enhance the

[[Page 16084]]

propagation or survival of the species, and/or for incidental take in 
the course of otherwise lawful activities. For threatened species, 
permits also are available for zoological exhibition, educational 
purposes, or special purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act.
    It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 
1994, to identify to the maximum extent practicable at the time a 
species is listed those activities that would or would not constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the Act (59 FR 34272). The intent of this 
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of this listing on 
proposed and ongoing activities within the species' range. For the 
contiguous United States population of wild lynx, we believe the 
following actions would not likely result in a violation of section 9 
of the Act:
    (1) Actions that may result in take of wild lynx in the contiguous 
United States that are authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal 
agency when the action is conducted in accordance with an incidental 
take statement issued by us pursuant to section 7 of the Act;
    (2) Actions that may result in take of wild lynx in the contiguous 
United States when the action is conducted in accordance with a permit 
issued under 50 CFR 17.32 or special rule issued under section 4(d) of 
the Act. These activities include take for educational purposes, 
scientific purposes, the enhancement of propagation or survival, 
zoological exhibition, and other conservation purposes consistent with 
the Act.
    For the contiguous United States population of captive lynx, we 
believe the following actions would not likely result in a violation of 
section 9 of the Act:
    (1) Take, transport, possess, sell, deliver, and receive of captive 
lynx and export of captive lynx or their pelts under valid CITES export 
permits.
    For the contiguous United States population of wild lynx, the 
following actions likely would be considered a violation of section 9 
of the Act:
    (1) Take of wild lynx (including both purposeful and incidental)
    (2) Possessing, selling, delivering, carrying, transporting, or 
shipping illegally taken lynx;
    (3) Export of lynx or lynx parts or products (including pelts) 
without a permit under section 17.32 (a CITES permit would also be 
required in order to be in compliance with CITES);
    (4) Significant lynx habitat modification or degradation to the 
point that it results in death or injury by significantly impairing 
essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or 
sheltering.
    For the contiguous United States population of captive lynx, the 
following would likely constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act:
    (1) export of any lynx part or products other than a properly 
tagged pelt or permitted parts or products;
    For lynx that occur outside of the contiguous United States (Alaska 
and Canada), the Endangered Species Act listing and companion 4(d) have 
no effect. Lynx in those areas, as well as in the contiguous United 
States, remain covered by the designation of Appendix II under CITES. 
Therefore, the import of lynx into the United States and the 
transportation of lynx from Alaska to the contiguous United States may 
continue under current procedures established by State law and CITES.
    Requests for copies of the regulations regarding listed wildlife 
and inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be addressed to United 
States Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal 
Center, Denver, Colorado 80225.

Special Rule

    Section 4(d) also states that the Service may, by regulation, 
extend to threatened species, prohibitions provided for endangered 
species under section 9. Our implementing regulations for threatened 
wildlife (50 CFR 17.31) incorporate the section 9 prohibitions for 
endangered wildlife, except when a special rule is promulgated pursuant 
to section 4(d) applies (50 CFR 17.31(c)).
    This special rule applies the general take prohibitions for 
threatened wildlife to the wild population of Canada lynx in the 
contiguous United States. It also provides for the continuation of the 
take and export of captive lynx and their pelts under Convention on 
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 
(CITES) export permits and provides for the transportation of lynx 
pelts in commerce within the United States. The export of properly 
tagged (with valid CITES export tag) pelts from lynx documented as 
captive is not prohibited under the special rule. Properly tagged pelts 
may be transported in interstate trade without permits otherwise 
required under 50 CFR 17.32.
    CITES is an international treaty for the regulation of 
international trade in certain animal and plant species. The lynx was 
included in CITES Appendix II on February 4, 1977, as a part of the 
listing of all Felidae that were not already included in the 
appendices. A CITES export permit pursuant to 50 CFR part 23 must be 
issued by the exporting country before an Appendix II species may be 
shipped. All Felidae are included in Appendix II to enable better 
protection of look-alike species that were or could be threatened with 
extinction without strict regulation of trade. After the lynx (as well 
as the bobcat and river otter) were included in CITES Appendix II, we 
worked with the States to develop guidelines for State programs that 
would provide the information needed to satisfy CITES export 
requirements. Under the State CITES export programs, all pelts to be 
exported are required to be tagged with a permanently attached, 
serially numbered tag that identifies the species, State of origin, and 
season of taking. The tags are provided to the States and Tribes by the 
Service. In the past the States that have been approved for export of 
captive or wild lynx are Alaska, Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, and 
Washington. In the last few years Idaho, Minnesota and Washington have 
had zero quotas or closed seasons, and Montana has had a quota of two 
to three wild lynx trapped per year. Due to the listing all of the 
States in the contiguous U.S. will no longer be approved for export of 
wild lynx; Lynx in Alaska are not encompassed by this listing; all 
existing CITES requirements remain the same for lynx originating in 
Alaska.
    Currently facilities in Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, 
and Utah raise captive lynx for commercial purposes. At least some of 
the farms report that their initial stock was obtained from Canada. 
From 1992 through 1997, Minnesota and Montana reported that a total of 
169 lynx pelts were tagged for export under the CITES program and these 
primarily originated from farmed animals. These captive-bred specimens 
have neither a positive nor negative effect on the species in the wild.
    Current prices for lynx pelts are low so there is little present 
incentive to trap wild lynx. However, an increase in pelt prices could 
create a strong incentive to trap wild lynx and export their pelts. 
Lynx are easy to trap, and the illegal take of lynx would present an 
enforcement and inspection problem for Service personnel. Since they 
look the same, captive lynx pelts cannot be effectively differentiated 
from wild lynx pelts by Service law enforcement and inspection 
personnel without proper tagging.
    This final rule would allow the export from the United States of 
live captive lynx or their pelts if the pelt is tagged with a CITES 
export tag and accompanied by a valid CITES export permit. The import 
of lawfully obtained live lynx or their parts or products

[[Page 16085]]

would continue to require the necessary CITES export permits from the 
exporting country, but no additional permits under 50 CFR 17.32 would 
be required. CITES permit requirements are found in 50 CFR part 23.
    In summary, CITES permits will be required for the export of 
captive lynx or their parts or products from the United States. No 
permits under 50 CFR 17.32 will be required for the importation of lynx 
or their parts or products into the United States or for interstate 
commerce in pelts that are properly tagged with valid CITES export 
tags. However, interstate commerce of untagged pelts is prohibited.

Similarity of Appearance

    In the proposed rule we proposed listing the wild population of 
lynx in the contiguous United States as threatened, and we proposed 
listing the captive population separately under the similarity of 
appearance provisions of the Act (section 4(e)). We proposed listing 
the captive population under the Similarity of Appearance provisions in 
order to aid law enforcement efforts to protect the wild populations. 
Upon further review we have determined that separate listings of the 
wild and captive populations are not necessary. Instead, we have 
revised the special 4(d) rule accompanying this listing rule to 
establish prohibitions for the wild and captive populations separately.

Paperwork Reduction Act for the Listing Rule

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information other 
than those already approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and assigned Office of Management and Budget 
clearance number 1018-0094. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a 
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, 
unless it displays a currently valid control number. For additional 
information concerning permit and associated requirements for 
threatened wildlife, see 50 CFR 17.32.

Required Determinations for the Listing and Special Rule

    In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a 
significant rule and has been reviewed by the Office of Management and 
Budget, under Executive Order 12866. We completed a Record of 
Compliance for the 4(d) rule, and published a notice of availability 
for the Record of Compliance in the Federal Register on July 26, 1999 
(64 FR 40333). A copy can be obtained by contacting the Montana Field 
Office (see ADDRESSES section).

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that Environmental Assessments and Environmental 
Impact Statements, as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act 
of 1969, need not be prepared in connection with regulations adopted 
pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. A notice outlining our reasons for 
this determination was published in the Federal Register on October 25, 
1983 (48 FR 49244).

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 
section).

Author(s)

    The primary authors of this document are Lori Nordstrom and Anne 
Vandehey, Montana Field Office, Helena, Montana; and Janet Mizzi, 
Mountain-Prairie Regional Office, Denver, Colorado.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 
of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.


    2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by adding the following, in 
alphabetical order under ``MAMMALS,'' to the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife:


Sec. 17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Species                                                  Vertebrate population
----------------------------------------------------------     Historic range      where endangered or     Status      When       Critical     Special
            Common name                Scientific name                                  threatened                    listed      habitat       rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAMMALS
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
Lynx, Canada......................  Lynx canadensis......  U.S.A. (AK, CO, ID,    CO, ID, ME, MI, MN,           T         692           NA    17.40 (k)
                                                            ME, MI, MN, MT, NH,    MT, NH, NY, OR, UT,
                                                            NY, OR, UT, VT, WA,    VT, WA, WI, WY.
                                                            WI, WY) Canada.
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    3. Section 17.40 is amended by adding paragraph (k) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 17.40  Special rules--mammals

* * * * *
    (k) Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis).
    (1) What lynx does this special rule apply to? The regulations in 
this paragraph (k) apply to all wild and captive lynx in the contiguous 
United States.
    (2) What activities are prohibited for wild lynx? All prohibitions 
and provisions of 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32 apply to wild lynx found in 
the contiguous United States.
    (3) What is considered a captive lynx?
    (i) For purposes of this paragraph (k), captive lynx means lynx, 
whether alive or dead, and any part or product, if the specimen was in 
captivity at the time of the listing, born in captivity, or lawfully 
imported or transported into the contiguous United States.
    (ii) Lynx that were either born or held in captivity and then 
released into the wild are considered wild.
    (4) What activities are allowed for captive lynx?
    (i) Take. You may take lawfully obtained captive lynx without a 
permit.
    (ii) Import and export. You may export captive live lynx, parts or 
products of captive lynx provided the

[[Page 16086]]

specimens are tagged with Convention on International Trade in 
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) export tags and/or 
accompanied by a valid CITES export permit. You may import lawfully 
obtained lynx that originated outside the United States when you follow 
the requirements of CITES.
    (iii) Interstate commerce. You may deliver, receive, carry, 
transport, ship, sell, offer to sell, purchase, or offer to purchase in 
interstate commerce captive lynx and captive lynx parts and products in 
accordance with State or tribal laws and regulations. In addition, lynx 
pelts that are properly tagged with valid CITES export tags also 
qualify for this exemption on interstate commerce.
    (5) Are any activities not allowed or restricted for captive lynx? 
You must comply with all applicable State and tribal laws and 
regulations. Violation of State or tribal law will also be a violation 
of the Act.

    Dated: March 16, 2000.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 00-7145 Filed 3-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-p