[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 128 (Thursday, July 3, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40076-40101]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-16664]



[[Page 40075]]

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

Part III





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



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

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 128 / Thursday, July 3, 2003 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 40076]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AF03


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Clarification of findings.

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

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

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

[[Page 40077]]

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

Natural History

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

[[Page 40078]]

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

[[Page 40079]]

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

Range of Lynx in the Contiguous United States

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

[[Page 40080]]

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

Previous Federal Action

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

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

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

[[Page 40081]]

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

[[Page 40082]]

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

[[Page 40083]]

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

[[Page 40084]]

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

Introduction to Remand Analysis

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

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

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

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

Habitat Quantity and Quality

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

[[Page 40085]]

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

[[Page 40086]]

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

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

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

[[Page 40087]]

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

[[Page 40088]]

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

[[Page 40089]]

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

[[Page 40090]]

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

[[Page 40091]]

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

Habitat-Related Threats Analysis

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

[[Page 40092]]

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

[[Page 40093]]

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

[[Page 40094]]

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

Northeast

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

Great Lakes

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

[[Page 40095]]

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

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

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

[[Page 40096]]

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

Factor C. Disease or Predation

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

Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

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

[[Page 40097]]

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

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

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

[[Page 40098]]

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

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

Finding

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

[[Page 40099]]

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

[[Page 40100]]

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

[[Page 40101]]

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

References Cited

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

Author

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

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