[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 9, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68294-68328]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22193]



[[Page 68293]]

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

Part V





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



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

  Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 68294]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AU52


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
designate critical habitat for the contiguous United States distinct 
population segment of the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) (lynx) pursuant 
to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The lynx 
generally inhabits cold, moist boreal forests in the contiguous United 
States. In total, approximately 26,935 square miles (mi\2\) (69,760 
square kilometers (km\2\)) fall within the boundaries of the proposed 
critical habitat designation, in four units in the States of Idaho, 
Maine, Minnesota, Montana, and Washington. However, we are not 
proposing to designate all of the area with the boundaries. In 
particular, we are not including lands within Lynx Analysis Units in 
the Superior National Forest in Minnesota, because they do not meet the 
definition of critical habitat pursuant to section 3(5)(A) of the Act 
as a consequence of the Superior National Forest having amended its 
Forest Plan to adopt the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. 
These lands are not included in the estimated square miles of the 
proposed designation. In addition, we are not proposing to designate 
critical habitat on the Federal lands within seven National Forests in 
Idaho, Montana, and Washington that are covered by the May 2005 
Conservation Agreement and therefore do not meet the definition of 
critical habitat. These lands, however, are included in the estimated 
square miles of the proposed designation owing to difficulties in 
obtaining accurate estimates of the area of Federal land within each 
national forest boundary in a timely manner. This will be corrected in 
the final designation.
    We hereby solicit data and comments from the public on all aspects 
of this proposal, including data on economic and other potential 
impacts of the designation. We are also soliciting public comments on 
inclusion of certain lands in the designation and on the 
appropriateness of excluding lands from this designation that are 
covered by management plans that provide for the conservation of lynx 
and our determination as to whether existing management plans provide 
special management and protection for lynx habitat. In addition, 
depending on public comment and our analysis at the time of the final 
designation, any or all of these Forest Service lands described above 
may be included in the final designation, and we are specifically 
seeking comment on whether these lands are covered by the definition of 
critical habitat and should be included in the final designation.
    In the development of our final designation, we will incorporate or 
address any new information received during the public comment period, 
or from our evaluation of the potential economic impacts of this 
proposal. We may revise this proposal to address new information, to 
exclude areas that may warrant exclusion pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act, or to add in those areas determined to be essential to 
conservation of the species, but not included in this proposal.

DATES: We will accept comments from all interested parties until 
February 7, 2006. We will hold public hearings and informational 
sessions on the following dates: December 7, 2005, (Minnesota); 
December 14, 2005, (Maine); January 10, 2006, (Montana); and January 
18, 2006, (Washington) (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, below, 
for locations and times).

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and 
materials concerning this proposal by any one of several methods:
    1. You may submit written comments and information by mail or hand-
delivery to Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana 
Ecological Services Office, 100 N. Park Avenue, Suite 320, Helena, 
Montana 59601.
    2. You may submit oral and/or written comments and information at 
the public hearings (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, below, for 
locations and times).
    3. You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to [email protected]. Please see the Public Comments Solicited section below 
for file format and other information about electronic filing.
    4. You may fax your comments to Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Montana Ecological Services Office at 406-449-5339.
    Comments and materials received, as well as supporting 
documentation used in the preparation of this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business 
hours at the Montana Ecological Services Office at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lori Nordstrom, Montana Ecological 
Services Office (address above), telephone 406-449-5225; facsimile 406-
449-5339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public hearings and informational sessions 
on this proposal will be held in the following locations:

Maine

    Wednesday, December 14, 2005, from 8 to 9 p.m. at the Black Bear 
Inn and Conference Center, 4 Godfrey Drive, Orono, Maine. The hearing 
will be preceded by an informational session from 7 to 8 p.m.

Minnesota

    Wednesday, December 7, 2005, from 7:30 to 9 p.m. at The Inn on Lake 
Superior, 350 Canal Park Drive, Duluth, Minnesota. The hearing will be 
preceded by an informational session from 6 to 7:30 p.m.

Montana

    Tuesday, January 10, 2006, from 6 to 8 p.m. at Westcoast Kalispell 
Center, 20 North Main Street, Kalispell, Montana. The hearing will be 
preceded by an informational session from 4:30 to 6 p.m.

Washington

    Wednesday, January 18, 2006, from 7 to 8:30 p.m. at Methow Valley 
Community Center, 201 South Methow Valley, Hwy 20, Twisp, Washington. 
The hearing will be preceded by an informational session from 5 to 6:30 
p.m.

Public Comments Solicited

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, comments or 
suggestions from the public, concerned governmental agencies, the 
scientific community, industry, or any other interested party 
concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. Maps of the 
proposed critical habitat are available for viewing by appointment 
during regular business hours at (1) The Montana Ecological Services 
Office (see ADDRESSES); (2) the Service offices identified in the 
Section 7 Consultation section below (Maine Field Office (Old Town, 
ME), Twin Cities Field Office (Bloomington, MN), and the Upper Columbia 
River Basin Office (Spokane, WA)); or (3) the Internet at http://

[[Page 68295]]

mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/ mammals/lynx/.
    On the basis of public comment, during the development of the final 
rule we may find, among other things, that areas proposed are not 
essential to the conservation of the species or do not require special 
management considerations or protection, are appropriate for exclusion 
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion, 
and in all of these cases, this information will be incorporated into 
the final designation. Final management plans and data supporting their 
effectiveness that address the conservation of the lynx must be 
submitted to us during the public comment period so that we can take 
them into consideration when making our final critical habitat 
determination.

Comments Are Invited Specifically Concerning

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

Designation of Critical Habitat Provides Little Additional Protection 
to Species

    In 30 years of implementing the Act, the Service has found that the 
designation of statutory critical habitat provides little additional 
protection to most listed species, while consuming significant amounts 
of available conservation resources. The Service's present system for 
designating critical

[[Page 68296]]

habitat has evolved since its original statutory prescription into a 
process that provides little real conservation benefit, is driven by 
litigation and the courts rather than biology, limits our ability to 
fully evaluate the science involved, consumes enormous agency 
resources, and imposes huge social and economic costs). The Service 
believes that additional agency discretion would allow our focus to 
return to those actions that provide the greatest benefit to the 
species most in need of protection.

Role of Critical Habitat in Actual Practice of Administering and 
Implementing the Endangered Species Act

    While attention to and protection of habitat is paramount to 
successful conservation actions, we have consistently found that, in 
most circumstances, the designation of critical habitat is of little 
additional value for most listed species, yet it consumes large amounts 
of conservation resources. Sidle (1987) stated, ``Because the Act can 
protect species with and without critical habitat designation, critical 
habitat designation may be redundant to the other consultation 
requirements of section 7.'' Currently, only 466 species or 35 percent 
of the 1,268 listed species in the United States under the jurisdiction 
of the Service have designated critical habitat.
    We address the habitat needs of all 1,268 listed species through 
conservation mechanisms such as listing, section 7 consultations, the 
section 4 recovery planning process, the section 9 protective 
prohibitions of unauthorized take, section 6 funding to the States, and 
the section 10 incidental take permit process. The Service believes 
that it is these measures that may make the difference between 
extinction and survival for many species.
    We note, however, that the August 6, 2004, Ninth Circuit judicial 
opinion, (Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. United States Fish and Wildlife 
Service) found our definition of adverse modification invalid. In 
response to the decision, the Director has provided guidance to the 
Service based on the statutory language. In this rule, our analysis of 
the consequences and relative costs and benefits of the critical 
habitat designation is based on application of the statute consistent 
with the 9th Circuit's ruling and the Director's guidance.

Procedural and Resource Difficulties in Designating Critical Habitat

    We have been inundated with lawsuits for our failure to designate 
critical habitat, and we face a growing number of lawsuits challenging 
critical habitat determinations once they are made. These lawsuits have 
subjected the Service to an ever-increasing series of court orders and 
court-approved settlement agreements, compliance with which now 
consumes nearly the entire listing program budget. This leaves the 
Service with little ability to prioritize its activities to direct 
scarce listing resources to the listing program actions with the most 
biologically urgent species conservation needs.
    The consequence of the critical habitat litigation activity is that 
limited listing funds are used to defend active lawsuits, to respond to 
Notices of Intent to sue relative to critical habitat, and to comply 
with the growing number of adverse court orders. As a result, listing 
petition responses, the Service's own proposals to list critically 
imperiled species, and final listing determinations on existing 
proposals are all significantly delayed.
    The accelerated schedules of court ordered designations have left 
the Service with almost no ability to provide for adequate public 
participation or to ensure a defect-free rulemaking process before 
making decisions on listing and critical habitat proposals due to the 
risks associated with noncompliance with judicially-imposed deadlines. 
This in turn fosters a second round of litigation in which those who 
fear adverse impacts from critical habitat designations challenge those 
designations. The cycle of litigation appears endless, is very 
expensive, and in the final analysis provides relatively little 
additional protection to listed species.
    The costs resulting from the designation include legal costs, the 
cost of preparation and publication of the designation, the analysis of 
the economic effects and the cost of requesting and responding to 
public comment, and in some cases the costs of compliance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). None of these costs result in 
any benefit to the species that is not already afforded by the 
protections of the Act enumerated earlier, and they directly reduce the 
funds available for direct and tangible conservation actions.

Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to 
the designation of critical habitat in this proposed rule. For more 
information on the lynx, refer to the final listing rule published in 
the Federal Register on March 24, 2000 (65 FR 16052), and the 
clarification of findings published in the Federal Register on July 3, 
2003 (68 FR 40076).
    Canada lynx are medium-sized cats, generally measuring 75 to 90 
centimeters (cm) (30 to 35 inches (in)) long and weighing 8 to10.5 
kilograms (18 to 23 pounds) (Quinn and Parker 1987). They have large, 
well-furred feet and long legs for traversing snow; tufts on the ears; 
and short, black-tipped tails.
    Lynx are highly specialized predators of snowshoe hare (Lepus 
americanus) (McCord and Cardoza 1982; Quinn and Parker 1987; Aubry et 
al. 2000). Lynx and snowshoe hares are strongly associated with what is 
broadly described as boreal forest (Bittner and Rongstad 1982; McCord 
and Cardoza 1982; Quinn and Parker 1987; Agee 2000; Aubry et al. 2000; 
Hodges 2000a, b; McKelvey et al. 2000b). The predominant vegetation of 
boreal forest is conifer trees, primarily species of spruce (Picea 
spp.) and fir (Abies spp.) (Elliot-Fisk 1988). In the contiguous United 
States, the boreal forest types transition to deciduous temperate 
forest in the Northeast and Great Lakes, and to subalpine forest in the 
West (Agee 2000). Lynx habitat can generally be described as moist 
boreal forests that have cold, snowy winters and a snowshoe hare prey 
base (Quinn and Parker 1987; Agee 2000; Aubry et al. 2000; Buskirk et 
al. 2000b; Ruggiero et al. 2000).
    Snow conditions also determine the distribution of lynx (Ruggiero 
et al. 2000). Lynx are morphologically and physiologically adapted for 
hunting snowshoe hares and surviving in areas that have cold winters 
with deep, fluffy snow for extended periods. These adaptations provide 
lynx a competitive advantage over potential competitors, such as 
bobcats (Lynx rufus) or coyotes (Canis latrans) (McCord and Cardoza 
1982; Buskirk et al 2000a; Ruediger et al. 2000; Ruggiero et al. 2000). 
Bobcats and coyotes have a higher foot load (more weight per surface 
area of foot), which causes them to sink into the snow more than lynx. 
Therefore, bobcats and coyotes cannot efficiently hunt in fluffy or 
deep snow and are at a competitive disadvantage to lynx. Long-term snow 
conditions presumably limit the winter distribution of potential lynx 
competitors such as bobcats (McCord and Cardoza 1982) or coyotes.
    Because of the patchiness and temporal nature of high-quality 
snowshoe hare habitat, lynx populations

[[Page 68297]]

require large boreal forest landscapes to ensure that sufficient high-
quality snowshoe hare habitat is available at any point in time and to 
ensure that lynx may move freely among patches of suitable habitat and 
among subpopulations of lynx. Populations that are composed of a number 
of discrete subpopulations, connected by dispersal, are called 
metapopulations (McKelvey et al. 2000c). Individual lynx maintain large 
home ranges (reported as generally ranging between 31-216 
km2 [12-83 mi2]) (Koehler 1990; Aubry et al. 
2000; Squires and Laurion 2000; Squires et al. 2004b; Vashon et al. 
2005a). The size of lynx home ranges varies depending on the abundance 
of prey, the animal's gender and age, season, and the density of the 
lynx population (Koehler 1990; Poole 1994; Slough and Mowat 1996; Aubry 
et al. 2000; Mowat et al. 2000; Vashon et al. 2005a). When densities of 
snowshoe hares decline, for example, lynx enlarge their home ranges to 
obtain sufficient amounts of food to survive and reproduce.
    In the contiguous United States, the boreal forest landscape is 
naturally patchy and transitional because it is the southern edge of 
the boreal forest range. This generally limits snowshoe hare 
populations in the contiguous United States from achieving densities 
similar to those of the expansive northern boreal forest in Canada 
(Wolff 1980; Buehler and Keith 1982; Koehler 1990; Koehler and Aubry 
1994). Additionally, the presence of more snowshoe hare predators and 
competitors at southern latitudes may inhibit the potential for high-
density hare populations (Wolff 1980). As a result, lynx generally 
occur at relatively low densities in the contiguous United States as 
compared to the high lynx densities in the northern boreal forest of 
Canada (Aubry et al. 2000) or the densities of a species such as the 
bobcat, which is a habitat and prey generalist.
    Lynx are highly mobile; long-distance movements (greater than 100 
km (60 mi)) are characteristic (Aubry et al. 2000; Mowat et al. 2000). 
Lynx disperse primarily when snowshoe hare populations decline (Ward 
and Krebs 1985; O'Donoghue et al. 1997; Poole 1997). Subadult lynx also 
disperse even when prey is abundant (Poole 1997), presumably to 
establish new home ranges. Lynx also make exploratory movements outside 
their home ranges (Aubry et al. 2000; Squires et al. 2001).
    The boreal forest landscape is naturally dynamic. Forest stands 
within the landscape change as they undergo succession after natural or 
human-caused disturbances such as fire, insect epidemics, wind, ice, 
disease, and forest management (Elliot-Fisk 1988, Agee 2000). As a 
result, lynx habitat within the boreal forest landscape is typically 
patchy because the boreal forest contains stands of differing ages and 
conditions, only some of which are suitable as lynx foraging or denning 
habitat at any point in time (McKelvey et al. 2000a; Hoving et al. 
2004).
    Snowshoe hares comprise a majority of the lynx diet (Nellis et al. 
1972; Brand et al. 1976; Koehler 1990; Apps 2000; Aubry et al. 2000; 
Mowat et al. 2000; von Kienast 2003; Squires et al. 2004b). When 
snowshoe hare populations are low, female lynx produce few or no 
kittens that survive to independence (Nellis et al. 1972; Brand et al. 
1976; Brand and Keith 1979; Poole 1994; Slough and Mowat 1996; 
O'Donoghue et al. 1997, Aubry et al. 2000; Mowat et al. 2000). Lynx 
prey opportunistically on other small mammals and birds, particularly 
during lows in the snowshoe hare population, but alternate prey species 
may not sufficiently compensate for low availability of snowshoe hares, 
resulting in reduced lynx populations (Brand et al. 1976; Brand and 
Keith 1979; Koehler 1990; Mowat et al. 2000).
    In northern Canada, lynx populations fluctuate in response to the 
cycling of snowshoe hare populations (Hodges 2000a; Mowat et al. 2000). 
Although snowshoe hare populations in the northern portion of their 
range show strong, regular population cycles, these fluctuations are 
generally much less pronounced in the southern portion of the range in 
the contiguous United States (Hodges 2000b). In the contiguous United 
States, the degree to which regional local lynx population fluctuations 
are influenced by local snowshoe hare population dynamics is unclear. 
However, it is anticipated that because of natural fluctuations in 
snowshoe hare populations, there will be periods when lynx densities 
are extremely low.
    Because lynx population dynamics, survival and recruitment are 
closely tied to snowshoe hare availability, snowshoe hare habitat is a 
component of lynx habitat. Lynx generally concentrate their foraging 
and hunting activities in areas where snowshoe hare populations are 
high (Koehler et al. 1979; Ward and Krebs 1985; Murray et al. 1994; 
O'Donoghue et al. 1997, 1998). Snowshoe hares are most abundant in 
forests with dense understories that provide forage, cover to escape 
from predators, and protection during extreme weather (Wolfe et al. 
1982; Litvaitis et al. 1985; Hodges 2000a, b). Generally, hare 
densities are higher in regenerating, earlier successional forest 
stages because they have greater understory structure than mature 
forests (Buehler and Keith 1982; Wolfe et al. 1982; Koehler 1990; 
Hodges 2000b; Homyack 2003; Griffin 2004). However, snowshoe hares can 
be abundant in mature forests with dense understories (Griffin 2004).
    Within the boreal forest, lynx den sites are located where coarse 
woody debris, such as downed logs and windfalls, provides security and 
thermal cover for lynx kittens (McCord and Cardoza 1982; Koehler 1990; 
Slough 1999; Squires and Laurion 2000; J. Organ, Service, in litt. 
2001). The amount of structure (e.g., downed, large woody debris) 
appears to be more important than the age of the forest stand for lynx 
denning habitat (Mowat et al. 2000).

Previous Federal Actions

    For more information on previous Federal actions concerning the 
lynx, refer to the final listing rule published in the Federal Register 
on March 24, 2000 (65 FR 16052), and the clarification of findings 
published in the Federal Register on July 3, 2003 (68 FR 40076). As a 
result of litigation from Defenders of Wildlife, et al., the U.S. 
District Court for the District of Columbia instructed us to propose 
critical habitat by November 1, 2005, and to issue a final rule for 
critical habitat by November 1, 2006. This proposal has been completed 
in compliance with the Court order.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) the 
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at 
the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found 
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation 
of the species and (II) that may require special management 
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon 
a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of 
the species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and 
procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or a threatened 
species to the point at which listing under the Act is no longer 
necessary.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or 
authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 of the Act requires 
consultation on Federal actions that are

[[Page 68298]]

likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land 
ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow government or 
public access to private lands.
    To be included in a critical habitat designation, the habitat 
within the area occupied by the species at the time of listing must 
first have features that are ``essential to the conservation of the 
species.'' Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known 
using the best scientific data available, habitat areas that provide 
essential life cycle needs of the species (i.e., areas on which are 
found the primary constituent element, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)).
    Habitat occupied at the time of listing may be included in critical 
habitat only if the essential features thereon may require special 
management or protection. Thus, we do not include areas where existing 
management is sufficient to conserve the species. (As discussed below, 
such areas may also be excluded from critical habitat pursuant to 
section 4(b)(2).) Accordingly, when the best available scientific data 
do not demonstrate that the conservation needs of the species so 
require, we will not designate critical habitat in areas outside the 
geographic area occupied by the species at the time of listing.
    The Service's Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered 
Species Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34271), and Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658) 
and the associated Information Quality Guidelines issued by the 
Service, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance 
to ensure that decisions made by the Service represent the best 
scientific and commercial data available. They require Service 
biologists to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of 
the best scientific and commercial data available, to use primary and 
original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to 
designate critical habitat. When determining which areas are critical 
habitat, a primary source of information is generally the listing 
package for the species. Additional information sources include the 
recovery plan for the species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, 
conservation plans developed by States and counties, scientific status 
surveys and studies, biological assessments, or other unpublished 
materials and expert opinion or personal knowledge. All information is 
used in accordance with the provisions of Section 515 of the Treasury 
and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 
106-554; H.R. 5658) and the associated Information Quality Guidelines 
issued by the Service.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific data available. Habitat is often 
dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. 
Furthermore, we recognize that designation of critical habitat may not 
include all of the habitat areas that may eventually be determined to 
be necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, 
critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the 
designation is unimportant or may not be required for recovery.
    Areas that support populations, but are outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation 
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to the 
regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy 
standard, as determined on the basis of the best available information 
at the time of the action. Federally funded or permitted projects 
affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat 
areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, 
critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best scientific 
information available at the time of designation will not control the 
direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation 
plans, or other species conservation planning efforts if new 
information available to these planning efforts calls for a different 
outcome.

Methods

    As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific data available in determining critical habitat. We have 
reviewed the approach to the conservation of the lynx provided in a 
recovery outline (Service 2005); information from State, Federal and 
Tribal agencies; and information from academia and private 
organizations that have collected scientific data on lynx.
    The Service recently completed a recovery outline for the lynx 
(Service 2005). Recovery outlines are brief, internally-developed 
documents intended as preliminary strategies for conservation of listed 
species until a formal recovery plan is completed (F. Dunkle, USFWS, in 
litt. 1989). Development of a formal recovery plan for lynx has not yet 
begun. The lynx recovery outline was prepared by Service staff 
experienced in lynx conservation and/or recovery planning under the Act 
and two lynx experts from the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). The lynx 
recovery outline presents current understandings of historical and 
current lynx distribution, ecology, and population dynamics. The 
outline introduces concepts regarding the relative importance of 
different geographic areas to the persistence of lynx in the contiguous 
United States, identifying areas as either core, provisional core, 
secondary or peripheral based on lynx records over time and evidence of 
reproduction. Additionally, the outline describes preliminary recovery 
objectives and actions.
    We also reviewed available information that pertains to the habitat 
requirements of this species and its principal prey, the snowshoe hare. 
This included data in reports submitted by researchers holding recovery 
permits under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act; research published in 
peer-reviewed articles, presented in academic theses, agency reports 
and unpublished data; and various Geographic Information System (GIS) 
coverages (e.g., land cover type information, land ownership 
information, snow depth information, topographic information, locations 
of lynx obtained from radio- or GPS-collars and locations of lynx 
confirmed via DNA analysis or other verified records).
    In evaluating areas to propose as critical habitat we first 
determined the geographic area occupied by the species. We utilized 
data providing verified evidence of the occurrence of lynx and evidence 
of the presence of breeding lynx populations as represented by records 
of lynx reproduction. We utilized records since 1995 to ensure that 
this proposed critical habitat designation is based on the data that 
most closely represents the current status of lynx in the contiguous 
United States and the geographic area occupied by the species. Data 
that define the historic and current range of the lynx (e.g., McKelvey 
et al. 2000b; Hoving et al. 2003) constitute the geographic area that 
may be occupied by the species; therefore, we determined that areas 
outside the historic distribution are not essential to the conservation 
of the species. Although the average life span of a wild lynx is not 
known, we have assumed that a lynx born in 1995 could have been alive 
in 2000 or 2003, the dates of publication of the final listing rule and 
the clarification of findings. Furthermore, lynx-related research in 
the contiguous United States substantially increased after the 1998 
proposal to list, providing additional

[[Page 68299]]

information on which to base this proposed critical habitat 
designation. These recent verified records were provided by Federal 
research entities, state wildlife agencies, academic researchers, and 
private individuals or organizations working on lynx (K. Aubry, Pacific 
Northwest Research Station, unpubl. data; S. Gehman, Wildthings 
Unlimited, unpubl. data; S. Gniadek, Glacier National Park, unpubl. 
data; S. Loch, Independent Scientist, and E. Lindquist, Superior 
National Forest, unpubl. data; K. McKelvey, Rocky Mountain Research 
Station; unpubl. data; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2005; 
R. Moen, University of Minnesota, Natural Resources Research Institute, 
unpubl. data.; J. Squires, Rocky Mountain Research Station, unpubl. 
data; J. Vashon, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, 
unpubl. data).
    By accepting only verified recent lynx records, we restricted the 
available lynx occurrence dataset because we wanted reliable data for 
the purposes of evaluating areas and features for critical habitat 
designation. The reliability of lynx occurrence reports can be 
questionable because the bobcat, a common species, can be confused with 
the lynx, which is similar in appearance. Additionally, many surveys 
are conducted by snow tracking in which correct identification of 
tracks can be difficult because of variable conditions affecting the 
quality of the track and variable expertise of the tracker. Our 
definition of a verified lynx record is modified from McKelvey et al. 
(2000b)--(1) An animal (live or dead) in hand or observed closely by a 
person knowledgeable in lynx identification, (2) genetic (DNA) 
confirmation, (3) snow tracks only when confirmed by genetic analysis 
(see for example Murphy et al. 2004; McKelvey et al. in press) or (4) 
location data from radio- or GPS-collared lynx. Documentation of lynx 
reproduction consists of lynx kittens in hand, or observed with the 
mother by someone knowledgeable in lynx identification, or snow tracks 
demonstrating family groups traveling together, as identified by a 
person highly knowledgeable in identification of carnivore tracks.
    The geographical area occupied by the species was then delineated 
to encompass areas containing features essential to the conservation of 
the lynx, the majority of recent lynx records, evidence of breeding 
lynx populations, the boreal forest type that is currently occupied by 
lynx in that particular region and direct connectivity with lynx 
populations in Canada. Lynx populations in the contiguous United States 
seem to be influenced by lynx population dynamics in Canada (Thiel 
1987; McKelvey et al. 2000a, c). Many of these populations in Canada 
are directly interconnected with United States populations, and are 
likely a source of emigration into contiguous United States lynx 
populations. Therefore, we assume that retaining connectivity with 
larger lynx populations in Canada is important to ensuring long-term 
persistence of lynx populations in the United States. We assume that, 
regionally, lynx within the contiguous United States and adjacent 
Canadian provinces interact as metapopulations. Where available, data 
on historic average snow depths and bobcat harvest provided additional 
insight for refining and delineating appropriate boundaries. In Maine 
and Minnesota, we used the international border with Canada and roads 
or township lines where possible for ease in description and clarity. 
In the North Cascades and Northern Rockies, the features essential to 
the conservation of lynx, the majority of lynx records, evidence of 
reproduction, and the boreal forest types are found above 4,000 feet 
(ft) (1,219 meters [m]) in elevation (McKelvey et al. 2000b; K. 
McAllister et al. USFS, in litt. 2000). Thus we limited the delineation 
of proposed critical habitat to lands above this elevation. 
Additionally, in the North Cascades, features essential to the 
conservation of the lynx and the majority of the lynx records and 
evidence of reproduction are from east of the crest of the Cascade 
Mountains. Therefore, in the Cascades we used the international border 
with Canada, the Cascade crest and the 4,000-ft (1,219 m) elevation 
contour east of the crest as the boundary. In the Northern Rockies, the 
4,000-ft (1,219 m) contour was used as the primary boundary west of the 
Continental Divide. However, the climatic effects of the Continental 
Divide cause the 4,000-ft (1,219 m) elevation contour to be too broad 
east of the Continental Divide, such that it includes substantial areas 
of grassland habitats that do not contain features essential to the 
conservation of the lynx or important for snowshoe hares. Therefore, 
east of the Continental Divide in the Northern Rockies, we used USFS 
and National Park Service (NPS) boundaries to circumscribe critical 
habitat boundaries to more closely encompass essential features, recent 
records of lynx, including records of reproduction, and boreal forest 
currently occupied by lynx. The northern boundary for the Northern 
Rockies unit is the International border with Canada.

Primary Constituent Elements

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to propose as critical 
habitat, we are required to base critical habitat determinations on the 
best scientific data available and to consider those physical and 
biological features (primary constituent element) that are essential to 
the conservation of the species, and that may require special 
management considerations or protection. The regulations indicate these 
may include, but are not limited to: Space for individual and 
population growth and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, 
minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or 
shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or development) 
of offspring; and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historic geographical and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    The area proposed for designation as critical habitat provides 
boreal forest habitat for breeding, non-breeding, and dispersing lynx 
in metapopulations across the species' range in the contiguous United 
States. No areas are being proposed solely because they provide habitat 
for dispersing animals. At this time, the biological or physical 
features of habitats lynx choose for dispersal is not well-understood; 
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 (e.g., Roe et al. 2000). The areas being proposed 
as critical habitat serve a variety of functions that include acting as 
a source of dispersing animals and providing habitat that may serve as 
travel corridors to facilitate dispersal and exploratory movements. The 
features or habitat components essential for the conservation of the 
species were determined from studies of lynx and snowshoe hare ecology.
    The specific biological and physical features, otherwise known as 
the primary constituent elements, essential to the conservation of the 
lynx are:
    (1) Boreal forest landscapes supporting a mosaic of differing 
successional forest stages and containing:
    (a) Presence of snowshoe hares and their preferred habitat 
conditions, which include dense understories of young trees or shrubs 
tall enough to protrude above the snow; and
    (b) Winter snow conditions that are generally deep and fluffy for 
extended periods of time; and

[[Page 68300]]

    (c) Sites for denning that have abundant coarse woody debris, such 
as downed trees and root wads.
    A description of the primary constituent elements are described 
below.

Boreal Forest Landscapes (Space for Individual and Population Growth 
and Normal Behavior)

    Lynx populations respond to biotic and abiotic factors at different 
scales. At the regional scale, snow conditions, boreal forest, and 
competitors (especially bobcat) influence the species' range (Aubry et 
al. 2000; McKelvey et al. 2000b; Hoving et al. 2005). At the landscape 
scale within each region, natural and human-caused disturbance 
processes (e.g., fire, wind, insect infestations and forest management) 
influence the spatial and temporal distribution of lynx populations by 
affecting the distribution of good habitat for snowshoe hares (Agee 
2000; Ruediger et al. 2000). At the stand-level scale, quality, 
quantity, and juxtaposition of habitats influence home range size, 
productivity, and survival (Aubry et al. 2000; Vashon et al. 2005a). At 
the substand scale, spatial distribution and abundance of prey and 
microclimate influence movements, hunting behavior, den, and resting 
site locations.
    All of the primary constituent elements of critical habitat for 
lynx are found in what is broadly described as the boreal forest 
landscape. In the contiguous United States, the boreal forest is more 
transitional rather than true boreal forest of northern Canada and 
Alaska (Agee 2000). This difference is because the boreal forest is at 
its southern limits in the contiguous United States, where it 
transitions to deciduous temperate forest in the northeast and Great 
Lakes and subalpine forest in the west (Agee 2000). We use the term 
``boreal forest'' because it generally encompasses most of the 
vegetative descriptions of the transitional forest types that comprise 
lynx habitat in the contiguous United States (Agee 2000).
    At a regional scale, lynx habitat is within the areas that 
generally support deep snow throughout the winter and that support 
boreal forest vegetation types (see below for more detail). In eastern 
North America, lynx distribution was strongly associated with areas of 
deep snowfall (greater than 268 cm (105 in) of mean annual snowfall) 
and 100 km2 (40 mi2) landscapes with a high 
proportion of regenerating forest (Hoving 2001). Hoving et al. (2004) 
concluded that the broad geographic distribution of lynx in eastern 
North America is most influenced by snowfall, but within areas of 
similarly deep snowfall, measures of forest succession become more 
important factors in determining lynx distribution.
    As described above (see ``Background''), boreal forests used by 
lynx are cool, moist and dominated by conifer tree species, primarily 
spruce and fir (Elliot-Fisk 1988; Agee 2000; Aubry et al. 2000; 
Ruediger et al. 2000). Boreal forest landscapes used by lynx are a 
heterogeneous mosaic of vegetative cover types and successional forest 
stages created by natural and human-caused disturbances (McKelvey et 
al. 2000a). Periodic vegetation disturbances stimulate development of 
dense understory or early successional habitat for snowshoe hares 
(Ruediger et al. 2000). In Maine, lynx were positively associated with 
landscapes altered by clearcutting 15 to 25 years previously (Hoving et 
al. 2004).
    The overall quality of the boreal forest landscape matrix and 
juxtaposition of stands in suitable condition within the landscape is 
important for both lynx and snowshoe hares in that it can influence 
connectivity or movements between suitable stands, availability of food 
and cover and spatial structuring of populations or subpopulations 
(Hodges 2000b; McKelvey et al. 2000a; Ricketts 2001; Walker 2005). For 
example, lynx foraging habitat must be near denning habitat to allow 
females to adequately provision dependent kittens, especially when the 
kittens are relatively immobile. In north-central Washington, hare 
densities were higher in landscapes with an abundance of dense boreal 
forest interspersed with small patches of open habitat, in contrast to 
landscapes composed primarily of open forest interspersed with few 
dense vegetation patches (Walker 2005). Similarly, in northwest 
Montana, connectivity of dense patches within the forest matrix 
benefited snowshoe hares (Ausband and Baty 2005). In mountainous areas, 
lynx appear to prefer flatter slopes (Apps 2000; McKelvey et al. 2000d; 
von Kienast 2003; Maletzke 2004).
    Individual lynx require large portions of boreal forest landscapes 
to support their home ranges and to facilitate dispersal and 
exploratory travel. The size of lynx home ranges is believed to be 
strongly influenced by the quality of the habitat, particularly the 
abundance of snowshoe hares, in addition to other factors such as 
gender, age, season, and density of the lynx population (Aubry et al. 
2000; Mowat et al. 2000). Generally, females with kittens have the 
smallest home ranges while males have the largest home ranges (Moen et 
al. 2004). Reported home range size varies from 31 km2 (12 
mi2) for females and 68 km2 (26 mi2) 
for males in Maine (Vashon et al. 2005a) to much larger ranges of 88 
km2 (34 mi2) for females and 216 km2 
(83 mi2) for males in northwest Montana (Squires et al. 
2004b).

Forest Type Associations

Maine

    Lynx were more likely to occur in 100 km2 (40 
mi2) landscapes with regenerating forest, and less likely to 
occur in landscapes with recent clearcut or partial harvest, (Hoving et 
al. 2004). Lynx in Maine select softwood (spruce and fir) dominated 
regenerating stands (Vashon et al. 2005a). Regenerating stands used by 
lynx generally develop 15-30 years after forest disturbance and are 
characterized by dense horizontal structure and high stem density 
within a meter of the ground. These habitats support high snowshoe hare 
densities (Homyack 2003; Fuller and Harrison 2005; Vashon et al. 
2005a). At the stand scale, lynx in northwestern Maine selected older 
(11 to 26 year-old), tall (4.6 to 7.3 m (15 to 24 ft)) regenerating 
clearcut stands and older (11 to 21 year-old) partially harvested 
stands (A. Fuller, University of Maine, unpubl. data).

Minnesota

    In Minnesota, lynx primarily occur in the Northern Superior Uplands 
Ecological Section of the Laurentian Mixed Forest Province. 
Historically, this area was dominated by red pine (Pinus resinosa) and 
white pine (P. strobus) mixed with aspen (Populus spp.), paper birch 
(Betula papyrifera), spruce, balsam fir (A. balsamifera) and jack pine 
(P. banksiana) (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources [Minnesota 
DNR] 2003).
    Preliminary research suggests lynx in Minnesota generally use 
younger stands (less than 50 years) with a conifer component in greater 
proportion than their availability (R. Moen, University of Minnesota, 
unpubl. data). Lynx prefer predominantly upland forests dominated by 
red pine, white pine, jack pine, black spruce (P. mariana), paper 
birch, quaking aspen (P. tremuloides), or balsam fir (R. Moen, unpubl. 
data).

Washington

    In the North Cascades in Washington, the majority of lynx 
occurrences were found above 1,250 m (4,101 ft) elevation (McKelvey et 
al. 2000b,d; von Kienast 2003; Maletzke 2004). In this area, lynx 
selected Engelman spruce (P. engelmanii)-subalpine-fir (A. lasiocarpa) 
forest cover types in winter

[[Page 68301]]

(von Kienast 2003, Maletzke 2004). Lodgepole pine (P. contorta) is a 
dominant tree species in the earlier successional stages of these 
climax cover types. Seral lodgepole stands contained dense understories 
and therefore received high use by snowshoe hares and lynx (Koehler 
1990; McKelvey et al. 2000d).

Northern Rockies

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

[[Page 68302]]

Lake Ranger Station, average annual snowfall from 1948 to 2005 was 315 
cm (124 in), while at the Troy station the average total snowfall from 
1961 to 1994 was 229 cm (90 in) (Western Regional Climate Center 2005).
c. Denning Habitat (Sites for Reproduction and Rearing of Offspring)
    Lynx den sites are found in mature and younger boreal forest stands 
that have a large amount of cover and downed, large woody debris. The 
structural components of lynx den sites are common features in managed 
(logged) and unmanaged (e.g., insect damaged, wind-throw) stands. 
Downed trees provide excellent cover for den sites and kittens and 
often are associated with dense woody stem growth.
    Sub-stand characteristics were evaluated for 26 lynx dens from 1999 
to 2004 in northwest Maine. Dens were found in several stand types. 
Modeling of den site variables determined that tip-up mounds (exposed 
roots from fallen trees) alone best explained den site selection (J. 
Organ, Service, unpubl. data). Tip-up mounds may purely be an index of 
downed trees, which were abundant on the landscape. Horizontal cover at 
5 m (16 ft) alone was the next best performing model (J. Organ, unpubl. 
data). Dead downed trees were sampled, but did not explain den site 
selection as well as tip-up mounds and cover at 5 m (16 ft). Lynx 
essentially select dense cover in a cover-rich area.
    In the North Cascades, Washington, lynx denned in mature (older 
than 250 years) stands with an overstory of Engelman spruce, subalpine 
fir and lodgepole pine with an abundance of downed woody debris 
(Koehler 1990). In this study, all den sites were located on north-
northeast aspects (Koehler 1990). In northwest Montana, the immediate 
areas around dens were in a variety of stand ages but all contained 
abundant woody debris including downed logs, blowdowns, and rootwads, 
and dense understory cover (Squires et al. 2004b). ). Information on 
den site characteristics in Minnesota has not yet been reported (Moen 
et al. 2004).

Primary Constituent Elements Summary

    The discussion above outlines those physical and biological 
features essential to the conservation of the lynx and provides a basis 
for their selection as the primary constituent element for this 
proposed critical habitat. The primary constituent elements comprise 
the essential features of boreal forest that (1) Provide adequate prey 
resources necessary for the persistence of local populations and 
metapopulations of lynx through reproduction; (2) act as a possible 
source of lynx for more peripheral boreal forested areas; (3) enable 
the maintenance of home ranges; (4) incorporate snow conditions for 
which lynx are highly specialized that give lynx a competitive 
advantage over potential competitors; (5) provide denning habitat; and 
(6) provide habitat connectivity for travel within home ranges, 
exploratory movements, and dispersal.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    To identify areas containing features that are essential to the 
conservation of the lynx, we considered the concepts introduced in the 
recovery outline for the species (Service 2005) and the above analysis 
concerning occupancy, evidence of reproduction, connectivity with 
adjacent lynx populations in Canada and the primary constituent 
elements. In summary, the area occupied by the lynx in the contiguous 
United States is broadly delineated by the distribution of the southern 
extensions of boreal forest, which occur in the Northeast (portions of 
Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York); the western Great Lakes 
(portions of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan); the Northern Rocky 
Mountains/Cascades (portions of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, 
northwestern Wyoming, Utah); and the Southern Rocky Mountains (portions 
of Colorado, southeastern Wyoming) (Agee 2000; McKelvey et al. 2000b; 
Hoving et al. 2003). Within this broad distribution the recovery 
outline (Service 2005) delineated core areas that contain consistent, 
verified records of lynx over time and evidence of reproduction within 
the past 20 years. The long-term occupation of these general areas by 
lynx supports the assumption that they contain habitats sufficient in 
quality and quantity to continue to sustain lynx populations. An 
additional factor strongly influencing most of these core areas is 
their connection with larger lynx populations in Canada. Each proposed 
critical habitat unit occurs within one of these core areas.
    The proposed critical habitat designation does not include all the 
areas identified in the recovery outline as core areas. This is because 
the recovery outline did not define areas essential to the conservation 
of lynx as is necessary for this proposed critical habitat designation. 
The criteria we used for determining areas essential to the 
conservation of lynx for the proposed critical habitat were more 
rigorous than those used for delineating the recovery areas in the lynx 
recovery outline; in particular, for critical habitat we focused 
closely on areas with reliable evidence of lynx occurrence and 
reproduction since 1995. The recovery outline more broadly encompassed 
older records of lynx. For example, the core area in the northeastern 
United States extends from northern Maine into northern New Hampshire 
because of historic records of lynx in New Hampshire. However, because 
there is no verified evidence of lynx occupation or reproduction in New 
Hampshire or western Maine since 1995, the critical habitat unit does 
not extend into these areas. Furthermore, the preliminary boundaries 
for the recovery areas were intended to be for representative purposes 
only so were drawn on a gross scale compared to the proposed critical 
habitat boundaries. To simplify the mapping of the recovery area 
boundaries we often used highways or rivers or, as in Minnesota, 
general maps of average snowfall for the boundaries although we knew 
that these recovery outline boundaries encompassed habitats that were 
not boreal forest habitat. In Minnesota, the recovery core area 
boundary was drawn according to an approximate line where average snow 
fall was greater than 55 in (140 cm). However, while subsequently 
evaluating information for the critical habitat proposal, we received 
bobcat harvest data for Minnesota showing abundant bobcat harvest and 
reduced lynx presence in the area west of the proposed critical habitat 
unit in Minnesota, which suggests the western portion of the area 
preliminarily delinated as core in Minnesota may not be of high quality 
for lynx. The Montana and north Cascades (Washington) core area 
boundaries were drawn primarily along highways and rivers that occur 
below the 4,000 ft (1,219 m) elevation contour, which is below the 
elevation that supports lynx habitat. As a result, the proposed 
critical habitat units are subsets of four of the six areas 
preliminarily delineated as core areas in the lynx recovery outline.
    We did not propose critical habitat in two areas the recovery 
outline defined as core, the Kettle Range in northcentral Washington 
and the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. The Kettle Range historically 
supported lynx populations (Stinson 2001). However, although boreal 
forest habitat within the Kettle Range appears of high quality for 
lynx, there is no evidence that the Kettle Range is currently occupied 
by a lynx population (G. Koehler, Washington Department of Fish and 
Wildlife, pers. comm. 2005). In particular, we have no information to 
suggest a lynx population

[[Page 68303]]

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

Special Management Considerations or Protection

    As we undertake the process of designating critical habitat for a 
species, in the geographical area occupied by the lynx at the time of 
listing we first evaluate lands defined by those physical and 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species for 
inclusion in the designation pursuant to section 3(5)(A) of the Act. We 
then evaluate those lands to assess whether they, or the features 
themselves, may require special management considerations or 
protection. The areas proposed for designation as critical habitat will 
require some level of management to address the current and future 
threats to the lynx and to maintain the primary constituent elements 
essential to the conservation of the species. In all units, special 
management will be required to ensure that boreal forest landscapes 
provide a mosaic of forest stands of various ages to provide abundant 
prey habitat, denning habitat, and connectivity within the landscape.
    The designation of critical habitat does not imply that lands 
outside of

[[Page 68304]]

critical habitat do not play an important role in the conservation of 
the lynx. Federal activities that may affect areas outside of critical 
habitat, such as forest management, development, and road construction, 
are still subject to review under section 7 of the Act if they may 
affect lynx because Federal agencies must consider both effects to lynx 
and effects to critical habitat independently. The prohibitions of 
section 9 of the Act (e.g., harm, harass, capture, kill) also continue 
to apply both inside and outside of designated critical habitat.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    We are proposing four units as critical habitat for the lynx. These 
areas occur in northern Maine, northeastern Minnesota, the Northern 
Rocky Mountains (northwestern Montana/northeastern Idaho), and the 
Northern Cascades (north-central Washington). The areas are distributed 
across the known occupied range of the lynx in the contiguous United 
States, and are necessary to conserve the species. The critical habitat 
areas described below constitute our best assessment at this time of 
the areas essential for the conservation of the lynx and that require 
special management considerations or protection. To further understand 
the location of these proposed areas please see the associated maps 
found within this proposed rule (also available at our Web site: http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/lynx/).
    The four critical habitat units are: (1) Maine unit; (2) Minnesota 
unit; (3) Northern Rocky Mountains unit (northwestern Montana/
northeastern Idaho); and (4) Northern Cascades unit (north-central 
Washington) (Table 1). Proposed critical habitat by land ownership and 
State is in Table 2.

      Table 1.--Critical Habitat Units Proposed for the Canada lynx
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Critical Habitat Unit            Miles \2\        Kilometers \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Maine..........................             10,633             27,539
2. Minnesota......................              3,546              9,183
3. Northern Rocky Mountains (ID/               10,760             27,869
 MT)*.............................
4. Northern Cascades (WA)*........              1,996              5,169
                                   --------------------
    Total*........................             26,935            69,760
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Note U.S. Forest Service lands in Idaho, Montana, and Washington are
  not included in this proposal, although their area is reflected in the
  values in the table (*).)


                          Table 2.--Critical Habitat Proposed for the Canada Lynx by Land Ownership and State (mi \2\ /km \2\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Federal*              State              Private             Tribal               Other
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho...............................................                0/0                 1/3                 0/0                 0/0                 0/0
Maine...............................................              13/34           758/1,962        9,741/25,230              86/223               35/90
Minnesota...........................................          440/1,139         1,355/3,510         1,661/4,303              74/192               15/39
Montana.............................................                  *             365/946         1,691/4,381                 0/0              63/162
Washington..........................................                  *             164/426                5/13                 0/0               0.5/1
                                                     ---------------------
    Total...........................................                  *         2,643/6,847       13,098/33,927             160/415            114/293
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Note U.S. Forest Service lands in Idaho, Montana, and Washington are not included in this proposal, although their area is reflected in the values in
  the table (*).)

    We present brief descriptions of each critical habitat unit below.

Unit 1: Maine

    Unit 1 is located in northern Maine in portions of Aroostook, 
Franklin, Penobscot, Piscataquis and Somerset Counties. This area was 
occupied by the lynx at the time of listing and, since that time, lynx 
have been documented throughout northern Maine. Research in 
northwestern Maine has documented high productivity of lynx; 91 percent 
(30 of 33 potential litters) of available adult females (greater than 2 
years) produced litters and litters averaged 2.83 kittens (Vashon et 
al. 2005b). This area contains the features essential to the 
conservation of the lynx as it is comprised of extensive boreal forest 
supporting the primary constituent element and its components. This 
area is also important for lynx conservation because it is the only 
area in the northeastern region of the lynx's range within the 
contiguous United States that currently supports breeding lynx 
populations, and likely acts as a source or provides connectivity for 
more peripheral portions of the lynx's range in the Northeast. Timber 
harvest and management is the dominant land use within the unit, 
therefore, special management is required depending on the 
silvicultural practices conducted (Service 2003). Timber management 
practices that provide for a dense understory are beneficial for lynx 
and snowshoe hares. In this area, other habitat-related threats to lynx 
are lack of an International conservation strategy for lynx, traffic 
and development (Service 2003).

Unit 2: Minnesota

    Unit 2 is located in northeastern Minnesota in portions of Cook, 
Koochiching, Lake, and St. Louis Counties. In 2003, when we last 
formally reviewed the status of the lynx, there were numerous verified 
records of lynx from northeastern Minnesota (68 FR 40076, July 3, 
2003). Lynx are currently known to be distributed throughout 
northeastern Minnesota, as has been confirmed through DNA analysis, 
radio- and GPS-collared animals, and documentation of reproduction 
(Moen et al. 2004; Minnesota DNR 2005; S. Loch, independent scientist, 
unpubl. data; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, unpubl. data). 
This area contains the features essential to the conservation of the 
lynx as it comprises extensive boreal forest supporting the primary 
constituent elements. This area is also important for lynx conservation 
because it is the only area in the Great Lakes region of the lynx's 
range in the contiguous United States for which we have evidence of 
recent lynx reproduction, and it likely acts as a source or provides 
connectivity for more peripheral portions of the lynx's range in the 
Great Lakes region. Timber

[[Page 68305]]

harvest and management is a dominant land use (Service 2003). 
Therefore, special management is required depending on the 
silvicultural practices conducted Timber management practices that 
provide for a dense understory are beneficial for lynx and snowshoe 
hares. In this area, lack of an international conservation strategy for 
lynx, fire suppression or fuels treatment, traffic and/or development 
are other habitat-related threats to lynx (Service 2003).
    As described below, the lands (both Superior National Forest and 
non-USFS lands) encompassed in Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) mapped by the 
Superior National Forest and lands the Forest delineated as a Lynx 
Refugium are not included in this proposed designation because, 
although important to the conservation of the lynx, the Superior 
National Forest manages its lands within the LAUs with measures to 
conserve lynx and takes into consideration habitat conditions for lynx 
throughout a LAU regardless of land ownership. Therefore, no special 
management consideration or protection of this area is necessary.
    Public Land Survey sections encompassing a mining district in 
Minnesota known as the Iron Range were not included in the proposed 
designation because they do not contain the physical and biological 
features essential to the conservation of lynx. In much of the Iron 
Range, mining has removed all vegetation and much of this area was 
subsequently flooded. Areas that are still vegetated and not flooded 
are extensively fragmented by the mined areas and haul roads. We used 
the ``GAP Land Cover--Tiled Raster'' dataset (Minnesota Department of 
Natural Resources 2002) to identify sections that are heavily 
influenced by mining activities. Areas described as ``Barren'' and 
``Mixed Developed'' in the GAP dataset appeared to correspond to areas 
that were mined or extensively disturbed by mining related activities 
(service roads, etc.), based on analyses of aerial photos (National 
Agricultural Imagery Program 2003). Further inspection of the aerial 
photos indicated that there were additional sections with extensive 
effects of mining, beyond that indicated by the GAP data, which is 
based on 10-15 year-old satellite imagery.

Unit 3: Northern Rocky Mountains

    Unit 3 is located in northwestern Montana and a small portion of 
northeastern Idaho in portions of Boundary County in Idaho and 
Flathead, Glacier, Granite, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Lincoln, Missoula, 
Pondera, Powell and Teton Counties in Montana. This area was known to 
be occupied by lynx at the time of listing. Lynx are currently known to 
be widely distributed throughout this unit and breeding has been 
documented in multiple locations (Gehman et al. 2004; Squires et al. 
2004a, 2004b). The Salish Mountains appear to support few recent 
verified lynx records. However, survey effort in the Salish Mountains 
has been limited, boreal forest conditions exist, and the Salish 
Mountains likely provide east-west connectivity between the Purcell 
Mountains and the Whitefish Mountains. This area contains the features 
essential to the conservation of the lynx as it is comprised of boreal 
forest supporting the primary constituent elements. This area is also 
important for lynx conservation because it appears to support the 
highest density lynx populations in the Northern Rocky Mountain region 
of the lynx's range. It likely acts as a source or provides 
connectivity for other portions of the lynx's range in the Rocky 
Mountains, particularly the Yellowstone area.
    As described below, the Flathead Indian Reservation and Bureau of 
Land Management (BLM) lands in the Garnet Resource Area, and Federal 
lands within the Flathead, Helena, Idaho Panhandle, Kootenai, Lewis and 
Clark, and Lolo National Forests are not included in this proposed 
designation because, although important to the conservation of the 
lynx, these lands are sufficiently managed with measures to conserve 
lynx. Therefore, no special management considerations or protection of 
these areas is needed.

Unit 4: North Cascades

    Unit 4 is located in north-central Washington in portions of Chelan 
and Okanogan Counties. This area was known to be occupied at the time 
lynx was listed. This unit supports the highest densities of lynx in 
Washington (Stinson 2001). Evidence from limited recent research and 
DNA shows lynx distributed within this unit, with breeding being 
documented (von Kienast 2003; K. Aubry, Pacific Northwest Research 
Station, unpubl. data; B. Maletzke, Washington State University, 
unpubl. data). Although there appear to be fewer records in the portion 
of the unit south of Highway 20, few surveys have been conducted in 
this portion of the unit. This area does support boreal forest habitat 
and the components essential to the conservation of the lynx. Further, 
it is contiguous with the portion of the unit north of Highway 20, 
particularly in winter when deep snows close Highway 20. The northern 
portion of the unit adjacent to the Canadian border also appears to 
support few recent lynx records; however, it is designated wilderness 
so access to survey this area is difficult. This northern portion 
supports extensive boreal forest vegetation types and the components 
essential to the conservation of the lynx. Additionally, lynx 
populations exist in British Columbia directly north of and likely 
continuous with this unit (E. Lofrothe, British Columbia Ministry of 
the Environment, unpubl. data). This area contains the features 
essential to the conservation of the lynx as it is comprised of 
extensive boreal forest supporting the primary constituent element and 
its components. This area is also important for lynx conservation 
because it is the only area in the Cascades region of the lynx's range 
that is known to support breeding lynx populations.
    The BLM lands in the Spokane District and Federal lands within the 
Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest are not included in this proposed 
designation because, although important to the conservation of the 
lynx, these lands are sufficiently managed with measures to conserve 
lynx. Since no special management considerations or protection is 
needed for lynx, the area does not meet the definition of critical 
habitat.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is 
proposed or listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its 
critical habitat, if any is proposed or designated. Regulations 
implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are 
codified at 50 CFR part 402. We are currently reviewing the regulatory 
definition of adverse modification in relation to the conservation of 
the species.
    Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with 
us on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of a proposed species or result in destruction or adverse modification 
of proposed critical habitat. Conference reports provide conservation 
recommendations to assist the agency in eliminating conflicts that may 
be caused by the proposed action. We may issue a formal conference 
report if requested by a Federal agency. Formal conference reports on 
proposed critical habitat contain an opinion that is prepared according 
to 50 CFR 402.14, as if critical

[[Page 68306]]

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             State                     Address             Phone No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maine.........................  1168 Main Street, Old     (207) 827-5938
                                 Town, Maine 04468.
Minnesota.....................  4101 East 80th            (612) 725-3548
                                 Street, Bloomington,
                                 Minnesota 55425.
Montana.......................  100 N. Park Ave,          (406) 449-5225
                                 Suite 320, Helena,
                                 Montana 59601.
Idaho and Washington..........  11103 E. Montgomery       (509) 893-8015
                                 Drive, Spokane,
                                 Washington 99206.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We consider each of the proposed critical habitat units to have 
been occupied by the species at the time we last formally reviewed the 
status of the species under the Act in 2003 based on surveys and 
research documenting the presence and reproduction of lynx (68 FR 
40076, July 3, 2003). We consider each of these units included in this 
proposed designation to contain the physical and biological features 
essential to the conservation of the lynx (i.e., the primary 
constituent element).

Application of Section 3(5)(A) of the Endangered Species Act

    Section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act defines critical habitat as the 
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at 
the time of listing on which are found those physical and biological 
features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) 
which may require special management considerations or protection. 
Therefore, areas within the geographical area occupied by the species 
at the time of

[[Page 68307]]

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

[[Page 68308]]

agreement expires December 31, 2006, unless renewed. The BLM continues 
to adhere to their original agreement although it expired in December 
2004.
    Lynx conservation depends on supporting boreal forest landscapes of 
sufficient size to encompass the temporal and spatial changes in 
habitat and snowshoe hare populations to support interbreeding lynx 
populations or metapopulations over time. We have determined that 
management plans that incorporate the LCAS provide adequate management 
or protection for lynx because they meet the three criteria identified 
above. Specifically--(1) The management plans have been finalized and 
incorporate the provisions of the LCAS, which provides the best 
scientifically-based conservation measures known for lynx at this time; 
at a minimum, the incorporation of the LCAS conservation measures to 
address risk factors affecting lynx productivity into a management plan 
provides adequate management and protection for lynx and features 
essential to the conservation of lynx; (2) where Federal agencies and 
non-Federal entities (including Tribes) have amended or revised their 
management plans to incorporate provisions of the LCAS, these 
provisions become the management direction for that particular land 
base; conservation measures in the LCAS are designed to be implemented 
at the programmatic and project level scale; and (3) the land 
management entities have incorporated provisions of the LCAS in order 
the provide for the conservation of the lynx; the conservation measures 
in the LCAS are intended to conserve lynx and to reduce or eliminate 
adverse effects from the spectrum of management activities on Federal 
lands (or other lands where the conservation measures are applied), at 
this time, there is no other scientifically-based land management 
guidance available for lynx; these management plans are in effect until 
future plan revisions or plan amendments supercede the current plans.
    We evaluated areas to determine if they meet the definition of 
critical habitat by (1) containing features essential to the 
conservation of the lynx, and (2) if the essential features may require 
special management or protection. We determined that these lands did 
contain features essential to the conservation of the lynx. However, 
based on the provisions in the LCAS beneficial to the lynx, we 
determined that the features on lands covered by management programs or 
plans that have been revised or amended to adopt the LCAS do not 
require special management or protection and, therefore, these lands do 
not meet the definition of critical habitat pursuant to section 3(5)(A) 
of the Act. These lands, described below, are not included in the 
proposed designation:

Superior National Forest

    The Superior National Forest located in northeastern Minnesota has 
revised its Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) to include 
specific measures to conserve lynx, based on the LCAS (Ruediger et al. 
2000; USFS 2004a, b; Service 2004). Much of the boreal forest habitat 
in northeastern Minnesota is found on Superior National Forest (Service 
2004), and a large proportion of the recent lynx records in Minnesota 
have been detected on the Superior National Forest (Moen et al. 2004; 
Minnesota DNR 2005). The revised LRMP went through stakeholder 
meetings, section 7 consultation with the Service, and public review. 
The LRMP will guide day-to-day management decisions for the next 15 
years, whereupon the LRMP will again undergo revision. (USFS 2004a).
    The Superior LRMP adopted the standards, guidelines, and objectives 
of the LCAS (Ruediger et al. 2000; K. McAllister, in litt. 2002) that 
the USFS determined were appropriate and relevant to lynx conservation 
in Minnesota, in consultation with the Service. To remove redundancies 
with other management direction, the LRMP excluded certain LCAS 
standards, guidelines, and objectives and reclassified some to increase 
their potential to benefit lynx, to avoid confusion with terms found 
elsewhere in the LRMP, and to allow for management flexibility that 
would not compromise lynx conservation. In addition, it designated the 
Boundary Waters Canoe and Wilderness Area as a Lynx Refugium, in which 
natural processes will be the predominant determinant of lynx habitat 
conditions with some active management that would be ``compatible with 
wilderness values'' (USFS 2004a).
    The Superior National Forest has delineated Lynx Analysis Units 
(LAUs) within which it applies the lynx conservation measures 
prescribed in the LRMP. The LAUs are the smallest landscape scale 
analysis units upon which direct, indirect, and cumulative effects 
analyses for lynx will be performed (Ruediger et al. 2000; USFS 2004a). 
They encompass lynx habitat (on all ownerships) within the 
administrative unit that has been mapped (in coordination with adjacent 
management agencies and the Service) using specific criteria to 
identify appropriate vegetation and environmental conditions (U.S. 
Forest Service 2004a).
    Within the proclamation boundaries of the Superior National Forest 
are numerous inholdings of non-USFS land (e.g., lands owned by State of 
Minnesota, private companies, etc.). The Superior National Forest may 
only control management on National Forest lands, but the LRMP's 
objectives, standards, and guidelines ensure that National Forest 
actions may be restricted based on the condition of non-USFS lands in 
LAUs. For example, if greater than 30 percent of lynx habitat within an 
LAU is in an unsuitable condition (e.g., very recent clearcuts), 
Superior National Forest would not take any action to further increase 
the extent of unsuitable habitat, even if all of the unsuitable habitat 
were on non-USFS lands. Therefore, the LRMP is able to affect the 
general condition of lynx habitat within LAUs, even where the LAUs 
contain lands that are not owned or directly controlled by the USFS. 
However, most of the land within the LAUs is under USFS management.
    On the basis of the conservation benefits afforded the lynx from 
the measures in the approved, revised LRMP and the definition of 
critical habitat contained in section 3(5)(A) of the Act, we have not 
included those lands (both Superior National Forest and non-USFS lands 
within the proclamation boundary) encompassed in LAUs mapped by the 
Superior National Forest or delineated by the Forest as a Lynx Refugium 
in this proposed designation because we have determined that special 
management or protection of these lands and the features essential to 
the conservation of the lynx is not required. Although important to the 
conservation of the lynx, the Superior National Forest manages its 
lands within the LAUs with measures to conserve lynx and takes into 
consideration habitat conditions for lynx throughout a LAU regardless 
of land ownership.

Garnet Resource Area, Bureau of Land Management

    The BLM's Garnet Resource Management plan has been amended to 
incorporate all provisions of the LCAS (State Director, BLM, in litt. 
2004; R.M. Wilson, in litt. 2004). The Garnet Resource Area supports 
blocks of boreal forest that currently support lynx populations on the 
southern edge of the Northern Rockies Unit. The amendment went through 
public review and consultation with us under section 7 of the Act; a 
finding of no significant impact was issued by BLM in 2004

[[Page 68309]]

(R.M. Wilson, in litt. 2004; State Director, BLM, in litt. 2004).
    On the basis of the conservation benefits afforded the lynx from 
the measures in the amended Garnet Resource Management Plan and the 
definition of critical habitat contained in section 3(5)(A) of the Act, 
we have not included those lands that are within the boundaries of the 
approved Garnet Resource Management Plan in this proposed designation 
of critical habitat for the lynx. These lands, and features there on, 
are being adequately managed for lynx and, as a result, do not meet the 
definition of critical habitat. Because the BLM already manages these 
lands, and features there on, consistent with lynx conservation, we 
have determined that no special management or protection pursuant to 
section 3(5)(A) is required.

Flathead Indian Reservation

    The tribal lands in the Northern Rockies unit (portions of the 
Flathead Indian Reservation) are managed by the Confederated Salish and 
Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) under their Forest Management Plan that 
incorporates the provisions of the LCAS (CSKT 2000). On the basis of 
the conservation benefits afforded the lynx from the measures in the 
CSKT's Forest Management Plan and the definition of critical habitat 
contained in section 3(5)(A) of the Act, we have not included lands 
that are within the boundaries of the Flathead Indian Reservation in 
this proposed designation of critical habitat for the lynx. These 
lands, and features there on, are being adequately managed for lynx 
and, as a result, do not meet the definition of critical habitat. 
Because the Tribes already manage these lands, and features there on, 
consistent with lynx conservation, no special management or protection 
pursuant to section 3(5)(A) is required.

Spokane District, Bureau of Land Management

    Small portions of lands administered by the BLM's Spokane District 
are encompassed in the proposed boundaries delineated as proposed lynx 
critical habitat in the North Cascades unit in Washington. These lands 
support boreal forest habitat but only occur in extremely small areas 
within the proposed critical habitat boundary. The BLM Spokane District 
Resource Management Plan was modified in 2003 to incorporate all of the 
provisions of the LCAS through what is called ``Resource Management 
Plan Maintenance'' (BLM. 2003).
    On the basis of the conservation benefits afforded the lynx from 
the measures in the approved Spokane District Resource Management Plan 
Maintenance and the definition of critical habitat contained in section 
3(5)(A) of the Act, we have not included those lands that are within 
the boundaries of the BLM's Spokane District Resource Management Plan 
in this proposed designation of critical habitat for the lynx. The BLM 
already manages this area, and features there on, consistent with lynx 
conservation; therefore, special management or protection pursuant to 
3(5)(A) is not required.
    In summary, we find that including these lands addressed in 
management plans protect essential lynx features and habitat within 
their boundaries and provide appropriate management to provide for the 
conservation of lynx and features essential to its conservation over 
the life of the amendments, revisions or modifications. The management 
plans have been finalized and incorporate the provisions of the LCAS, 
which, as described above provides the best, scientifically-based 
conservation measures for lynx known at this time. Federal land and 
resource management plans provide the overarching direction under which 
Federal lands are managed until future plan revisions or plan 
amendments supercede the current plans. The Flathead Indian 
Reservation's Forest Management Plan guides forest management on the 
Reservation lands (CSKT 2000). The conservation measures in the LCAS 
are intended to conserve lynx and to reduce or eliminate adverse 
effects from the spectrum of management activities on Federal lands (or 
other lands where the conservation measures are applied); at this time, 
there is no other scientifically-based land management guidance 
available for lynx. Not including areas in the proposed designation 
that are already being managed for lynx conservation encourages land 
managers to proactively institute lynx conservation measures and 
reduces administrative effort and costs associated with engaging in 
consultations for critical habitat pursuant to section 7 of the Act.
    Maps included with this proposal illustrate lands essential to the 
conservation of the lynx and that may require special management 
considerations or protection and delineated as proposed critical 
habitat. More detailed maps show lands determined to be essential to 
the conservation of the species, which are color coded to clearly show 
those lands proposed and those not included in this proposal, are 
available from the Montana Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES 
section) or from the Internet at http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/lynx/.

National Forest Service Lands Within Idaho, Montana, and Washington

    Seven National Forests are currently covered by the May 2005 Canada 
Lynx Conservation Agreement are in the process of revising or amending 
their LRMPs to provide measures for lynx conservation under the LCAS. 
It is anticipated that all of these plans will be complete prior to 
promulgation of the final critical habitat designation. As a result, 
all Federal lands within the seven National Forests have conservation 
measures or protection for lynx and habitat features essential to the 
conservation of the lynx. Therefore, Federal lands within these seven 
National Forests do not meet the definition of critical habitat 
pursuant to section 3(5)(A) of the Act and thus we are proposing that 
those areas not be included in the final critical habitat designation 
The specific National Forests are presented in Table 3.

   Table 3.--National Forests Covered by the Canada Lynx Conservation
                                Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Critical Habitat Unit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Cascades.........................  Okanogan--Wenatchee National
                                          Forest.
Northern Rocky Mountains...............  Flathead National Forest.
                                         Helena National Forest.
                                         Idaho Panhandle National
                                          Forests.
                                         Kootenai National Forest.
                                         Lewis and Clark National
                                          Forest.
                                         Lolo National Forest.
Minnesota..............................  None.

[[Page 68310]]

 
Maine..................................  None.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Application of Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

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

 Table 4.--Wilderness Areas or National Parks for Which Management Plans
    Will Be Evaluated To Determine Their Adequacy for Conserving Lynx
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Wilderness Area or National
         Critical Habitat Unit                         Park
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maine..................................  None.
Minnesota..............................  Voyageurs National Park.
Northern Rocky Mountains...............  Glacier National Park.
                                         Hoodoo Mountain Wilderness
                                          Study Area.
                                         Wales Creek Wildernesses Study
                                          Area.
North Cascades.........................  Glacier Peak Wilderness.
                                         North Cascades National Park.
                                         Pasayten Wilderness.
                                         Stephen P. Mather Wilderness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Relationship of Critical Habitat to Tribal Lands

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

[[Page 68311]]



    Table 5.--Tribal Lands Under Consideration for Removal From Final
                     Designation as Critical Habitat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Critical Habitat Unit                    Tribal Entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maine..................................  Houlton Band of Maliseet
                                          Indians.
                                         Aroostook Band of Micmac
                                          Indians.
                                         Passamaquoddy Tribe.
                                         Penobscot Indian Nation.
Minnesota..............................  Grand Portage Indian
                                          Reservation.
                                         Vermillion Lake Indian
                                          Reservation.
Northern Rocky Mountains...............  None.
North Cascades.........................  None.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Economic Analysis

    An analysis of the potential economic impacts of proposing critical 
habitat for the lynx is being prepared. We will announce the 
availability of the draft economic analysis as soon as it is completed, 
at which time we will seek public review and comment. At that time, 
copies of the draft economic analysis will be available for downloading 
from the Internet at http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/lynx/ or by contacting the Montana Field Office directly (see ADDRESSES 
section).

Peer Review

    In accordance with our joint policy published in the Federal 
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert 
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists 
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of such review is to ensure 
that our critical habitat designation is based on scientifically sound 
data, assumptions, and analyses. We will send these peer reviewers 
copies of this proposed rule immediately following publication in the 
Federal Register. We will invite these peer reviewers to comment, 
during the public comment period, on the specific assumptions and 
conclusions regarding the proposed designation of critical habitat.
    We will consider all comments and information received during the 
comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a final 
rulemaking. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this 
proposal.

Public Hearings

    We have scheduled public hearings on this proposal. Dates, times, 
and locations of those hearings are listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section, above.

Clarity of the Rule

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations and 
notices that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to 
make this proposed rule easier to understand, including answers to 
questions such as the following--(1) Are the requirements in the 
proposed rule clearly stated? (2) Does the proposed rule contain 
technical jargon that interferes with the clarity? (3) Does the format 
of the proposed rule (grouping and order of the sections, use of 
headings, paragraphing, and so forth) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is 
the description of the notice in the Supplementary Information section 
of the preamble helpful in understanding the proposed rule? (5) What 
else could we do to make this proposed rule easier to understand?
    Send a copy of any comments on how we could make this proposed rule 
easier to understand to--Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of 
the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240. You 
may e-mail your comments to [email protected].

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a 
significant rule in that it may raise novel legal and policy issues, 
but it is not anticipated to have an annual effect on the economy of 
$100 million or more or affect the economy in a material way. Due to 
the tight timeline for publication in the Federal Register, the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) has not formally reviewed this rule. We 
are preparing a draft economic analysis of this proposed action, which 
will be available for public comment, to determine the economic 
consequences of designating the specific area as critical habitat. This 
economic analysis also will be used to determine compliance with 
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act, Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, and Executive Order 12630 
``Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights.''
    Further, Executive Order 12866 directs Federal Agencies 
promulgating regulations to evaluate regulatory alternatives (Office of 
Management and Budget, Circular A-4, September 17, 2003). Pursuant to 
Circular A-4, once it has been determined that the Federal regulatory 
action is appropriate, then the agency will need to consider 
alternative regulatory approaches. Since the determination of critical 
habitat is a statutory requirement pursuant to the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we must then 
evaluate alternative regulatory approaches, where feasible, when 
promulgating a designation of critical habitat.
    In developing our designations of critical habitat, we consider 
economic impacts, impacts to national security, and other relevant 
impacts pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on the discretion 
allowable under this provision, we may exclude any particular area from 
the designation of critical habitat providing that the benefits of such 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying the area as critical 
habitat and that such exclusion would not result in the extinction of 
the species. As such, we believe that the evaluation of the inclusion 
or exclusion of particular areas, or combination thereof, in a 
designation constitutes our regulatory alternative analysis.
    Within the specific areas identified in this proposal, the types of 
Federal actions or authorized activities that we have identified as 
potential concerns are listed in the SECTION 7 CONSULTATION section 
above. The availability of the draft economic analysis will be 
announced in the Federal Register and in local newspapers so that it is 
available for public review and comments. When it is prepared, the 
draft economic analysis will be available from the Internet at http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/lynx/ or by contacting the 
Montana Ecological Services Office directly (see ADDRESSES section).

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Our assessment of economic effect will be completed prior to final 
rulemaking based upon review of the draft economic analysis prepared

[[Page 68312]]

pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act and Executive Order 12866. This 
analysis is for the purposes of compliance with the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act and does not reflect our position on the type of 
economic analysis required by New Mexico Cattle Growers Assn. v. U.S. 
Fish & Wildlife Service 248 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2001).
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice 
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) to require Federal agencies to 
provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.
    At this time, the Service lacks the available economic information 
necessary to provide an adequate factual basis for the required RFA 
finding. Therefore, the RFA finding is deferred until completion of the 
draft economic analysis prepared pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act 
and Executive Order 12866. This draft economic analysis will provide 
the required factual basis for the RFA finding. Upon completion of the 
draft economic analysis, the Service will publish a notice of 
availability of the draft economic analysis of the proposed designation 
and reopen the public comment period for the proposed designation for 
an additional 60 days. The Service will include with the notice of 
availability, as appropriate, an initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis or a certification that the rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities accompanied 
by the factual basis for that determination. The Service has concluded 
that deferring the RFA finding until completion of the draft economic 
analysis is necessary to meet the purposes and requirements of the RFA. 
Deferring the RFA finding in this manner will ensure that the Service 
makes a sufficiently informed determination based on adequate economic 
information and provides the necessary opportunity for public comment.

Executive Order 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order (Number 
13211) on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, 
distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to 
prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. 
This proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the lynx is 
considered a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 
as it may raise novel legal and policy issues. However, this 
designation is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, 
distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant 
energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required. We will, 
however, further evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic 
analysis and, as appropriate, review and revise this assessment as 
warranted.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 
1501), the Service makes the following findings:
    (a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, tribal 
governments, or the private sector and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work 
programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; 
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption 
Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; 
and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal private sector mandate'' 
includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the 
private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a 
duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive 
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require 
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be 
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally 
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they 
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid 
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would 
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs 
listed above on to State governments.
    (b) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments, because towns and developed areas are 
excluded from designation. As such, we do not believe that a Small 
Government Agency Plan is not required. We will, however, further 
evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic analysis and revise this 
assessment if appropriate.

Federalism

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have 
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not 
required. In keeping with Department of the Interior policy, we 
requested information from, and coordinated development of, this 
proposed critical habitat designation with appropriate State resource 
agencies in Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming. 
We believe that the designation of critical habitat for the lynx will 
have little incremental impact on State and local governments and their 
activities. The designation may have some benefit to these governments 
in that the areas important to the conservation of the species are more 
clearly defined, and the primary constituent element of the habitat 
essential to the survival and conservation of the species is

[[Page 68313]]

specifically identified. While making this definition and 
identification does not alter where and what federally sponsored 
activities may occur, it may assist these local governments in long-
range planning (rather than waiting for case-by-case section 7 
consultations to occur).

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the 
Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the 
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of the Order. We have proposed designating critical habitat in 
accordance with the provisions of the Act. This proposed rule uses 
standard property descriptions and identifies the primary constituent 
element within the designated areas to assist the public in 
understanding the habitat needs of the lynx.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that 
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule 
will not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or 
local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency 
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, 
a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

    It is our position that, outside the Tenth Circuit, we do not need 
to prepare environmental analyses as defined by the NEPA in connection 
with designating critical habitat under the Act of 1973, as amended. We 
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the 
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This assertion was 
upheld in the courts of the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 
48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore. 1995), cert. denied 116 S. Ct. 698 (1996). 
However, when the range of the species includes States within the Tenth 
Circuit, such as that of the lynx, pursuant to the Tenth Circuit ruling 
in Catron County Board of Commissioners v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 75 F.3d 1429 (10th Cir. 1996), we will undertake a NEPA 
analysis for critical habitat designation and notify the public of the 
availability of the draft environmental assessment for this proposal.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 ``Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,'' and the Department of 
the Interior Manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. Tribal lands in the Maine 
and Minnesota units are included in this proposed designation; however, 
these tribal lands are being considered for removal from final 
designation as critical habitat. The Service requested information from 
Tribes for this proposed rule and has made potentially affected Tribes 
aware of this proposed rule.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is 
available on the Web site http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/lynx/ or upon request from the Field Supervisor, Montana Field 
Office (see ADDRESSES).

Author(s)

    The primary author of this package is the U. S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

    2. In Sec.  17.11(h), revise the entry for ``Lynx, Canada'' under 
``MAMMALS'' to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species                                                    Vertebrate
--------------------------------------------------------                        population where                                  Critical     Special
                                                            Historic range       endangered or         Status      When listed    habitat       rules
           Common name                Scientific name                              threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Mammals
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Lynx, Canada.....................  Lynx canadensis.....  U.S.A. (AK, CO, ID,  CO, ID, ME, MI, MN,  T                       692     17.95(a)     17.40(k)
                                                          ME, MI, MN, MT,      MT, NH, NY, OR,
                                                          NH, NY, OR, PA,      UT, VT, WA, WI, WY.
                                                          UT, VT, WA, WI,
                                                          WY), Canada,
                                                          circumboreal.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. In Sec.  17.95(a), add critical habitat for ``Canada lynx'' in 
the same alphabetical order as this species occurs in Sec.  17.11(h) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

    (a) Mammals.
* * * * *
    Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted on the maps below for the 
following States and counties:
    (i) Idaho: Boundary County;
    (ii) Maine: Aroostook, Franklin, Penobscot, Piscataquis and 
Somerset counties;
    (iii) Minnesota: Cook, Koochiching, Lake, and St. Louis counties;
    (iv) Montana: Flathead, Glacier, Granite, Lake, Lewis and Clark, 
Lincoln, Missoula, Pondera, Powell and Teton counties; and
    (v) Washington: Chelan and Okanogan counties.

[[Page 68314]]

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

    (4) Note: Index map for lynx critical habitat follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 68315]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO05.023

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 68316]]

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

    (ii) Note: Map 1 of Unit 1 (Maine) follows:

[[Page 68317]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO05.024

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 68318]]

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

[[Page 68319]]

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

[[Page 68320]]

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

    (x) Note: Map 2 of Unit 2 (Minnesota) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 68321]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO05.025

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 68322]]

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

[[Page 68323]]

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

[[Page 68324]]

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

[[Page 68325]]

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

    (xx) Note: Map 3 of Unit 3 (Northern Rockies) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 68326]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO05.027

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 68327]]

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

    (iv) Note: Map 4 of Unit 4 (North Cascades) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 68328]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO05.026

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
* * * * *

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