[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 135 (Thursday, July 16, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43732-43772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-14299]
[[Page 43731]]
Vol. 91
Thursday,
No. 135
July 16, 2026
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of
Critical Habitat for the Contiguous U.S. Distinct Population Segment of
the Canada Lynx; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 135 / Thursday, July 16, 2026 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 43732]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2024-0142; FXES1111090FEDR-267-FF09E21000]
RIN 1018-BH59
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised
Designation of Critical Habitat for the Contiguous U.S. Distinct
Population Segment of the Canada Lynx
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), revise the
critical habitat designation for the contiguous U.S. distinct
population segment (DPS) of the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total,
approximately 14,030 square miles (36,340 square kilometers) in
Colorado, Idaho, Montana, and Washington, fall within the boundaries of
the revised critical habitat designation. This revision fulfills our
obligations under a settlement agreement to address issues raised by
the District Court of Montana regarding our 2014 final critical habitat
designation.
DATES: This rule is effective August 17, 2026.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and on the Service's website at https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/A073?. Comments and materials we received are
available for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2024-0142.
Availability of supporting materials: Supporting materials we used
in preparing this rule, such as the species status assessment (SSA)
report addendum, are available on the Service's website at https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/A073?, at https://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2024-0142, or both. For the critical habitat
designation, the coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps
are generated are included in the decision file for this critical
habitat designation and are available at https://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2024-0142 and on the Service's website at https://www.fws.gov/species/canada-lynx-lynx-canadensis.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amity Bass, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana Ecological Services Field Office,
585 Shepard Way, Suite 1, Helena, MT 59601; telephone 406-449-5225.
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in
the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act
(Act), any species that is determined to be threatened or endangered
requires critical habitat to be designated to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable. Designations and revisions of critical
habitat can be completed only by issuing a rule through the
Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).
The contiguous U.S. DPS of the Canada lynx was listed as a
threatened species in 2000. The range of the DPS spans parts of the
States of Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire,
New Mexico, Washington, and Wyoming. We designated critical habitat for
the Canada lynx DPS in 2006 and revised the designation in 2009 and
2014. On November 29, 2024, in response to a settlement agreement, we
published a proposed rule to revise critical habitat for the Canada
lynx DPS.
What this document does. This final rule revises the existing
designation of critical habitat for the threatened contiguous U.S.
Canada lynx DPS. We are revising Canada lynx critical habitat in the
western United States only because this part of the range was the
subject of a 2016 court order that found fault with our 2014 final
critical habitat rule for not designating critical habitat in Colorado
and in five National Forests in Idaho and Montana, and because we have
new scientific information on lynx habitat in the western United
States. We are not making any revisions to existing critical habitat in
Maine and Minnesota.
The basis for our action. Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines
critical habitat as (i) the specific areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, on which are found
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation
of the species and (II) which may require special management
considerations or protections; and (ii) specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed,
upon a determination by the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) that
such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. Section
4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must make the designation
on the basis of the best scientific data available and after taking
into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national
security, and any other relevant impacts of specifying any particular
area as critical habitat.
Previous Federal Actions
Please refer to the proposed critical habitat rule (89 FR 94656)
for the Canada lynx DPS published on November 29, 2024, for a detailed
description of previous Federal actions concerning this species.
Peer Review
On December 1, 2023, a team of Service biologists, in consultation
with recognized lynx and climate experts, completed an addendum to the
2017 SSA report for the Canada lynx DPS (Service 2023, entire). The SSA
report (Service 2017, entire) and addendum (Service 2023, entire)
represent a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data
available concerning the status of the species, including the impacts
of past, present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial)
affecting the species.
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994, (59 FR 34270) and our August 22,
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review in
listing and recovery actions under the Act, we solicited independent
scientific review of the information contained in the Canada lynx SSA
report addendum. We sent the SSA report addendum to five independent
peer reviewers and received five responses. Results of this structured
peer review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2024-0142. We incorporated the results of these
reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which was the foundation
for the proposed rule and this final rule. A summary of the peer review
comments can be found in the proposed rule (89 FR 94656 at 94659,
November 29, 2024).
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule
In the proposed rule published on November 29, 2024, (89 FR 94656)
we announced we were considering
[[Page 43733]]
approximately 594 square miles (mi\2\) (1,541 square kilometers
(km\2\)) for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We considered
excluding all Tribal lands in Montana and New Mexico as well as lands
in Montana, managed in accordance with the Montana Department of
Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) Forested State Trust Lands
Habitat Conservation Plan (Montana DNRC and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2010b, entire), and lands in Washington, managed in accordance
with the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Lynx Habitat
Management Plan for WDNR-managed Lands (WDNR 2006, entire). The
proposed exclusion of Tribal lands in New Mexico no longer applies
because we have determined in this final rule that areas proposed in
New Mexico, including Tribal lands, are not critical habitat. We are
excluding the other areas described above from the final critical
habitat designation.
We also received several comments providing information that
supported excluding additional areas from the final critical habitat
designation because the benefits of excluding additional areas
outweighed the benefits of including the areas. These additional areas
include: State of Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks
(MTFWP) Wildlife management areas (43 mi\2\ (113 km\2\)); and Green
Diamond Resources lands in Montana (7 mi\2\ (18 km\2\)).
In total, we are excluding approximately 625 mi\2\ (1,619 km\2\) of
lands from the final critical habitat designation for the Canada lynx
DPS. Our rationale for each of these exclusions is provided in the
Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section
below.
We have revised the physical and biological features (PBFs) since
the proposed rule for clarity due to public comments received. We have
determined that the following PBFs are essential to the conservation of
the Canada lynx DPS: (1) presence of snowshoe hares that support lynx
residency and reproduction over time within a mosaic of boreal/
subalpine forest structural stages that includes snowshoe hare habitat
with dense horizontal cover at ground- or snow-level; (2) winter
conditions that provide and maintain deep persistent unconsolidated
(fluffy) snow; (3) presence of denning structures, including downed
trees, root wads, and accumulations of coarse woody debris; (4) habitat
types, such as dry forest or meadows, that are between boreal forest
patches and are likely to be used by lynx traveling between those
patches within and among home ranges; and (5) landscapes with suitable
habitat large enough (483 mi\2\ (greater than or equal to 1,250 km\2\))
to support breeding populations. These PBFs describe the most important
needs for Canada lynx at the species level.
In response to public and Federal agency comments, we reviewed and
made changes to the proposed critical habitat units in both the
Southern Rockies (Unit 6) and in the Northern Rockies and Cascades
(Units 3 and 4). These changes, in addition to the exclusions, resulted
in an overall decrease from the proposed rule of 1,041 mi\2\ (2,695
km\2\) in Unit 3, 279 mi\2\ (722 km\2\) in Unit 4, and 2,642mi\2\
(6,842 km\2\) in Unit 6. We also made changes in the Greater
Yellowstone Area (GYA; Unit 5), removing all areas from critical
habitat designation. Changes in Unit 4 were relatively minor; we
adjusted the boundaries to remove a few areas of lower elevation dry
forest that were outside of modeled likely lynx habitat. In Unit 3 we
made some similar minor boundary adjustments, removing some small areas
and also adding in a few areas of likely lynx habitat that is occupied.
The bigger changes in Unit 3 were to remove some smaller polygons that
did not meet the minimum size requirements, including the polygon along
the Montana-Idaho border near Lolo Pass as well as the polygons in the
Selkirk Mountains. Changes in the Southern Rockies were made to align
better with the final data from the Squires et al. 2024 modeling effort
that identified areas of likely and core habitat for lynx in the
Southern Rockies. The revised critical habitat polygons contain the
PBFs for lynx, and they encompass the substantial areas of likely and
core habitat that have supported lynx occupancy and reproduction and
other habitats that provide connectivity between those patches of the
best habitat.
In addition, in the proposed rule we stated that we could not map
critical habitat in sufficient detail to exclude each and every
developed area or other areas that are unlikely to contain the PBFs
essential to the conservation of lynx. Some comments received during
the public comment period requested further detail of the types of
areas excluded by text from the critical habitat designation. Since the
proposed rule, we revised the part of the rule that explains what areas
within the boundaries of critical habitat do not contain the PBFs
essential to the conservation of the lynx DPS and are thus not
considered critical habitat. Those areas include: lands covered by
buildings, houses, pavement, and other structures; paved highways and
roads; active mines and existing mining infrastructure; existing
developed ski runs and tree islands, ski lifts, and associated ski area
infrastructure and buildings; and irrigation infrastructure.
We made minor, nonsubstantive editorial revisions and corrections
throughout this rule to ensure better consistency and to clarify
information.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the proposed rule published on November 29, 2024 (89 FR 94656),
we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the
proposal by January 28, 2025. We also contacted appropriate Federal and
State agencies, Tribal entities, scientific experts and organizations,
and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the
proposal. A newspaper notice inviting general public comment was
published in U.S.A. Today on December 11, 2024. We did not receive any
requests for a public hearing. All substantive information received
during the comment period has either been incorporated directly into
this final critical habitat designation or is addressed below.
Peer Reviewer Comments
As discussed in Peer Review above, we received comments from five
peer reviewers on the draft SSA report addendum. We reviewed all
comments we received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and
new information regarding the contents of the SSA report addendum
(Service 2023, entire). The peer reviewers generally concurred with our
methods and conclusions. The peer reviewers provided additional
information, terminology clarifications, suggestions to explain
uncertainties, clarifications to the explanation of our resiliency
model, and other editorial suggestions. Peer reviewer comments and
suggestions were incorporated as appropriate in the final version of
the SSA report addendum (Service 2023, entire).
Federal Agency Comments
(1) Comment: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) expressed
desire for more precise language regarding areas of non-suitable
habitat that fall within the proposed critical habitat that includes
the exclusion of lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other
structures.
Our response: Given the extensive areas needed to support lynx
populations, and thus the scale at which critical habitat was mapped,
it was impractical to show all areas of
[[Page 43734]]
development, infrastructure, and other areas of non-suitable habitat
that are not included in the designation. Rather, these areas are
excluded by text in regulation at 50 CFR 17.95. We revised our
description of these types of areas within the boundaries of the final
critical habitat designation that lack the PBFs necessary for lynx, to
specify that existing developed areas with buildings, pavement, and
other structures, such as irrigation-related infrastructure, are not
included. We do note that some areas, such as the vegetation
surrounding reservoirs, may provide lynx habitat and should be assessed
on site-specific bases. See Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
below for more information.
(2) Comment: USDA, through a National Forest in Colorado, requested
the Service revise the moving window analysis of the Squires et al.
(2024, entire) model. USDA stated that the Service appears to have used
an arbitrary cutoff that is beyond the 95 percent cutoff that the paper
proposes as likely habitat. USDA stated there is a large amount of
ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), mountain shrublands, mountain
grasslands and dry-mixed conifer forests dominated by ponderosa pine,
Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and white fir (Abies concolor)
vegetation that is being considered as critical habitat for lynx. These
vegetation types do not comprise lynx habitat nor do they provide
habitat for primary or alternate prey species. USDA stated that their
management in these fire adapted vegetation types is to promote forest
conditions that are more resilient to natural disturbances such as
insects, disease, and wildfire. USDA suggested that the designation of
these vegetation types as critical habitat potentially conflicts with
forest management of these vegetation types and has potential to
mislead public interpretation of science-based principles for
management.
Our response: We reviewed the mapping process used by the Western
Lynx Biology Team (WLBT 2022, entire)--an interagency team of
biologists from the Service, Forest Service, National Park Service, and
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The WLBT created tier polygons in the
Southern Rockies based on an earlier draft of the model developed by
Dr. John Squires and his colleagues, and our proposed critical habitat
in the Southern Rockies used the tier 1 polygons from WLBT. The final
model selected for publication (Squires et al. 2024) changed from what
the WLBT used. Upon review of the Squires et al 2024 paper, we became
aware that the WLBT polygons were based on the draft earlier model;
thus, we reviewed the revised published model and revised our critical
habitat polygons using the final published version of the model,
following the WLBT's methods. The final critical habitat polygons for
the Southern Rockies unit contain the physical or biological features
for the Canada lynx and encompass all substantial areas of likely and
core habitat, as well as habitats that provide connectivity in between,
and they encompass the areas that have continued to support persistent
lynx residency and occupancy.
In Colorado, as in other areas, high-quality lynx habitat (e.g.,
mesic, boreal forest types) is often set within a matrix of dry forest
types, rocky peaks, and other habitats that do not provide high-quality
foraging or denning habitat for lynx but are important for connecting
those high-quality lynx habitats to support large enough areas to
provide for an individual lynx's home range. The revised critical
habitat polygons substantially reduce the amount of dry forest types
mentioned by USDA, and more closely map areas of high-probability lynx
habitat. However, some areas of drier forest types, meadows, and
mountain peaks fall within the critical habitat polygons. These areas
may be used by lynx that are traveling within or between home ranges,
and thus they provide connectivity, but they are not likely to contain
habitat for foraging or denning. Vegetation management, fuels
reduction, and other activities in these drier forest and non-boreal
forest patches within the critical habitat polygons may be beneficial
for reducing fire risk to the high-quality lynx habitats.
Lynx are primarily associated with mesic, boreal forest types such
as spruce (Picea spp.) and fir (Abies spp.). Within lynx range in the
western United States, these habitat types are often patchily
distributed within a matrix of drier forest types and other habitats.
Squires et al. (2024, entire) note that the relatively small areas of
``likely'' (i.e., high-quality lynx habitat) and ``core'' habitats were
patchily distributed and spatially limited within a matrix of
``unlikely'' habitat and that the shape of lynx habitat was convoluted
due to the complex mountain topography that dominates the Southern
Rocky Mountains. The critical habitat polygons capture the substantial
areas of ``likely'' and ``core'' habitat, which are the habitats most
likely to be used by resident lynx. The polygons also conservatively
include the areas in between patches of ``likely'' habitat that provide
the connective matrix. This resulted in the critical habitat polygons
including some of the ``unlikely'' habitat in the matrix that connects
patches of ``likely'' lynx habitat. In doing so, the critical habitat
polygons capture broad areas with enough ``likely'' habitat to support
multiple lynx home ranges, while also considering the within-home range
and between-home range connectivity necessary for daily movements and
interactions (e.g., males traveling to multiple female home ranges).
The critical habitat polygons do not capture areas that lynx may travel
on occasion for making exploratory or long-range dispersal movements.
Forest management, fuels reduction, and most other activities
within drier forest types, meadows, and other non-boreal forest types
within the critical habitat polygons are unlikely to affect critical
resources for lynx, such as foraging and denning habitat or winter snow
conditions. The designation of critical habitat does not preclude
forest management practices from occurring but provides assurance that
forest management will not result in the destruction or adverse
modification of the critical habitat at the scale of the entire
critical habitat designation.
Comments From States
(3) Comment: Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MTFWP) supported
the exclusion of lands in Montana that are managed by the Montana
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) from critical
habitat designation. The DNRC has a habitat conservation plan (HCP) and
State administrative rules (MT Admin Rules 36.11.428(4)) that
specifically outline the conservation, monitoring, and management of
lynx and their habitat on DNRC-managed lands. This HCP ensures that
important habitats for lynx will be conserved and managed for the
benefit of the species. MTFWP felt that designation of these areas as
critical habitat will not provide any additional protections or
benefits to the species; however, designating these areas may cause
unneeded restrictions.
Our response: We have excluded lands covered by the Montana DNRC
HCP from the critical habitat designation because the benefits of
excluding them outweigh the benefits of including them as critical
habitat. See Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
below, for our full exclusion analysis of these areas.
(4) Comment: MTFWP commented that their agency has six wildlife
management areas (WMAs; Nevada Lake, North Swan Valley, Fish Creek,
Blackfoot-Clearwater, Marshal Creek, and Bad Rock Canyon) that overlap
[[Page 43735]]
portions of the proposed Canada lynx critical habitat. WMAs in Montana
are managed by MTFWP and have specific plans for each property. These
plans include management strategies to benefit the diversity of
wildlife species and their habitats, including Canada lynx. MTFWP
recommended that the Service exclude WMAs in Montana from the
designation of Canada lynx critical habitat.
Our response: We have excluded WMAs managed by MTFWP from the
critical habitat designation because the benefits of excluding them
outweigh the benefits of including them as critical habitat. See
Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act, below, for
our full exclusion analysis of these areas.
(5) Comment: MTFWP supported the removal of lynx critical habitat
in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) and applauded the Service for
identifying the areas, according to science, that do not support
resident Canada lynx populations or occupancy.
Our response: We removed the GYA from critical habitat designation,
based on the limited ecological capacity of the area to support Canada
lynx, and the historical and contemporary records indicating only
episodic lynx occurrence, not a persistent population occupying the
GYA.
(6) Comment: MTFWP supported the findings from the model presented
in Olson et al. (2021, entire) as the best current model for
designating critical habitat. They also commented that even though the
model may estimate high-quality areas, that does not mean the areas are
occupied by lynx or would support a resident population.
Our response: The Olson et al. (2021) species distribution model
(SDM) was a foundational scientific resource for delineating potential
lynx habitat and was developed using empirical data from verified
detections and radio-collared lynx, making it one of the most robust
and contemporary tools available to the Service.
We agree that areas identified as having high probability of lynx
use in the SDMs represent potential habitat and do not, on their own,
demonstrate current occupancy or assure that an area can support a
resident population. Multiple factors beyond modeled habitat quality-
such as vegetation condition, prey abundance, disturbance history, and
intra- or inter-specific competition--can influence whether lynx are
present in a particular area or able to persist there over time.
Accordingly, while the SDM identifies where habitat capable of
supporting lynx may occur, the Service does not equate modeled habitat
with demonstrated occupancy or confirmed capacity to sustain resident
populations. Instead, occupancy and residency evaluations incorporate
additional information on local conditions, survey data, and other
ecological considerations. We also appreciate the efforts of the states
and other partners to continue conducting scientifically rigorous
surveys and studies of occupancy to inform current and future
evaluations and management for the species.
(7) Comment: Citing recent lynx occupancy surveys conducted in
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, MTFWP stated that neither Idaho nor
Wyoming detected a lynx during the study period (December 1, 2023, to
April 30, 2024). MTFWP suggested that this information contradicts the
Service's statement in the proposed rule that all areas proposed as
critical habitat are occupied, and it does not support the need for
Canada lynx critical habitat designation in northern Idaho or any of
the GYA. MTFWP urged the Service to consider these newest lynx
occupancy survey findings regarding any revision or elimination of
those areas in the final critical habitat designation.
Our response: We reviewed the recent occupancy surveys as well as
other information regarding occupancy and verified records of lynx. We
are not designating any critical habitat in the GYA, in either the
Montana or the Wyoming portions of the area. The contemporary occupancy
survey referenced in this comment, as well as other surveys conducted
for lynx in the GYA, indicate the GYA is not occupied by a persistent
population, and no verified evidence of successful reproduction has
been recorded in decades. Similarly, we are not designating critical
habitat in the Selkirks in Idaho, where the tri-state surveys failed to
detect lynx (see also response to comment 10 below).
All of the critical habitat we are designating in Montana (in Unit
3) was occupied at the time of listing and is currently occupied by
persistent resident populations. The small amount of critical habitat
we are designating in Idaho is part of the Purcell Mountain Range; lynx
occupancy was detected in the Purcell Range in the 2023-2024 surveys,
and the Purcell Range has supported a persistent reproductive
population for many years. Thus, all areas we are designating have had
persistent reproductive populations and verified occupancy, as
evidenced by multiple survey efforts.
(8) Comment: The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)
requested that the Service consider removing the entire existing
operational right-of-way along roads as defined in Federal Highway
Administration regulations (23 U.S.C. 101) under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act from critical habitat. Existing operational right-of-way refers to
the right-of-way that has been disturbed for an existing transportation
facility or is maintained for a transportation purpose. The existing
operational right-of-way is actively maintained by transportation
agencies, and therefore, would not include the PBFs essential to the
conservation of lynx.
Our response: As discussed in Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat, below, paved roads and transportation facilities that fall
within the boundaries of critical habitat do not contain the PBFs
essential to the conservation of lynx and are not considered critical
habitat. Though paved roads and adjacent graveled shoulders do not
contain PBFs, other vegetated sections of operational rights-of-way may
contain habitat features occasionally used by lynx and snowshoe hares
and are included in this designation.
(9) Comment: CDOT expressed concerns about how critical habitat
designation would influence future projects, such as road construction
and maintenance and avalanche mitigation operations. They asked for
clarification on what types or categories of ``road construction and
maintenance'' would be included under the special management
considerations that may be required for critical habitat.
Our response: When designating critical habitat, we assess whether
the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species
at the time of listing contain features which are essential to the
conservation of the species and which may require special management
considerations or protection (see Special Management Considerations or
Protection, below, for more information). As described earlier, some
areas within the boundaries of mapped critical habitat do not contain
the PBFs essential to the conservation of the lynx DPS and are thus not
considered critical habitat. Those areas include paved highways and
roads that would not be subject to the special management
considerations because they do not contain PBFs essential to the
conservation of lynx. However, for projects that impact designated
critical habitat in areas with the PBFs (e.g., road widening or
vegetation removal that affect snowshoe hare densities), the areas of
habitat containing the PBFs may require special management
considerations or protection, although
[[Page 43736]]
these are not requirements. Due to the variable nature of road
construction, maintenance activities, and avalanche mitigation that may
occur across the range of critical habitat, it is not feasible in this
rule to specify which particular activities may or may not adversely
affect critical habitat or warrant additional conservation measures. In
general, paved roads and highways are more likely to result in habitat
loss and fragmentation as they facilitate higher traffic volumes and/or
speeds than smaller unpaved forest roads (Service 2017, pp. 100-102).
The spatial and temporal scale of any activity should be examined, as
well as any design features or specific conservation measures, to
determine whether direct or indirect alteration of habitat would occur
to the extent that the value of critical habitat for the survival and
recovery of lynx would be appreciably diminished. For questions
regarding whether specific activities may constitute adverse effects to
critical habitat, we encourage project proponents and action agencies
to work with the appropriate Ecological Services Field Office (https://www.fws.gov/locations) to determine effects to critical habitat and
ways to minimize them through project design.
(10) Comment: The Idaho Governor's Office of Species Conservation
stated that they believe areas in Idaho are not essential to the
conservation of lynx, and provided the following points as evidence:
(1) limited observations of lynx despite combined lynx-focused camera
survey efforts, camera survey efforts for other forest carnivores, and
camera survey efforts for large carnivores and ungulates; (2)
insufficient predicted habitat to support a breeding population, which
requires a minimum of 483 mi\2\ (1,250 km\2\) as defined in the
proposed rule (based on area alone, the proposed habitat patches could
only support a small number of individuals even if all critical habitat
were fully occupied); (3) even if fully occupied, this area would not
contribute significantly to the population because these proposed areas
are disjunct and peripheral to the larger matrix of modeled high-
quality habitat and are unlikely to meaningfully contribute to
population resilience (Unit 3 Northern Rockies); and (4) proposed areas
in Idaho are peripheral and are not even between areas of known
occupancy or sufficiently large areas of predicted high-quality, but
are unoccupied, habitat. Based on the best available information, the
Idaho Governor's Office of Species Conservation (OSC) suggested that
the Service should not designate any critical habitat in Idaho.
Our response: The final critical habitat designation includes a
small area in northern Idaho that is in the northeast corner of the
state, in an area within the Purcell Mountains. This area is directly
connected to the rest of the mountain range that is located in Montana,
and there is no ecological separation along the state line. The Purcell
Mountains support regular occupancy and reproduction by multiple
individual lynx (Squires et al. 2010, p. 1498; Olson et al. 2021, p.
1669). Survey efforts in the Purcells regularly detect lynx, including
in the portion of the mountain range that falls within Idaho.
We have removed other areas of Idaho, including the Selkirk
Mountains and the area around Lolo Pass from the critical habitat
designation. Both of those areas were included in our proposed rule,
due to being identified as tier 1 polygons by the WLBT. However, upon
closer examination of the best available information, including
information received since the proposed rule, these areas do not meet
the definition of critical habitat. See Summary of Changes From the
Proposed Rule for more information. We note that the Selkirks and the
Lolo Pass area may function as important areas to support intermittent
or even persistent occupancy and reproduction by lynx, peripheral to
the core areas within Unit 3. Although they do not meet the definition
of critical habitat in this designation, we encourage conservation
considerations that preserve or improve conditions that allow these
areas to contribute to lynx conservation.
(11) Comment: The State of Idaho requested exclusion of Idaho State
endowment trust land from the critical habitat designation for the
Canada lynx DPS and challenged the assertion that the proposed critical
habitat is an accurate predictor of lynx distribution and home ranges
in the State.
Our response: The proposed critical habitat included tier 1
polygons in the Selkirk Mountains that overlapped some Idaho State
endowment trust lands. The final designation does not include this area
and thus does not include the Idaho trust lands. As such, it is not
necessary to consider an exclusion.
(12) Comment: The Idaho Governor's Office of Species Conservation
stated the Service should analyze how the addition of critical habitat
will have an economic impact to logging contractors, counties, and
small communities. They also stated that having the additional layer of
critical habitat opens these areas to increased litigation. Adding
additional critical habitat acreage in Idaho increases the liability
for legal challenges on a larger scale. The Service should analyze how
the increase in critical habitat will impact the counties, State and
Federal government's costs related to litigation.
Our response: We developed an incremental effects memorandum (IEM)
considering the probable incremental economic impacts that may result
from this critical habitat designation. The information contained in
our IEM was then used to develop a screening analysis of the probable
effects of the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Canada
lynx DPS (Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc) 2024, entire). We later
revised the screening analysis for the final critical habitat rule (IEc
2026, entire). We considered economic impacts to logging contractors,
counties, and small communities. We did not consider any potential
increase in litigation costs associated with the addition of critical
habitat, as this would be speculative. The analysis found that this
critical habitat rule is unlikely to meet the threshold for an
economically significant rule having an annual effect on the economy on
the of $100 million or more. Designating occupied areas as critical
habitat typically causes little, if any, incremental impacts above and
beyond the impacts of listing the species, as is the case with Canada
lynx DPS.
The public may view critical habitat designation as potentially
resulting in incremental impacts in the form of lower property values;
however, recent analysis of critical habitat property value impacts
indicates that, at a national level on average, critical habitat
designation has little to no effect on values for developed and
undeveloped properties (IEc 2024 and 2026, p. 21, internal citations
omitted). Similarly, the Service recognizes that some segments of the
public see any critical habitat designation as severely limiting
property rights; however, critical habitat designation has no
regulatory effect on private actions on private land that do not
involve Federal approval or action. We recognize that there are private
actions on private lands that involve Federal actions; however, there
should already be section 7 consultations taking place in these
situations. The incremental effects of revising critical habitat for
the Canada lynx DPS are likely to be limited to changes in
administrative effort to evaluate the potential for adverse
modification of Canada lynx DPS critical habitat. See Exclusions Based
on Economic Impacts, below.
(13) Comment: The State of Idaho is concerned that the designation
of Canada lynx critical habitat will devalue
[[Page 43737]]
its recently-acquired land and increase the likelihood that the State
will reduce future purchases of land that might otherwise be developed
or ecologically impaired. The commenter is also concerned about
additional economic losses from new regulatory requirements, including
reduced bidding from purchasers on timber sales because of the seasonal
timber harvest restrictions and transportation and infrastructure
limits.
Our response: See our response to Comment 11, explaining that there
are no state lands included in the final critical habitat designation
in Idaho, which moots some of the concerns. We provide additional
responses here regarding the economic concerns expressed in the
comment. See also our response to Comment 44.
In general, real or perceived regulatory restrictions on land use
can reduce the market value of the land. In the case of critical
habitat for lynx, the Service finds that the rule is unlikely to
generate additional restrictions on land use above and beyond any
restrictions due to the presence of the species and its listing status.
Nonetheless, the perception that additional restrictions may occur can
affect land values. Section 4 of the economic screening analysis
acknowledges that critical habitat may affect property values in
certain circumstances; however, the screening analysis describes that a
comprehensive review and synthesis of the economics literature on this
topic found that the potential for property value impacts is species-
specific and not generalizable to all critical habitat designations
(IEc 2024 and 2026, p. 21). While some studies identify negative
property value effects of critical habitat designation, others find
that critical habitat can positively affect property values, and others
find no effect. Mamun et al. (2023, entire), as cited in the economics
screening memorandum (IEc 2024 and 2026, p. 21), represents the most
comprehensive analysis of critical habitat property value impacts
conducted to date. They found that critical habitat designation has an
average of ``little to no effect'' on values for developed and
undeveloped properties nationally. Nevertheless, the potential for a
critical habitat designation to affect a property's value is species-
specific and is acknowledged as a potential effect of this rule.
(14) Comment: The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
notes that the Service is considering excluding lands in Washington
from the critical habitat designation that are managed in accordance
with the WDNR) Lynx Habitat Management Plan (LHMP) for WDNR-managed
lands (WDNR 2006, entire). WDFW also noted that the WDNR indicated that
implementation and effectiveness monitoring results would be summarized
in biennial reports to the Service and WDFW (WDNR 2006, p. 63) and that
their 2006 plan would be updated as more is learned about lynx habitat
relationships and management strategies through periodic reviews every
five years (WDNR 2006, p. 6). To their knowledge, no such reports have
been produced or shared and, with the exception of a limited-scope
amendment in 2011, the plan has not been updated. Without an update to
the WDNR's 2006 plan, and with no reports on implementation, neither
WDFW nor the Service can make any statements on effectiveness. WDFW
suggests the Service should request the biennial reports and consider
these lands for inclusion in the critical habitat designation.
Our response: We appreciate the concerns outlined by WDFW regarding
the WDNR LHMP. In March 2025, both the Service and WDFW received a
comprehensive report from WDNR on the implementation and effectiveness
of their LHMP. The Service has reviewed the 2025 report and is
currently working with WDFW and WDNR to evaluate the 2006 LHMP to
determine the elements of the plan that warrant updating. WDNR has
committed to completing any updates to the LHMP by 2028 (Crump, in lit.
2025). We appreciate the commitment of the WDNR to manage lands
according to the LHMP and best available science, and we have excluded
lands currently managed under the 2006 WDNR LHMP from the critical
habitat designation because the benefits of excluding them outweigh the
benefits of including them as critical habitat. See Consideration of
Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act, below, for our full exclusion
analysis of these areas.
(15) Comment: WDNR supports the proposed rule including continuing
to exclude lands managed under the 2006 WDNR LHMP from critical habitat
designation. WDNR remains committed to following the LHMP until lynx
are de-listed, or until 2076, whichever is shorter.
Our response: We appreciate the commitment of the WDNR to manage
lands according to the LHMP, and we have excluded lands managed under
WDNR's LHMP from the critical habitat designation because the benefits
of excluding them outweigh the benefits of including them as critical
habitat. See Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
below, for our full exclusion analysis of these areas.
(16) Comment: WDFW stated that establishment of a reintroduced lynx
population in the Kettle Range of Washington could prompt consideration
of a critical habitat designation congruent with the delineation of
critical habitat for the reintroduced lynx population in Colorado (Unit
6 Southern Rockies). WDFW explained that the Kettle Range meets the
ecological needs of lynx and snowshoe hares; thus, there will need to
be an analysis of the success of the reintroduction project to
determine if this area is essential to the conservation of the species.
WDFW requested that the Service consider whether the Kettle Range
warrants inclusion as critical habitat.
Our response: We note that habitat modeling and mapping (Olson et
al. 2021, entire; WLBT 2022, entire) identified roughly 283 mi\2\ (732
km\2\) of lynx habitat in the Kettle Range of northeastern Washington,
where the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Nation and their partners
are attempting to establish a lynx population by translocating lynx
from southern British Columbia, Canada. Based on previously estimated
lynx home range sizes and densities in Washington, that area could
potentially support 10 to 20 lynx; however, the success of this effort
and the ability of the area to support a reproductive population over
time remain uncertain.
The Kettle Range does not contain the minimum 483 mi\2\ (greater
than or equal to 1,250 km\2\) of suitable habitat thought to support a
resilient breeding population of at least 25 lynx, which is the minimum
habitat patch size the Service considered in the draft recovery outline
(Service 2005, p. 5), the recovery plan (Service 2024, p. 35), and the
critical habitat criteria, nor is the area in close proximity to other
larger areas that do support breeding populations. The Kettle Range was
not identified as a focal area in the recovery plan (Service 2024,
entire). We do not consider the Kettle Range to have been occupied by
lynx at the time of listing in 2000 based on historical lynx occurrence
data. As such, to include the Kettle Range in the designation as
unoccupied critical habitat according to the Act, we would have to make
a determination that that area is essential for the conservation of the
species. Although this area may contain some of the PBFs required by
lynx, the area is not essential for the conservation of the Canada lynx
because of its small habitat patch size, distance from other occupied
areas, and the uncertainty of the success of the translocation effort.
As a result, we are not including the Kettle Range in this
[[Page 43738]]
designation. However, the translocation effort, and continued
consideration of habitat management for lynx, may provide additional
areas to support redundancy and resiliency for the DPS as peripheral
area to the core areas designated as critical habitat.
(17) Comment: The Wyoming Game and Fish Department applauds the
Service's decision to substantially remove designated critical habitat
in the GYA. However, because there is still a lack of evidence for a
persistent historical population in the GYA, there is little suitable
habitat present, and two recent survey efforts detected no evidence of
lynx, it is inappropriate for the GYA to contain any designated
critical habitat. Additionally, the State suggests it is unlikely the
GYA will become prime lynx habitat given the effects of climate change,
and the recovery plan is not aimed at increasing lynx populations.
Thus, the Service should allocate its resources towards units already
containing self-sufficient lynx populations.
Our response: See our response to comment 7 above. After reviewing
the best available information, we agree that the GYA does not meet the
statutory definition of critical habitat because it lacks the PBFs
essential to the conservation of the species. Although species
distribution models identify portions of the GYA as potentially
suitable habitat, multiple lines of evidence demonstrate that the area
has not supported a persistent reproductive lynx population. The last
documented instances of reproduction in the GYA include one female that
failed to raise kittens in the Wyoming Range in the late 1990s (Squires
et al. 2003, p. 13) and one female with a kitten on the east side of
Yellowstone Lake in the early 2000s (Murphy et al. 2006, p. 203).
Historical and contemporary records show that lynx use of the GYA has
been intermittent, with no evidence of a persistent breeding
population. Extensive surveys in much of the GYA have failed to
document other instances of reproduction, and surveys in the past
decade have failed to detect any lynx at all.
The inability to support a persistent breeding population of lynx
may be a reflection of naturally marginal and patchy habitats and
relatively low hare abundance in much of the GYA, resulting in only an
intermittent ability of this unit to support resident lynx (Service
2018, p. 47). The absence of a persistent breeding population for at
least the past 30 years indicates that the GYA does not contain the
physical or biological features (PBFs) essential to lynx conservation--
most notably, PBF 1 (the presence of snowshoe hares that support lynx
residency and reproduction over time) and PBF 5 (landscapes large
enough to support breeding populations).
In the proposed rule, we included the tier 1 areas in the GYA
identified by the WLBT in the Wyoming Range and the Union Pass and
Togwotee Pass area. These areas comprise 12 percent of the GYA (as
identified in the SSA; Service 2018, p. 153-158), and are the areas
with the most documented lynx use and predicted habitat in the GYA.
Although Berg et al. (2012, entire) documented relatively high snowshoe
hare densities in the Wyoming Range, compared with those in Yellowstone
National Park (Hodges et al. 2009), this part of the GYA has still not
supported a persistent breeding population. The only documented
reproductive attempt in this area was from a female in the late 1990s
whose kittens did not survive to adulthood; she later died of
starvation (Squires and Oakleaf 2005, Squires et al. 2003). The radio-
collared male present at that same time made multiple long-range
movements out of the area, possibly due to food limitation (Squires and
Oakleaf 2005). Other lynx that briefly occupied the Wyoming Range after
dispersing from their reintroduction sites in Colorado remained only
short periods (all less than a year) before moving on (Ivan 2017, p.
12-36). Surveys in the past decade have not detected any lynx (MT FWP
2024, entire; Abernathy and Cook 2024, entire; J. Wilmot, June 17,
2026, personal communication). Despite the habitat models indicating
potential habitat, the lack of a persistent reproducing lynx population
demonstrates these tier 1 areas do not contain the habitat features
essential for lynx conservation.
We also found no evidence that land management practices are
responsible for the absence of persistent breeding lynx populations in
the GYA. The Wyoming Range and other tier 1 areas have been managed by
the U.S. Forest Service under the same management direction that has
been applied in other areas that support persistent breeding
populations (e.g., Units 3, 4, and 6 managed under the LCAS; ILBT
2013). Despite active conservation measures and sufficient time for
some impacted areas to regenerate into higher-quality post-fire hare
and lynx habitat, lynx have not naturally recolonized this unit, and
reintroduced Colorado lynx that dispersed into the area have not
maintained longterm home ranges or produced kittens (Service 2018, p.
47). Because the best available science shows the GYA does not support
a persistent breeding lynx population and that this area does not
contain the physical and biological features essential to lynx, the
Service has concluded that no portion of the GYA meets the statutory
definition of critical habitat and therefore is not designating
critical habitat in this area.
Although we are not designating critical habitat in the GYA, the
area may provide movement and foraging opportunities during rare
population irruptions or for dispersing individuals. Habitats in the
GYA may retain favorable temperatures and snow conditions for lynx in
the future, though it is unknown if that will translate to the
potential to support resident breeding populations (Service 2023, p.
66-70). Periodic monitoring for lynx, including efforts to detect
multiple individuals and evidence of reproduction, will provide
valuable insight into the area's condition and its ability to support
the species as future conditions change. However, recovery of the DPS
does not rely on establishing a breeding population in the GYA, and all
recovery criteria can be met by existing populations elsewhere (Service
2024, entire).
(18) Comment: The Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office
commented that although the Service was court-ordered to designate
critical habitat in Colorado, the State of Utah does not support the
Service's decision to designate critical habitat in Colorado. The Utah
Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office believes that the inclusion of
those areas punishes proactive conservation efforts and has, and will
continue to, discourage future actions taken by States to restore
species' ranges. Colorado's lynx introductions began just before the
species' listing, and the populations occur primarily on Federal land.
Colorado has invested heavily in lynx introductions and demonstrated a
consistent record of conservation actions for the species. Based on
these actions and the commitments contained in the Conservation Plan
for Canada Lynx in Colorado (Colorado Division of Wildlife 2002,
entire), the Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office stated the
exclusion of Colorado from the critical habitat designations would not
lead to extinction.
Our response: We commend the State of Colorado for the success of
their Canada lynx reintroduction program and contribution to the
conservation of this species. In determining whether we would conduct
an exclusion analysis, we first evaluated whether the proponent of
those exclusions presented credible information to support the
[[Page 43739]]
benefits of excluding these areas. We found Utah Public Lands Policy
Coordinating Office's request to exclude Colorado from the critical
habitat designation did not meet this standard. The Conservation Plan
for Canada Lynx in Colorado referenced in the comment is largely a plan
to minimize take of reintroduced lynx and to ensure success of the
reintroduction program rather than a plan to enact habitat conservation
measures that would benefit lynx habitat in Colorado. We find that the
commenters have not provided credible information that a meaningful
impact may support benefits of excluding these areas from critical
habitat. Therefore, an exclusion analysis was not warranted. We note
that the State of Colorado did not comment on the proposed rule and did
not request an exclusion. In terms of the position that designating
critical habitat would deter future reintroductions of species, we
acknowledge that position but point out that a species reintroduction
does not cause a critical habitat designation.
Although we omitted Colorado from initial critical habitat
designations, a court found that to be inconsistent with the Act and
best available science. In fact, recent modeling (Squires et al. 2024)
has confirmed the presence of the essential physical or biological
features for the Canada lynx. Although beyond the scope of this
rulemaking, we recognize that conservation benefit agreements and other
conservation tools--such as establishing an experimental population
under section 10(j) of the Act--can offer meaningful support to states
and other partners engaged in species restoration efforts. We encourage
individuals interested in reintroduction and restoration efforts to
work with their local Field Office to explore how these tools can best
provide regulatory assurances to support proactive conservation.
Comments From Tribes
(19) Comment: The Jicarilla Apache Nation requests that the Service
exclude the Jicarilla Apache Nation lands from the final designation of
lynx critical habitat.
Our response: We announced in the proposed rule that we were
considering exclusions of Jicarilla Apache Nation lands from the
critical habitat designation because the benefits of excluding them
outweigh the benefits of including them as critical habitat. However,
upon reexamination of the Southern Rockies Unit (Unit 6), we have
determined in this final rule that areas proposed as critical habitat
in New Mexico, including Jicarilla Apache Nation lands, do not meet our
criteria for designation as critical habitat. Thus, there is no need
for an exclusion in the final rule.
(20) Comment: The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho believes areas in Bonner
and Boundary Counties in Idaho should be included in the critical
habitat designation. The habitat in this area appears to meet the
criteria for designation as critical habitat for lynx. The Tribe
expressed support for the revised delineation of critical habitat in
the western United States, particularly the inclusion of areas in the
Northern Rocky Mountains and Southern Rocky Mountains; however, they
urge the Service to continue prioritizing connectivity corridors that
are vital for maintaining genetic diversity and the resilience of lynx
populations, particularly those at the southern periphery of the
species' range.
Our response: Areas in both Bonner and Boundary Counties contain
likely lynx habitat and were included in the proposed rule (89 FR
94656, November 29, 2024). However, only the area of Boundary County
that is within the Purcell Mountains is designated as final critical
habitat. Other areas, including the Selkirk Mountains and part of the
Cabinet Mountains in northern Idaho contain some habitat for lynx and
may play a role in providing peripheral habitat and habitat for
connectivity, but they do not meet the definition of critical habitat.
We acknowledge the importance of connectivity to the conservation of
the Canada lynx DPS. The PBFs essential to the conservation of Canada
lynx we have used to delineate critical habitat include permeable
landscapes conducive to within-unit daily movements and dispersal (see
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat, below).
Public Comments
(21) Comment: Several commenters called for the protection of
connectivity areas between lynx populations, particularly between core
habitat units. Commenters argued that without robust protections in
these areas, the potential for genetic interchange and resilience
against climate impacts may be severely compromised, making populations
more vulnerable to extinction. Some viewed the term ``connectivity'' as
ambiguous, with suggestions to use clearer language regarding lynx
movement and its implications for habitat designation. Commenters
pointed out what they felt were inconsistencies between critical
habitat and scientific studies, especially regarding the GYA. They
argued that the proposed critical habitat did not reflect areas that
are crucial for lynx movement and genetic exchange. There were
suggestions for further research into lynx migration paths, especially
those connecting Canada to the United States, and for these pathways to
be designated as critical habitat to support the species' recovery.
Our response: We considered two main types of connectivity in
relation to the critical habitat units, which roughly encompass the
different lynx populations for the DPS. When evaluating habitat for
those populations, we considered intra-unit connectivity, which refers
to connectivity related to daily movements within a lynx home range
(i.e., an individual walking through an open meadow in between two
stands of dense boreal forest). We also considered inter-unit
connectivity, which regards individuals that move from one critical
habitat unit to another; for example, a lynx that resides in Unit 6
(Southern Rockies) dispersing to Unit 3 (Northern Rockies). Our
response to comment 2 above addresses intra-unit connectivity. The
remainder of this response will focus on inter-unit connectivity.
Areas of mapped lynx habitat outside of the critical habitat
polygons may provide important habitat for individual lynx. Many areas
outside of critical habitat contain likely lynx habitat, or even
moderate-probability habitat, and some of those areas may support
periodic occupancy and/or provide foraging and resting habitat for
dispersing individuals.
Lynx have also been documented dispersing long distances from areas
that support populations, including individuals that roamed widely
after being reintroduced in Colorado and in the Kettle Range (Ivan 2012
and 2017, entire; Piccinini 2026, personal communication), as well as
individuals that have traveled long distances in the GYA (Squires and
Oakleaf 2005, entire), or moved north from Unit 3 (Northern Rockies)
into Canada (Squires 2025, unpublished data). During such movements,
lynx have used a variety of habitat types, occurring intermittently and
temporarily in suboptimal, marginal, and unsuitable habitats that do
not contain the PBFs essential to lynx in enough abundance and
proximity to support reproductive populations of lynx over time. Lynx
are able to find smaller patches of suitable habitat that will support
an individual but not a persistent population. Thus, some habitats
outside of critical habitat polygons may play an important role in
facilitating inter-unit connectivity, but they are not included in
designated critical habitat, as lynx have shown to be adept dispersers
that are capable of using a wider range of habitats for
[[Page 43740]]
dispersal than what they use for residency (Squires 2025, personal
communication March 2025; Ivan 2012 and 2017, entire; Arnold et al.
2025, entire).
Lynx populations in the contiguous Unites State are believed to be
influenced by lynx population dynamics in Canada, and many of the
populations in Canada are directly interconnected with United States
populations. Therefore, retaining connectivity with the larger lynx
population in Canada is thought to be important to ensuring long-term
persistence of lynx populations in the United States. Critical habitat
Units 3 (Northern Rockies) and 4 (North Cascades) are directly
connected to Canada, whereas Units 5 (Greater Yellowstone Area) and 6
(Southern Rockies) are more isolated with swaths of low probability
lynx habitat in between, as well as some areas of moderate or even
smaller amounts of high-quality habitat in certain areas. The WLBT
(2022, entire) identified tier 2 and tier 3 areas as those that may
support connectivity, either by providing habitat for resident animals
and/or providing stepping stones of habitat for dispersers. We do not
want to discredit the value of these areas; however, lynx are wide-
ranging animals with a well-documented ability to make long journeys
across both suitable and unsuitable habitats (Service 2017, p. 40-43;
Interagency Lynx Biology Team (ILBT) 2013, p. 8, Ivan 2012 and 2017,
entire). There is no evidence that human-caused factors have
significantly reduced the ability of lynx to disperse or resulted in
the loss of genetic or demographic interchange (ILBT 2013, p. 34). The
level of diminished connectivity at which DPS populations could be
affected is unknown; however, we have no evidence that current
connectivity between lynx populations in the DPS and those in the core
of the lynx's range are inadequate to maintain the genetic and
demographic health of the DPS population or that this situation is
likely to change in the foreseeable future.
Areas of lynx habitat outside of critical habitat may provide
valuable habitat for individual lynx and for inter-population
connectivity. This is especially true for tier 1 areas not included as
critical habitat and tier 2 and 3 polygons identified by the WLBT, as
well as areas of habitat adjacent to or connecting areas of critical
habitat. Because the species list area for lynx is much broader than
critical habitat, many areas of mapped lynx habitat may still be
considered in section 7 consultations for the species, in which effects
to connectivity and peripheral habitat will be considered.
(22) Comment: Some commenters suggested that the Service include
both ``moderate-'' and ``high-'' quality habitats (as identified in
Olson et al. 2021), or all areas identified as tier 1 and 2 (as
identified in WLBT 2022, entire) in the critical habitat designation to
enhance connectivity and support lynx populations. Many commenters
advocated for expanding the critical habitat designation rather than
reducing it. Specific areas suggested for inclusion included, but are
not limited to, the Mummy and Never Summer Mountain Ranges in Colorado,
the Little Pend Oreille and Salmo Priest landscapes in Washington, the
Bitterroot Mountains and Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest in
Montana, and other areas that may facilitate movement in between areas
of high-quality habitat.
Our response: We considered all of the areas mentioned in comments,
but we did not add any to the final critical habitat designation. This
final critical habitat designation focuses on the areas most capable of
supporting persistent breeding populations, as described in Criteria
Use to Identify Critical Habitat. We relied primarily on the process
developed by WLBT to identify areas large enough and with enough high-
quality habitat to support multiple lynx home ranges. As such, not all
areas modeled as ``moderate'' or ``high'' probability are included in
the critical habitat designation. We also did not include the tier 2
and 3 areas identified by WLBT, since those areas are less naturally
capable of supporting persistent breeding populations. Many of the tier
2 and 3 polygons have very few verified records of lynx occurrences, no
evidence that they ever supported lynx over time, and are not essential
to lynx conservation and recovery. Tier 1 polygons not included in
critical habitat, as well as tier 2 and 3 areas and other areas of
mapped habitat may provide habitat for connectivity, occasional
occupancy, and even occasional reproduction. These areas may contain
some of the PBFs, but do not provide enough habitat in close enough
juxtaposition to support at least 25 individuals; thus they do not
contain landscapes with suitable habitat large enough (483 mi\2\
(greater than or equal to 1,250 km\2\)) to support breeding populations
(i.e., PBF 5).
Finally, in our consideration of additional areas outside of what
we proposed for critical habitat, we made sure to consider the areas
specifically addressed in the 2016 court order from the Montana
District Court, including Colorado and parts of the Beaverhead-
Deerlodge, Bitterroot, Nez Perce, Lolo, and Helena National Forests of
Montana and Idaho. Our decision to include, or not include, Colorado
and portions of those National Forests followed the same rationale
provided above for all other areas suggested by commenters.
(23) Comment: Some comments advocated for the inclusion of Federal,
State, Tribal, and local agencies as cooperating partners in the
critical habitat planning process. Commenters saw this collaboration as
essential for balancing habitat protection with local economic
interests. Commenters stressed the importance of working with local
collaborative groups already engaged in forest resilience projects to
identify and protect critical lynx habitats.
Our response: The Service has worked with multiple partners over
the past 25 years, since lynx were first listed as threatened, to
support and interpret the best available science and information to
guide recovery of the species. In particular, the proposed rule for
critical habitat was built on the foundation of the WLBT (2022, entire)
Framework for Conservation of Canada Lynx, which was an interagency
effort between the majority land managers where lynx habitat is found
in the western United States. An important part of the critical habitat
process was the opportunity for partners and the public to review the
proposed rule and provide comments and relevant information during the
public comment period. We received comments from several States and
Tribes in response to our November 29, 2024, proposed rule (89 FR
94656). See comments 1 through 20 above. The Service then considered
all of the comments received when finalizing the critical habitat
designation. We modified proposed critical habitat as a result of
information provided in those comments. Additionally, the Service works
with partners, particularly the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), which
manages the vast majority of lynx habitat in the western United States,
as well as other landowners (e.g. State trust land managers, willing
private partners) to develop habitat management strategies (e.g. HCPs)
to conserve lynx habitat and work towards recovery of the species.
(24) Comment: We received requests from Mineral and Sanders
Counties in Montana, to exclude several areas, including all USFS lands
in the timber base (i.e., lands identified in National Forest land and
resource management plans, or forest plans, as suitable for timber
harvest). They asserted various reasons for these requests, including:
reducing government processes,
[[Page 43741]]
reducing litigation, a need to provide management flexibility and ease
of administration, economic impacts, and other reasons. Several other
commenters also recommend excluding areas from critical habitat
designation that are currently used for timber production or other
economic activities. They argued that these areas are vital for local
economies and cultural heritage.
Our Response: Much of the designated critical habitat falls within
the suitable timber base on National Forests, and the Forest Service
must consult with the Service regarding any actions that may affect the
critical habitat. Under the Endangered Species Act, the question is not
whether an action causes any adverse effect to critical habitat, but
whether it causes effects that are so substantial that they appreciably
diminish the habitat's ability to support the conservation (survival
and recovery) of the species. Activities may cause limited or temporary
adverse effects to some physical or biological features of critical
habitat without reaching this threshold. Given the need for a mosaic
that includes dense early-successional forests that support snowshoe
hares, some disturbance is needed within lynx critical habitat, which
can come from both natural and anthropogenic causes, including timber
harvest. Therefore, the designation of critical habitat for Canada lynx
does not, by itself, prevent logging.
However, we recognize that a critical habitat designation creates
an increased administrative workload and associated economic impacts.
Within designated critical habitat, Federal agencies must consult with
the Service on any actions that may affect critical habitat.
Consultation already occurs for the species, but critical habitat adds
an additional analysis in consultation workloads.
Consistent with 50 CFR 424.12, our economic screening analysis
considered the probable incremental economic impacts of designating
critical habitat. The Service may rely on this information as part of
the weighing of the benefits of excluding particular areas from
critical habitat against the benefits of including them. As described
in the economic screening analysis, the Service finds that it is
unlikely that critical habitat will change how projects and activities
are managed (IEc 2024 and 2026, entire). Accordingly, additional timber
harvest restrictions are not a probable outcome of the critical habitat
rule, and economic impacts of the designation are limited to relatively
minor administrative costs (IEc 2024 and 2026, entire).
We did not conduct an exclusion analysis for these areas based on
government process requirements or ease of administration because the
commenters did not provide information that there are meaningful
impacts pertaining to these areas, or information that may support the
benefits of excluding these areas. We do not agree with the assertion
that the critical habitat designation conflicts with a need to provide
management flexibility, because critical habitat designation in and of
itself does not dictate or prescribe any management restrictions or
requirements. Most Federal land management agencies have restrictions
in their existing land and resource management plans to conserve the
species (e.g., USFS's 2007 Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction
Final Environmental Impact Statement), but those are actions the land
management agencies determined they would undertake to do their part to
conserve the species, as required under 7(a)(1) of the Act.
Similarly, critical habitat designation has no effect on private
actions on private land that do not involve Federal approval or action,
and even if there is a Federal nexus, critical habitat does not come
with specific restrictions--only the requirement for Federal agencies
to consult and avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat (see also our response to comment 26 below). Thus, we did not
consider the information provided by the commenter to be credible
information that there are meaningful impacts to timber production. We
also did not conduct an exclusion analysis for these areas based on
economic impacts because the commenters did not provide information on
the economic impacts of a designation to consider in an analysis of the
exclusion requests listed here.
(25) Comment: Many commenters emphasized the necessity for further
research on lynx habitat, including the impacts of climate change,
habitat connectivity, and the adaptability of lynx to various
stressors. Specific areas of concern include the habitat requirements
of snowshoe hares and alternative prey species. Commenters contended
that more research is necessary to determine lynx occupancy before
eliminating areas of critical habitat, and expressed concern that we
were not considering areas of refuge and stepping stone areas between
core areas, and that more comprehensive monitoring and surveys must be
conducted in connectivity areas. Some commenters questioned the
adequacy of the data used to support the proposed critical habitat
reductions, suggesting that additional research and consideration of
various habitat models are needed to make informed decisions.
Our response: To ensure that our final determination is based on
the best available information, we conducted a thorough literature
review, as represented in the SSA report (Service 2017, entire) and the
SSA report addendum (Service 2023, entire). We also considered any
literature published after the SSA report addendum and all information
provided to us in public comments. While more research may further
enhance our understanding of the species' needs and refine mapping,
such information is not currently available. Critical habitat
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of
future recovery implementation strategies, HCPs, or other species
conservation planning efforts if new information available at the time
of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
(26) Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that the
designation of critical habitat could lead to increased restrictions on
land use, potentially affecting agricultural and rural residential
properties.
Our response: The designation of critical habitat only affects
activities that involve a Federal permit, license, or funding. Federal
agencies that carry out, fund, or permit activities (i.e., Federal
nexus) on private lands must consider effects to critical habitat. If
there is a Federal nexus for a project that may affect lynx or lynx
habitats associated with agricultural and rural residential properties,
the associated Federal agency must review the actions to determine
whether consultation with the Service is necessary to ensure that these
activities do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. We
recognize that there may be private actions on private lands that
involve Federal permits or funds, and that may trigger the need for the
Federal agency to consult with the Service on those actions; however,
there should already be section 7 consultations taking place in these
situations to consider impacts to lynx and to support a jeopardy
determination in all areas where the species may be present. Since lynx
currently occupy all areas we are designating as critical habitat, the
added consideration of critical habitat is primarily an administrative
effort.
Section 7 consultation is necessary when a Federal agency funds,
authorizes, or carries out an action that may affect critical habitat.
If adverse effects to the critical habitat are
[[Page 43742]]
expected, the Service prepares a biological opinion to determine
whether the proposed action results in destruction or adverse
modification of the critical habitat, meaning effects that are so
substantial that they appreciably diminish the habitat's ability to
support the conservation of the species. If destruction or adverse
modification is not expected, no additional requirements are required,
although the Service may provide voluntary conservation
recommendations. Only if the project is expected to result in
destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat would the
Service require additional conservation measures in the form of a
reasonable and prudent alternative. Based on past section 7
consultations for lynx in designated critical habitat, consultations on
private lands are very rare, and none have resulted in a destruction or
adverse modification determination.
Due to the very small amount of private land in the critical
habitat designation (less than 1 percent), it is unlikely any
activities on private lands would destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. We do not anticipate significant restrictions on otherwise
lawful activities as a result of these consultations, and we expect
little, if any, impacts to private landowners because activities on
private lands will only undergo section 7 consultation if they have a
Federal nexus.
(27) Comment: A comment from the Montezuma County Board of
Commissioners in Colorado requested that the Service exclude all
private lands. The commenter explained that private lands make up only
4 percent of the proposed critical habitat area and most are already
surrounded by protected lands or ``unlikely'' habitat. Private lands
are economically and culturally important to local communities,
especially those that do not have large scale commercial recreation.
The comment further states that, in most cases, future development is
already strictly regulated by local governments for private lands near
large-scale commercial recreation.
Our response: Canada lynx critical habitat would only affect
projects or activities on private lands where there is a Federal nexus,
because section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies to consult with
the Service when there is potential for activities to destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat. Absent critical habitat designation,
projects and activities with a Federal nexus occurring on private lands
within lynx habitat are already subject to section 7 consultation due
to the listing status of the Canada lynx DPS, to ensure those projects
and activities do not adversely affect the species. In developing the
critical habitat rule, the Service considered the potential for
critical habitat to result in different project modifications than
those typically recommended to avoid adverse effects on the species and
found that it would most likely make the same recommendations for
project modification with or without the critical habitat designation.
Therefore, it is unlikely that the critical habitat designation would
result in additional or different project modifications on private
lands above and beyond what would already be recommended due to the
listing status of the species The economic screening analysis found
that the critical habitat designation is unlikely to generate economic
costs beyond minor administrative efforts for projects and activities
with a Federal nexus that require section 7 consultation (IEc 2024 and
2026, entire). Therefore, we are choosing not to exclude private lands
from the critical habitat designation for the Canada lynx DPS.
(28) Comment: Commenters objected to eliminating 88 percent of
critical habitat for the Canada lynx in the GYA, which is already under
stress from human activities including tourism and roadkill incidents.
Commenters also provided citations to historical data regarding lynx
occupancy and population estimates in an effort to show the GYA's
importance to lynx conservation and contended that the GYA was
essential to conservation due to its role in connectivity.
Our response: See our responses to comments 7, 17, and 21, above.
In addition, we reviewed all of the information provided during the
public comment period, information in our records regarding historical
and contemporary lynx use of the GYA and current habitat models. After
reviewing the best available scientific information--including
historical records, recent surveys, and analyses of lynx movement and
habitat use--the Service has determined that no areas within the GYA
meet the statutory definition of critical habitat. Lynx use of the GYA
has been intermittent, with historical occurrences largely reflecting
dispersal events rather than evidence of a persistent population, and
no verified lynx detections have been documented in recent survey
efforts (MT FWP 2024; J. Wilmot, personal communication, 2026; Service
2023, p. 27). The few verified attempts at reproduction by lynx in the
GYA have failed to produce any kittens that survived to adulthood
(Squires and Oakleaf 2005; Ivan 2017).Although lynx have occasionally
moved through or temporarily resided in parts of the region for a few
months to a few years at a time, this limited use does not demonstrate
that the area contains the physical or biological features essential to
lynx conservation, particularly when considering there has not been
verified successful reproduction nor evidence of multiple individuals
occupying home ranges to constitute a resident population.
The recovery plan for lynx (Service 2024, entire) also informed our
determination; although the plan recognizes that portions of the GYA
may function as a potential climate refugium in the future, it does not
identify the GYA as necessary for achieving recovery and does not
recommend establishing a population there as part of the recovery
strategy. While conserving habitat that may provide long-term
resilience is valuable, the potential for future suitability does not
satisfy the statutory criteria for critical habitat today. Because the
GYA neither contains essential features nor plays an essential role in
the species' current conservation, the Service is not designating any
critical habitat within this area.
(29) Comment: We received several comments related to the Kettle
Range in Washington. Commenters argued that this area has a long
history of lynx presence and reproduction, and it is essential for
connectivity between lynx populations in Washington and Canada.
Commenters described the Kettle Range as a core habitat area that
should be included in the critical habitat designation. Commenters
expressed concern with the Service's assertion that the Kettle Range
was unoccupied at the time of listing. They cited evidence from past
reports and scientific studies that confirm the presence of lynx in
this area, arguing that the Service's conclusions are inconsistent with
the best available data.
Our response: The Kettle Range in northeastern Washington
historically supported a lynx population (Stinson 2001, pp. 13-14), and
habitat models indicate the area provides probable habitat for lynx
(Olson et al. 2021, entire). The WLBT identified the Kettle Range as a
tier 1 area, meaning it is a relatively large area of contiguous
habitat with a high abundance of high probability modeled habitat
capable of supporting multiple home ranges (WLBT 2022, p. 23). While
the Kettle Range was a traditional lynx stronghold for fur trappers in
Washington, the population declined to very few by the 1980s. When
critical habitat was designated in 2009 and in 2014, the Service
concluded that the Kettle Range
[[Page 43743]]
was unoccupied at the time of listing in 2000. We reviewed the
information provided by commenters challenging the question of
occupancy at the time of listing. The primary evidence supporting
occupancy at the time of listing came from materials submitted to the
Service by WDFW in response to the 2009 critical habitat designation,
which refuted the Service's reported number of lynx detections.
However, by 2014, WDFW had changed their position relative to lynx
occupancy in the Kettle Range.
The Service's determination that the Kettle Range was unoccupied at
the time of listing was upheld in Wildearth Guardians v. U.S.
Department of the Interior, 205 F. Supp. 3d 1176 (D. Mont 2016). Lynx
surveys conducted over the past few decades detected no to very few
lynx (WDFW 2016, p. 4) until 2021 when the Confederated Tribes of the
Colville Reservation began a lynx reintroduction effort in the Kettle
Range. Many of the individuals released in the area have traveled north
back into Canada, although some have remained in the Kettle Range. The
success of the reintroduction program is still being evaluated. The
best available information continues to suggest that the Kettle Range
was not occupied by a persistent population of lynx at the time of
listing in 2000. In addition, the reintroduction efforts are too recent
to know if lynx will persist in this area into the future.
Regardless of the current occupancy and reintroduction efforts, the
Kettle Range contains some of the PBFs important to lynx, but its
spatial configuration and quantity of habitat do not appear to be
sufficient to provide for the conservation of lynx as we describe in
our response to comment 16, above. We also considered whether the
Kettle Range acts as part of a larger network of habitat with areas to
the north in Canada and/or to the east and west in Washington. The
Kettle Range is substantially more isolated than other habitat areas
within the lynx range, and the area is smaller than the criteria we
established to meet the definition of critical habitat. There has been
no evidence that the Kettle Range supports lynx making east-west
movements into or out of the Kettle Range to connect with other
populations in the Cascades and Northern Rockies. Further, we did not
determine this area is essential to the conservation and recovery of
the DPS, as described in our recovery plan (Service 2024, p. 25),
though we highlighted it as an area that may contribute to the DPS.
Therefore, the Kettle Range was not included as critical habitat for
the above reasons.
(30) Comment: Some commenters thought that critical habitat should
be designated in Oregon.
Our response: In the SSA report, we state that it seems likely that
lynx occurred historically in Oregon only intermittently as dispersers,
or as small, naturally ephemeral populations; not as persistent
resident breeding populations (Service 2017, pp. 43-44). This
assessment is based on a comprehensive, peer-reviewed analysis of
verified historical lynx records that was published at the time the DPS
was listed (McKelvey et al. 2000a, entire) and on research and
monitoring that have occurred since then. We conclude that Oregon has
not historically or recently contributed to the persistence and
conservation of lynx in the DPS and is unlikely to do so in the future
(Service 2017, p. 44). There is no evidence that any areas in Oregon
were occupied at the time of listing or that habitats in Oregon are
capable of supporting resident breeding populations (Service 2017, p.
44). No areas of Oregon were included in the recovery plan for lynx as
being necessary to support recovery goals. Thus, because the state is
unoccupied, does not contain habitat capable of supporting resident
breeding populations, and is not essential for meeting conservation or
recovery goals for the species, we did not designate any areas of
Oregon as critical habitat for lynx.
(31) Comment: Commenters requested a comprehensive National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis to assess the potential
impacts of the proposed rule, including a review of economic costs and
benefits.
Our response: The Department has determined that this agency action
does not require an environmental analysis under NEPA. See National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), below.
(32) Comment: Some commenters were critical of State management
plans, particularly those from Washington and Montana, and stated
current measures may not adequately protect lynx populations. Some
commenters called for a thorough evaluation of existing HCPs to ensure
they provide adequate protections for lynx habitats. These commenters
suggested that exclusions from the critical habitat designation should
only occur if these plans demonstrate stronger conservation measures
than currently identified.
Our response: We reviewed the WDNR LHMP and Montana DNRC HCP, as
well as monitoring reports from both of those agencies (WDNR 2025,
entire; Montana MTDNRC 2025, entire) as well as data showing lynx
regularly use lands covered by the State management plans. The plans
include conservation measures to conserve the PBFs of habitat to
support dense snowshoe hares and to provide a mosaic of structural
stages, which provides protection for lynx populations. These plans
have been in place since 2006 and 2010, respectively, and the affected
State lands continue to be used by resident lynx and contribute to
resiliency of Units 3 (Northern Rockies) and 4 (North Cascades). WDNR
has recently committed to reviewing its LMHP with the Service, and
Montana DNRC meets annually with the Service to review its HCP and
discuss any new science that may need to guide their management. These
commitments are adequate for the Service to have determined that the
plans provide conservation benefits for the species and its habitat,
and the benefits of excluding them outweigh the benefits of including
them as critical habitat. See Consideration of Impacts Under Section
4(b)(2) of the Act, below, for our full exclusion analysis of these
areas.
(33) Comment: Commenters urged the Service to consider historical
range and population data when designating critical habitat, arguing
that many areas deemed ``unoccupied'' may still be essential for lynx
conservation. Many comments referenced historical data on lynx
detections in areas not included in critical habitat. Commenters
presented evidence of past detections and potential populations to
argue for the retention of these areas in the critical habitat
designation. Commenters emphasized the necessity for the Service to
incorporate the best available science, particularly Thornton and
Murray (2024a, entire), which discusses the historical distribution of
lynx.
Our response: The Service has examined instances of lynx detections
on multiple occasions, including in our review of data submitted with
public and agency comments, in the SSA report (Service 2017, entire)
and in previous critical habitat rules. In determining the geographic
area occupied by the species at the time of listing, we used data
providing verified evidence of lynx occurrence. We examined additional
information provided in public comments on the proposed rule, including
Thornton and Murray (2024a, entire) which implies a broad historical
occupancy by lynx and substantial range contractions over the 20th
century. This implication is contrary to the information we present in
the SSA report (Service 2017, entire) and SSA report addendum (Service
2023, entire). Substantial concerns exist
[[Page 43744]]
from other lynx researchers about the Thornton and Murray (2024a,
entire) analysis, including several issues that limit the application
of the paper to lynx conservation, including model design and
validation, extensive extrapolation, ambiguous source data, and
plausibility of the results (Ivan et al. 2024, entire). Given the
extensive concerns about the Thornton and Murray (2024a, entire) paper
(Ivan et al. 2024, entire; also see Thornton and Murray 2024b, entire),
we did not rely on it for evidence of past occupancy of lynx, and join
Ivan et al. (2024, entire) in disagreeing with Thornton and Murray's
characterizations of historical or potential future lynx habitat.
Instead, we relied on verified records (as defined in McKelvey et al.
(2000, entire) and the species distribution models developed by Olson
et al. (2021, entire) and Squires et al. (2024, entire), for indicating
where habitat exists that may support resident lynx, which were
developed using empirical data from collared lynx as well as verified
locations of individual lynx, and thus are more robust and represent
the best available science.
We did not include all areas where lynx have historically been
detected. Lynx are adept dispersers, as evidenced by genetic
connectivity indications (Schwartz et al. 2002, entire) and recent
global positioning system (GPS) collar data (Ivan 2012, entire; Squires
2025, unpublished data; Arnold et al. 2025, entire), such that a single
verified record does not indicate regular occupancy or habitat
suitability. We explain below how we used verified records to determine
areas occupied at the time of listing and the contemporary habitat
models (Olson et al. 2021, entire; Squires et al. 2024, entire) to
indicate where suitable habitat exists to support lynx populations.
None of the unoccupied areas, and very little of the other areas
suggested by commenters fall within areas identified in the recovery
plan (Service 2024, entire). Thus, we did not find reason to designate
unoccupied areas nor all areas within the historical range as critical
habitat because they are not essential for the conservation of the
species.
(34) Comment: Commenters argued that areas like the GYA and
Colorado may offer resilience against climate change and should be
preserved for lynx conservation. Some commenters called for protections
that consider the long-term viability of high-elevation forests, which
are expected to retain suitable habitat conditions longer than lower-
elevation areas.
Our response: In the SSA Addendum (Service 2023, Chapter 6.1) and
recovery plan for lynx (Service 2024, entire), the Service considered
that some high elevation areas in Colorado and parts of the GYA may
retain suitable temperature and climate conditions for lynx longer than
lower elevation portions of the range. These are important
considerations to monitor into the future, but they do not warrant
critical habitat designation in and of themselves.
We are designating critical habitat in some areas of Colorado where
high elevation boreal forests currently contain the physical or
biological features (PBFs) essential to lynx conservation, where lynx
occupancy at the time of listing was documented, and where the PBFs are
present and support a persistent resident reproductive lynx population.
In contrast, although the recovery plan recognizes that parts of the
GYA may function as a potential future climate refugium, it does not
identify the GYA as necessary for achieving recovery, does not
recommend establishing a population there, and current data show that
the area lacks the PBFs necessary to support resident or persistent
lynx populations.
(35) Comment: Commenters called for the Service to clarify our
criteria for determining suitable lynx habitat. Commenters also asked
for clarity on the specific PBFs required for lynx habitat, and how
those PBFs need to be assessed when evaluating project effects to
critical habitat.
Our response: Our determination of suitable lynx habitat and thus
critical habitat designation was based primarily on lynx SDMs developed
by Olson et al. (2021, entire) and Squires et al. (2024, entire) and
refined by the WLBT (2022, entire), with modifications as described in
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat. These SDMs predict areas
likely to be used by lynx, based on primarily abiotic factors
(temperature, moisture) and broad-scale vegetation data. These models
predict areas with environmental conditions that correspond to lynx
occurrence, based primarily on abiotic factors such as temperature and
moisture and broad-scale vegetation characteristics. The SDMs are
necessary to identify large landscapes capable of supporting multiple
overlapping lynx home ranges.
However, the models do not depict fine-scale habitat attributes
known to influence lynx presence and reproduction--specifically
snowshoe hare habitat, denning structures, and snow characteristics--
which we identify as PBFs. Because mapped data for these finer-scale
PBFs are not available at the spatial resolution of lynx home ranges in
the western United States, we used the SDMs as a proxy to identify
areas likely capable of supporting those PBFs. Lynx presence strongly
correlates with the occurrence of these PBFs, and therefore areas
predicted by the SDMs are expected to contain the habitat conditions
essential to the species.
The SDMs strongly correlate high-probability lynx habitat with
areas of high snowshoe hare densities, including a strong alignment
with the Holbrook et al. (2017, entire) model of areas with high
snowshoe hare densities in western Montana and with Hodges et al.
(2009, entire) finding of overall low snowshoe hare densities across
most of Yellowstone National Park. Because snowshoe hare densities are
strongly influenced by dynamic stand structure conditions--such as
horizontal cover, which can be affected by wildfire, forest thinning,
and natural regeneration--these attributes cannot be mapped at a
consistent scale suitable for defining critical habitat.
In response to comments requesting a definition of ``deep, fluffy''
snow, we have revised the PBF for clarity and provide here a functional
explanation of this PBF. These snow conditions are essential because
they confer a competitive advantage to Canada lynx over other
carnivores such as bobcats and coyotes. While snow characteristics vary
across the species' range, we are not aware of a universally accepted
quantitative metric for this feature. However, we qualitatively define
it as primarily unconsolidated (fluffy) snow that is sufficiently deep
to impede predators with higher foot loads than lynx and that persists
for a substantial portion of the year, particularly during winter
months when foraging opportunities are most limited. The SDMs
incorporate temperature and moisture data that serve as proxies for
snowpack characteristics--such as depth, moisture (which affects
compaction), and persistence--thus capturing regional variation in snow
conditions and predicting areas where lynx are likely to be found.
(36) Comment: Some commenters expressed support for excluding
Tribal lands and lands managed by the Montana DNRC and Washington DNR
from lynx critical habitat designation. They argued that existing
management plans and conservation initiatives, such as the Montana DNRC
HCP, already provide adequate protection for lynx and their habitats.
Other commenters expressed concerns about excluding state lands and
urged the Service to carefully evaluate whether those plans provide
adequate protection for the species and its habitat.
[[Page 43745]]
Our response: We evaluated the request and have excluded all Tribal
lands and the Montana DNRC and Washington DNR lands from the final
critical habitat designation, as explained below in the section titled
Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(37) Comment: A timber company requested exclusions for their
northern forestlands around Richards Mountain, citing their management
under the Native Fish HCP and adherence to Sustainable Forestry
Initiative (SFI) standards, which promote sustainable practices and
habitat protection.
Our response: We evaluated the request and have excluded those
lands from the final critical habitat designation, as explained below
in the section titled Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act.
(38) Comment: Commenters commended the Service for using advanced
habitat modeling to refine critical habitat boundaries, emphasizing the
importance of focusing on tier 1 habitats (as documented in WLBT 2022,
entire) that are crucial for lynx occupancy and reproductive success.
Our response: The recent habitat modeling has been foundational to
this critical habitat revision (Olson et al. 2021, entire; Squires et
al. 2024, entire), along with the WLBT (2022, entire) identification of
key habitat areas from the models and the tiered approach to model
outputs by evaluating the extent and proportion of modeled high-quality
habitat.
(39) Comment: A timber company urged the Service to conduct a cost-
benefit analysis regarding the designation of Federal lands as critical
habitat, arguing that the economic costs may outweigh the benefits of
habitat protection. They stressed the importance of maintaining non-
wilderness Federal forests for timber supply and regional economic
health.
Our response: As stated in our response to comment 12, above, we
developed an IEM considering the probable incremental economic impacts
that may result from this designation of critical habitat. The
information contained in our IEM was then used to develop a screening
analysis of the probable economic effects of the designation of
critical habitat for the Canada lynx DPS (IEc 2024 and 2026, entire).
The analysis found that this critical habitat rule is unlikely to meet
the threshold for an economically significant rule as defined in
section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. Designating occupied
areas as critical habitat typically causes little, if any, incremental
impacts above and beyond the impacts of listing the species, as is the
case with lynx. The incremental effects of revising critical habitat
for lynx are likely to be limited to changes in administrative effort
to evaluate the potential for adverse modification of Canada lynx
critical habitat. The economic screening analysis also considers the
potential benefits of designating critical habitat. According to the
analysis, additional efforts to conserve lynx are not predicted. As the
designation is unlikely to lead to additional or different project
modifications and recommendations, no ancillary economic benefits are
anticipated (see Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts, below).
Under the Act, critical habitat serves an important conservation
function by identifying areas essential for the recovery of listed
species and ensuring that federal actions do not destroy or adversely
modify those areas (16 U.S.C. 1536). This designation for lynx provides
several non-economic benefits. Critical habitat helps guide Federal
agencies in project planning and consultation, ensuring that habitat
features vital for species survival and recovery--such as within-
population connectivity and potential foraging areas--are maintained.
Identifying critical habitat also raises awareness of the species'
conservation needs and fosters partnerships among Federal, state,
tribal, and private stakeholders. This can lead to voluntary
conservation measures and improved land-use planning, and it can add
value to areas for conservation initiatives. For example, some
conservation organizations seek to invest in conservation easements or
acquisitions in areas identified as critical to the conservation of
listed species. Other landowners may voluntarily develop habitat
management plans or HCPs in designated critical habitat. This revised
designation helps focus conservation efforts on areas most important
for the species.
(40) Comment: Various commenters requested that ski area lands not
be designated as lynx critical habitat, asserting that these areas do
not represent high-quality lynx habitat and have been managed for
recreation for decades. One commenter representing the Colorado ski
industry requested a comprehensive NEPA process to analyze the impacts
of the proposed designation, particularly regarding ski areas in
Colorado, which they believe should not be classified as critical
habitat due to their long-standing management for recreational use.
Our response: We examined the science regarding ski areas, and
particularly relied upon the Olson et al. (2018, entire) study from
Colorado regarding lynx use of developed ski areas versus areas where
dispersed recreation occurs. The study found that lynx appeared to
avoid high-intensity developed ski resorts, especially when recreation
was most intense; however, lynx did not exhibit strong negative
responses to dispersed recreation and used areas in which little to no
recreation occurred. Because of that research, we determined it was not
appropriate to include developed ski runs and lifts and associated
infrastructure as critical habitat, as specified in the section
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat, below. However, some ski
areas have permit areas or boundaries that extend beyond the existing
developed footprint, where existing recreation is not resulting in lynx
avoidance. These areas still provide habitat for lynx.
The Department has determined that this agency action does not
require an environmental analysis under NEPA. See National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), below.
(41) Comment: Commenters argued that Colorado (Unit 6, Southern
Rockies) does not meet the Act's requirements for critical habitat
designation, noting that much of it was unoccupied when the lynx DPS
was listed and questioning its essentiality for lynx conservation.
Our response: When the Canada lynx DPS was listed in 2000, the
State of Colorado had recently begun a lynx reintroduction effort. As
such, some areas of Colorado that overlap with Unit 6 were occupied
when the DPS was listed, as individual lynx were exploring the new
area. Over the past 25 years, lynx have settled into certain areas that
are regularly occupied and where the habitat has proven to support a
persistent breeding population. In the recovery plan, we identified
Unit 6, particularly the focal areas, as being essential for recovery
(Service 2024, p. 22), and these areas meet the definition of critical
habitat. The areas we are designating as critical habitat are a subset
of the focal areas, are centered around the concentrated areas of
likely habitat, and are large enough to support population goals
outlined in the recovery plan. Other areas of potential lynx habitat in
Colorado may be important for supporting connectivity, exploratory
movements, or occasional occupancy, but do not meet the definition of
critical habitat in this rule.
(42) Comment: Citing economic implications and lack of habitat, a
mining company requested the exclusion from critical habitat
designation of their private lands in
[[Page 43746]]
Colorado related to the Climax and Henderson mines.
Our response: In determining our response to this request, we first
considered the commenter's claim that the areas associated with the
mines do not provide habitat for lynx. In evaluating the areas using
aerial imagery and lynx habitat maps, we observed some areas have been
developed and no vegetation exists (i.e., mine pits and associated
infrastructure). These developed areas are already excluded from
critical habitat by text in the rule. However, in other portions of the
properties, forested vegetation exists, and some is mapped as potential
habitat for lynx, and/or it may provide habitat to facilitate within-
unit permeability and connectivity and there has been evidence of lynx
use of forested areas adjacent to the mines in recent years (Baigas et
al. 2017, p. 206). Thus, there is biological value in parts of the
lands in question. Next, we evaluated whether the proponent of those
exclusions presented credible information of a meaningful impact that
supports the benefits of excluding these areas outweighing the benefits
of including these areas. We found that the request did not provide
credible information and the asserted costs and economic impacts are
based on a misunderstanding that critical habitat designation restricts
activities on private lands that would impede any future development or
activities associated with the mines, which it does not.
As described in the economic screening analysis (IEc 2024 and 2026,
entire), one of the purposes of the assessment is to provide the
Service with information necessary to inform its decision making as
part of the section 4(b)(2) exclusion process. The economic screening
analysis finds that critical habitat designation is unlikely to
generate economic costs beyond minor administrative efforts for
projects and activities with a Federal nexus that require section 7
consultation. If future actions on the mine properties are being
authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal agency, such as the
surrounding National Forests, the Federal agency must consider the
impacts to designated critical habitat and ensure the action does not
destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat. We encourage private
landowners to consider conservation measures that may retain the value
of the habitat for lynx when developing future projects.
(43) Comment: Some commenters opposed the exclusion of Tribal and
State lands from critical habitat protections. Commenters advocated for
partnerships with Tribal and State leaders to co-manage lands that are
essential for lynx habitat rather than excluding them.
Our response: The Secretary may exclude any area from critical
habitat if the benefits of exclusion outweigh those of inclusion, so
long as exclusion will not result in extinction of the species
concerned. In this rule, we have excluded some Tribal and State lands
from the final critical habitat designation. These exclusions represent
existing partnerships and management objectives that benefit the
species. See Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
below, for further explanation of why exclusion of these areas
outweighs the benefits of including them in critical habitat.
(44) Comment: Several commenters expressed concerns about how
critical habitat designation could curtail forest management, timber
production, and fuels reduction activities. Others worried that the
absence of critical habitat designation could lead to increased logging
or thinning in lynx habitat.
Our response: A critical habitat designation does not by itself
impose specific restrictions or forest management requirements unless a
proposed action would result in the destruction or adverse modification
(DAM) of the critical habitat. If the Service determines that a
proposed action would cause DAM, the Service must develop a Reasonable
and Prudent Alternative (RPA) to the proposed action. The RPA would
include additional conservation measures necessary to avoid DAM.
Of the 157 formal consultations reviewed from 2018 through 2024,
most of which were forest management and fuels reduction project, none
resulted in a DAM determination. In fact, since critical habitat was
first designated for lynx in 2006, no proposed action has resulted in
DAM or required an RPA. When evaluating Forest Service and BLM land
management plans that incorporate the Lynx Conservation Assessment and
Strategy (LCAS) and/or have been revised to include Northern Rockies
Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD) or Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment
(SRLA) standards, guidelines, and objectives, the Service has
consistently determined in both plan-level and project-level biological
opinions that these conservation measures are sufficient to avoid
jeopardy to the species and DAM where critical habitat is designated.
Most of these existing plans include allowances for timber harvest and
fuels reduction within lynx habitat in certain structural stages and
allow for treatment of all structural stages within the wildland urban
interface. Forest management and fuel reduction projects proposed under
current land management plan direction have incorporated adequate
restrictions to avoid jeopardy to the species, under current
conditions. Additional considerations for critical habitat have
provided redundancy without imposing further restrictions.
The effects of timber harvest depend on the size, scale, and
spatial arrangement of treatments. When used judiciously and at scales
biologically relevant to lynx, logging and other forest management
tools are an important part of managing critical habitat. The Lynx
Conservation Assessment and Strategy (ILBT 2013) recommends using fire
and mechanical treatments to maintain or create a mosaic of
successional stages within lynx habitat and recommends focusing
treatments in areas that have the potential to improve snowshoe hare
habitat by developing dense horizontal cover. Existing forest
management plans, such as the NRLMD (USFS 2007) and SRLA (USFS 2008),
already provide sideboards for timber harvest in lynx habitat,
regardless of critical habitat designation. We anticipate that this
designation will not impose additional restrictions beyond those
already in place to avoid jeopardy to the species.
Lynx habitat conservation can include forest management, including
timber harvest, as a tool for creating and maintaining valuable
structural stages to support foraging, denning, and other needs. The
LCAS includes a conservation measure for vegetation management in lynx
habitat that provides a ``mosaic that includes dense early-successional
coniferous and mixed-coniferous-deciduous stands, along with a
component of mature multi-story coniferous stands to produce the
desired snowshoe hare density'' at spatial scales approximately the
size of female lynx home ranges (ILBT 2013, p. 90-91). The WLBT
Framework synthesized additional science that was published since the
LCAS and included recommendations for vegetation mosaics based on
published scientific literature (e.g., Kosterman et al. 2018, Holbrook
et al. 2017 and 2019). Such a mosaic can be created by using such tools
as prescribed fire, mechanical vegetation treatments, and natural
disturbances, among others. The LCAS and WLBT documents are useful
tools for guiding conservation measures within lynx critical habitat
and informing effects analyses in Section 7 consultations. However, we
also acknowledge that the WLBT Framework is not a comprehensive lynx
conservation strategy and does not
[[Page 43747]]
incorporate all vegetation designations needed for applied forest
management, wildfire risk reduction, and lynx conservation decision-
making. We encourage action agencies, landowners, and others to
consider these recommendations, alongside other relevant science on
lynx, forest management and fire risk, and other best available
vegetation information, when developing projects and management
strategies within lynx critical habitat.
Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features.
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e.,
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g.,
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically,
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that each Federal action agency ensure, in
consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or
carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated 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 also does not allow the government or public to access
private lands. Such designation does not require implementation of
restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by non-Federal
landowners. Rather, designation requires that, where a landowner
requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may
affect an area designated as critical habitat, the Federal agency
consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the
action may affect the listed species itself (such as for occupied
critical habitat), the Federal agency would have already been required
to consult with the Service even absent the designation because of the
requirement to ensure that the action is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the species. Even if the Service were to
conclude after consultation that the proposed activity is likely to
result in destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat,
the Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon
the proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead,
they must implement ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific data available, those physical or biological features that
are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food,
cover, and protected habitat).
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate critical
habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available. Further,
our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act
(published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the
Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554;
H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide
criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our
decisions are based on the best scientific data available. They require
our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use
of the best scientific data available, to use primary and original
sources of information as the basis for recommendations to designate
critical habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information compiled in the SSA report and information developed during
the listing process for the species. Additional information sources may
include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline
that may have been developed for the species; 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; other unpublished materials; or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species; and (3) the prohibitions found in the 4(d) rule. Federally
funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside their
designated critical habitat areas may
[[Page 43748]]
still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and
conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of the
species. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of
the best scientific data available at the time of designation will not
control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, HCPs, or
other species conservation planning efforts if new information
available at the time of those planning efforts calls for a different
outcome.
Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the
Species
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate as
critical habitat from within the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, we consider the physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and
which may require special management considerations or protection. The
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species'' as the features that
occur in specific areas and that are essential to support the life-
history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water
characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey,
vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a
single habitat characteristic or a more complex combination of habitat
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity. For example,
physical features essential to the conservation of the species might
include gravel of a particular size required for spawning, alkaline
soil for seed germination, protective cover for migration, or
susceptibility to flooding or fire that maintains necessary early-
successional habitat characteristics. Biological features might include
prey species, forage grasses, specific kinds or ages of trees for
roosting or nesting, symbiotic fungi, or absence of a particular level
of nonnative species consistent with conservation needs of the listed
species. The features may also be combinations of habitat
characteristics and may encompass the relationship between
characteristics or the necessary amount of a characteristic essential
to support the life history of the species.
In considering whether features are essential to the conservation
of the species, we may consider an appropriate quality, quantity, and
spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat characteristics in the
context of the life-history needs, condition, and status of the
species. These characteristics 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, or
rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats that are protected
from disturbance.
Species Needs, Habitat, Ecological Requirements
A comprehensive review of the species description, biology,
taxonomy, genetics, life history, ecology, distribution, species needs,
habitat, and ecological requirements of the Canada lynx DPS is
presented in the SSA report (Service 2017, entire) and SSA report
addendum (Service 2023, entire). Here we present a summary of
information relevant to the PBFs essential to the conservation of lynx.
The Canada lynx is a North American wild cat that is most strongly
associated with northern-latitude boreal forests (e.g., taiga) of
Canada and Alaska (McCord and Cardoza 1982, p. 729; Agee 2000, pp. 39-
41; Aubry et al. 2000, pp. 373-374; Mowat et al. 2000, p. 272). The
southern peripheries of the boreal forest and lynx range extend into
the northern contiguous United States. The lynx is a medium-sized cat
with long legs and large, well-furred paws, which make it well-adapted
for traversing and hunting in deep, unconsolidated snow. Its low foot-
loading (weight per surface area of foot) is thought to provide a
competitive advantage (Buskirk et al. 2000a, p. 90; Buskirk et al.
2000b, p. 400; ILBT 2013, pp. 26, 36, 81) over other terrestrial
predators of snowshoe hare, the lynx's primary prey.
Lynx rely heavily on snowshoe hares to support survival,
reproduction, recruitment, and therefore, population persistence
(Ruggiero et al. 2000a, p. 110; Mowat et al. 2000, p. 270; Steury and
Murray 2004, pp. 128, 136-138; Service 2005, p. 2; ILBT 2013, p. 30-34;
79 FR 54782, September 12, 2014). All aspects of lynx life history are
inextricably tied to the snowshoe hare, which comprises most of the
lynx diet throughout its range (Nellis et al. 1972, pp. 323-325; Brand
et al. 1976, pp. 422-425; Koehler and Aubry 1994, pp. 75, 85; Apps
2000, pp. 358-359, 363; Aubry et al. 2000, pp. 375-378; Mowat et al.
2000, pp. 267-268), including the DPS (Koehler 1990, p. 848; von
Kienast 2003, pp. 37-38; ; Moen 2009, p. 7; Vashon et al. 2012, p. 11;
Olson 2015, pp. 60-69; Ivan and Shenk 2016, p. 1053). Being highly
specialized hare predators, lynx require landscapes that consistently
support relatively high hare densities (McCord and Cardoza 1982, p.
744; Quinn and Parker 1987, pp. 684-685; Aubry et al. 2000, pp. 375-
378).
The best available science, including recent research in the lynx
DPS' range, suggest that landscape-level snowshoe hare densities that
are consistently greater than 0.2 hares/acre (0.5 hares/hectare) and
have favorable snow conditions, that is, deep and persistent
unconsolidated (``fluffy'') snow, for about 4 months per year are
needed to support lynx occupancy, reproduction, and recruitment (Hoving
et al. 2005, p. 749; Gonzalez et al. 2007, p. 7; Squires and Ruggiero
2007, pp. 313-314; Moenand Windels 2012, pp. 352-354; Simons-Legaard et
al. 2013, pp. 567, 574-575). At the southern periphery of lynx
distribution, some places, including within the range of the DPS, seem
to be at minimum thresholds to meet these requirements or do so
inconsistently.
Lynx and snowshoe hares are strongly associated with moist boreal
forests, where winters are long, cold, and snowy (Bittner and Rongstad
1982, p. 154; McCord and Cardoza 1982, p. 743; Quinn and Parker 1987,
pp. 684-685; Agee 2000, pp. 39-47; Aubry et al. 2000, pp. 373-382;
Hodges 2000a, pp. 183-191; Hodges 2000b, pp. 136-140; McKelvey et al.
2000a, pp. 211-232). The predominant vegetation of boreal forest is
conifer trees, primarily species of spruce and fir (Picea spp. and
Abies spp., respectively; Elliot-Fisk 1988, pp. 34-35, 37-42). Snowshoe
hares feed on conifers, deciduous trees, and shrubs (Hodges 2000a, pp.
181-183) and 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, pp. 665-669; Litvaitis et al. 1985,
pp. 869-872; Hodges 2000a, pp. 183-195; Hodges 2000b, pp. 136-140).
Lynx population dynamics, survival, and reproduction are closely tied
to snowshoe hare availability, making snowshoe hare habitat the primary
component of lynx habitat.
Lynx distribution and population persistence are also influenced by
snow conditions (Peers et al. 2012, pp. 4-9). The species is generally
restricted to areas that receive deep and persistent unconsolidated
snow, which is thought to allow lynx to outcompete other terrestrial
hare predators that are less efficient in such conditions because of
[[Page 43749]]
their proportionately longer limbs and very large feet (McCord and
Cardoza 1982, pp. 748-749; Quinn and Parker 1987, p. 684; Buskirk et
al. 2000a, pp. 89-94; Buskirk et al. 2000b, pp. 400-401; Ruggiero et
al. 2000b, pp. 445-449; Hoving 2001, p. 75; Hoving et al. 2005, pp.
744-749; Carroll 2007, entire; Gonzalez et al. 2007, entire; ILBT 2013,
pp. 25-26; 79 FR 54782). The lynx's physical adaptations (i.e., long
legs and large, well-furred paws) are thought to provide the lynx a
seasonal advantage over potential terrestrial competitors and
predators, which generally have higher foot-loading, causing them to
sink into the snow more than the lynx (McCord and Cardoza 1982, p. 748;
Murray and Boutin 1991, entire; Buskirk et al. 2000a, pp. 86-95;
Ruediger et al. 2000, pp. 1-11; Ruggiero et al. 2000b, pp. 445, 450).
Buskirk et al. (2000a, entire) described potential exploitation
(for food) and interference (avoidance) competition between lynx and
other terrestrial and avian predators of hares, several of which have
also been documented to prey on lynx. Coyotes (Canis latrans) were
thought most likely to exert local or regionally important exploitation
competition impacts to lynx (Buskirk et al. 2000a, p. 89); however,
subsequent research showed an insignificant amount of competition for
hares between lynx and coyotes in winter (Kolbe et al. 2007, p. 1416;
Dowd and Gese 2012, entire; Guillaumet et al. 2015, pp. 141-144), and
evidence of competition with, and displacement of lynx by, bobcats
(Lynx rufus) (Robinson 2006, pp. 120-129; Peers et al. 2012, pp. 4-9;
Peers et al. 2013, entire; Sir[eacute]n et al. 2021, p. 1768;
Sir[eacute]n et al. 2022, pp. 761-762). Coyotes, bobcats, and cougars
(Puma concolor; also, mountain lion) are capable of imparting
interference competition (i.e., aggressive encounters) effects on lynx
(Buskirk et al. 2000a, p. 89; Scully et al. 2018, pp. 765-766; King et
al. 2020, p. 338). Interference would most likely occur during summer
but could also occur during winter in areas lacking deep,
unconsolidated snow (ILBT 2013, p. 36).
Individual lynx require large landscapes with hare densities that
maximize their chances of (1) surviving from birth to independence, (2)
establishing and maintaining a home range, (3) breeding successfully,
and (4) contributing genes to future generations (Breitenmoser et al.
1993, p. 552). These landscapes also must provide conditions that allow
lynx to compete sufficiently for hares and minimize the likelihood of
predation and other sources of lynx mortality.
Lynx populations need large (thousands of km\2\) boreal forest
landscapes with hare densities capable of supporting (1) multiple lynx
home ranges, (2) reproduction and recruitment most years, and (3) at
least some survival, even during years when hare numbers are low. Lynx
populations estimated at fewer than 25 individuals or occupying habitat
areas too small to support at least 25 individual lynx (less than 483
mi\2\ (1,250 km\2\)) are considered ``not resilient/functionally
extirpated'' because populations that small are unlikely to persist
over time (Service 2023, pp. 50-51). Small populations are more
vulnerable to catastrophic events, such as disease outbreaks or large
wildfires that can affect multiple home ranges. At the periphery of the
species' range, source-sink dynamics within a metapopulation structure
mean that some populations may be naturally ephemeral (Service 2023, p.
58): smaller populations or individuals may occupy limited habitat for
a time, then disappear, a pattern observed within the lynx DPS. While
the overall contribution of these smaller habitat areas to
metapopulation dynamics is not fully understood, they may play
important roles in dispersal, range expansion, and demographic
connectivity. However, core areas for the species are those with enough
high-capability habitat to support resilient populations. Habitat
patches of at least 483 mi\2\ (1,250 km\2\) are critical for providing
the redundancy, resiliency, and representation needed for recovery
across the DPS (Service 2024, p. 14).
Large boreal forest landscapes also must have snow conditions
(consistency, depth, and duration) that allow lynx to outcompete other
terrestrial hare predators. To persist, lynx populations must exhibit
recruitment and immigration rates that equal or exceed mortality and
emigration rates on average over the long term. Immigration may be
particularly important to the persistence and stability of lynx
populations at the southern periphery of the range, including those
within the DPS, where hare densities are generally low and hare
populations are either non-cyclic or weakly-cyclic compared to northern
populations. Low hare densities reduce the likelihood that lynx
recruitment will consistently equal or exceed mortality. Non-cyclic or
weakly-cyclic hare populations are unlikely to allow the rapid lynx
population recovery observed in northern lynx populations outside of
the DPS when hare numbers increase dramatically after cyclic population
crashes. Conversely, more stable hare populations, even at lower
landscape-level densities, likely provide stability (i.e., prevent
periodic steep declines) among lynx populations on the periphery of the
DPS' range and southern Canada. Although immigration rates for DPS
populations are unknown, as is the rate and periodicity of immigration
needed to provide demographic stability among them, connectivity with,
and immigration from, lynx populations in Canada are believed to be
important to the persistence of lynx populations in the DPS (McKelvey
et al. 2000a, pp. 232-242; McKelvey et al. 2000b, pp. 32-34; Schwartz
et al. 2002, entire; Service 2005, p. 2; ILBT 2013, pp. 34, 42, 47, 54,
60, 65; Squires et al. 2013, p. 187; 79 FR 54782). Genetic data
indicate that north-south movement renders the contiguous U.S. and
Canada populations panmictic (Schwartz et al. 2002, entire), indicating
a strong propensity for lynx to make north-south movements; however,
telemetry data from marked individuals to date exhibit few east-west
dispersals between populations (Olson et al. 2021, p. 1669; Ivan 2012
and 2017, entire).
Lynx are highly vagile, capable of moving long distances (several
thousand km) over varied terrain and through a wide range of habitats,
and they are even capable swimmers. As such, there are likely few
complete barriers to dispersal or exploratory movements (Arnold et al.
2025, p. 1577; Ivan 2012, entire; Squires 2025, unpublished data),
which genetic research supports, given high gene flow (Service 2017, p.
24-25, internal citations omitted). Within home ranges, however,
residents are less tolerant of poor-quality habitats and rugged
terrain. Natural features such as rivers and rocky peaks, as well as
anthropogenic features such as highways and railways and residential
developments, may be navigable but they create more challenges for
individuals by increasing exposure, mortality risk, and energetic
requirements (Service 2017, p. 100-102). Changes to vegetation
structure can influence lynx movements within home ranges; in Montana,
fragmentation from forest thinning decreased the probability of lynx
movements across the forested landscape (Squires et al. 2013, p. 192).
Lynx in the Northern Rockies also seem sensitive to changes in forest
structure and avoid large forest openings like recent clearcuts and
thinned areas, particularly in winter (Squires et al. 2010, p. 1654).
Kosterman et al. (2018, entire) suggested that mature forest in a
connected configuration creates an energetically efficient context for
Canada lynx to
[[Page 43750]]
acquire snowshoe hares and successfully reproduce. While no single
feature typically prevents movement outright, the accumulation of
natural and human-generated barriers can fragment boreal forest habitat
within an individual's home range. This fragmentation can raise
energetic costs, reduce access to high-quality foraging and denning
areas, and thereby affect overall fitness, reproductive success, and
survival.
Lynx dens have been documented in both mature and younger boreal
forest stands and the amount of structure (e.g., downed trees; large,
woody debris; tip-up mounds) seems to be more important than the age of
the forest stand for lynx denning habitat (Service 2017, p. 29,
internal citations omitted). Denning habitat is not thought to be a
limiting factor for lynx in the DPS, given the abundance of denning
structures in dense boreal forest stands. Management actions that
maintain coarse woody debris in areas occupied by lynx, such as leaving
large-diameter logs in piled configurations or by retaining patches of
dense burned forests that will windthrow over time, may provide future
den sites as managed or burned stands regenerate (Squires et al. 2008,
p. 1505).
The greatest challenges to the long-term viability of the DPS
include projected warming and drought-related impacts (e.g., loss of
temperature, snow, and vegetation conditions supportive of lynx
populations) and increases in the size, frequency, and severity of
wildfires and vegetation-damaging insect outbreaks in lynx habitats.
Modeled future warming is projected to cause a gradual but steady
decline in lynx habitat distribution and quality of all focal areas and
thus, a reduction in their ability to support persistent breeding
populations in the future (Service 2023, p. 5). Large forest
disturbances, such as wildfire, may influence how a landscape can
produce sufficient hare densities, with some areas taking long periods
of time for forest recovery, while other areas respond within a few
decades to provide high-quality lynx foraging and denning habitat. The
pace and scale of wildfires and other natural and anthropogenic
disturbances within the SSA units in the future will strongly influence
the DPS. Strategic forest management and fuels reduction within lynx
critical habitat can ensure a mosaic of lynx habitat with abundant
foraging for individuals while also reducing the risks of catastrophic
wildfire that can negatively affect lynx as well as human
infrastructure in the wildland urban interface. Thus, a special
management consideration for lynx critical habitat should include
updated strategies for incorporating the best available scientific
information into management plans that manage proactively for desired
mosaics and fuels reduction at spatial scales relevant to individual
lynx within the critical habitat units.
Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of Canada lynx from studies of the species' habitat,
ecology, and life history as described below. Additional information
can be found in the 2014 final critical habitat rule (79 FR 54782,
September 12, 2014), the 2017 SSA report (Service 2017, entire), and
the SSA report addendum (Service 2023, entire); available on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2024-0142.
We have determined that the following PBFs are essential to the
conservation of the Canada lynx DPS:
(1) Presence of snowshoe hares that support lynx residency and
reproduction over time within a mosaic of boreal/subalpine forest
structural stages that includes snowshoe hare habitat with dense
horizontal cover at ground- or snow-level.
(2) Winter conditions that provide and maintain deep persistent
unconsolidated (fluffy) snow.
(3) Presence of denning structures, including downed trees, root
wads, and accumulations of coarse woody debris.
(4) Habitat types, such as dry forest or meadows, that are between
boreal forest patches and are likely to be used by lynx traveling
between those patches within and among home ranges.
(5) Landscapes with suitable habitat large enough (483 mi\2\
(greater than or equal to 1,250 km\2\)) to support breeding
populations.
The PBFs identified above are those that are known to be important
to lynx conservation based on decades of lynx research (as summarized
in Service 2017, entire). The PBFs work in concert with one another,
and must be present in the right amounts and juxtaposition to be able
to support lynx in their various functions. We focused our
identification of critical habitat on those areas where the PBFs are
likely to occur in enough quantity and proximity to support persistent,
breeding populations of lynx. The scientific literature does not confer
precisely what quantities and spatial arrangements of the physical and
biological features are needed to support lynx populations throughout
the range of the DPS. However, we find that evidence of breeding
populations is the best way to verify that the physical and biological
features essential to lynx are present in sufficient quantity and
spatial configuration to meet the needs of the species.
Because mapping has not been conducted to assess each of the PBFs
at the scale of the lynx range in the western United States, we chose
to use a proxy to identify areas with the PBFs that can support
persistent resident breeding populations. We found the best proxy for
identifying those PBFs was using the SDMs created by Olson et al.
(2021, entire) and Squires et al. (2024, entire), and refined by the
WLBT (2022, entire). The SDMs were based on GPS locations from collared
lynx in reproductive populations in Montana, Washington, Wyoming, and
Colorado, respectively. This proxy was appropriate because research has
shown that lynx employ multi-scale selection of habitats by first
choosing landscapes where the PBFs are abundant and then choosing home
ranges within those larger landscapes that have appropriate amounts of
snow depth, snowshoe hare occupancy, and boreal forest (Holbrook et al.
2017, entire). Within home ranges, lynx preferentially use stands with
certain structural conditions that support high hare densities. The
SDMs predict lynx habitat probability based on primarily abiotic
factors (e.g., temperature and moisture) as well as forest
productivity. It is highly probable these three covariates are proxies
for snow amount, duration, density, and consistency that give lynx a
sufficiently long seasonal competitive advantage in hunting their
primary prey species, snowshoe hares, over other terrestrial hare
predators (e.g., bobcats and coyotes). These variables also likely
influence hare populations and density, and, by extension, lynx, which
are indirectly reliant on the environmental conditions that favor hares
(Service 2023, p. 61). The attributes that explained the lynx locations
were then extrapolated across the western United States to identify
potential habitats in all areas, regardless of current vegetation
structure (i.e., regardless of whether forests are dense or if they
have been thinned) and regardless of whether lynx have been detected
there in recent years. In other words, by using models that were built
using recorded lynx movements to tell us where potential habitat
occurs, we are considering all the PBFs that are identified above at
the same time to identify areas that are essential to the conservation
of lynx.
For individual project-level analysis of effects to critical
habitat, it is most appropriate to assess effects to the PBFs
themselves rather than the SDMs, which were tools used to help identify
the
[[Page 43751]]
areas to designate as critical habitat. Assessing the PBF related to
snowshoe hares and their habitat is best conducted at the site or
project-specific scale, where regionally specific information on
horizontal cover and vegetation conditions can be used to evaluate the
condition of the PBF at the time a project is proposed. Abundant
information is available to help correlate snowshoe hare relative
abundance with vegetation variables that describe stand-level
characteristics, which are often more reasonable to measure and
describe. Definitions of ``dense horizontal cover'' may vary by region
and by season. Similarly, we do not expect project proponents to have
to measure or quantify snow conditions when evaluating effects to the
critical habitat; rather, project evaluations should consider any
actions that may affect snow compaction or overall quantity and discuss
effects to the PBF as such. The presence of denning structures is not
thought to be a limiting factor for lynx in the DPS, and dens have been
documented in both mature and younger forest stands. It is not
necessary for project-level evaluations to quantify denning sites, but
project development should ensure that potential denning structures
(e.g., downed trees, woody debris, tip-up mounds) are retained and/or
recruited such that they continue to be present and distributed across
multiple areas at the scale of a female home range. The PBF related to
permeable landscapes is also best suited to qualitative versus
quantitative evaluations that consider any barriers or disruptions to
connectivity within or between home ranges within the critical habitat
polygons. Widescale habitat probability models and/or SDMs are
necessary for identifying and assessing the PBF regarding landscapes
with suitable habitat to support breeding populations. We do not
anticipate individual projects, such as forest management or small
development projects, to impact this PBF, as it is mostly driven by
bioclimatic features at broad spatial scales. Programmatic plans (such
as land or resource management plans) are likely the best level for
assessing effects to this PBF.
We note here that the 2014 critical habitat rule included a
discussion of primary constituent elements (PCEs) essential to the
conservation of lynx (79 FR 54782 at 54811, September 12, 2014). The
Service no longer uses PCEs to define critical habitat; rather, we now
evaluate and describe the PBFs that are essential to the conservation
of the species in accordance with the definitions in the Act and our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b). We have identified the
PBFs in this revised critical habitat rule for the Canada lynx DPS in
the western United States. The analysis provided in the 2014 critical
habitat rule in support of critical habitat Units 1 (Maine) and 2
(Minnesota), including the description of PCEs, still applies to those
units and is not subject to this revision. Even though the eastern
critical habitat units are based on PCEs, those PCEs are biologically
similar to the PBFs used in this rule.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require special management considerations or
protection. The features essential to the conservation of lynx may
require special management considerations or protections to reduce the
following threats: climate change; vegetation management; wildland fire
management; and habitat loss/fragmentation through development, roads,
and mining (ILBT 2013, pp. 68-78; Service 2017, pp. 51-105). A detailed
discussion of activities influencing the Canada lynx DPS and its
habitat can be found in the SSA report (Service 2017, pp. 51-105) and
SSA report addendum (Service 2023, pp. 31-46). This critical habitat
rule does not prohibit these or any other activities within lynx
critical habitat.
Since the DPS was listed in 2000, nearly all Federal forest plans
and resource management plans throughout the DPS range have been
revised in coordination with the Service and the lynx research
community to include science-based measures and management practices
consistent with lynx conservation, thereby greatly reducing the
potential for population-scale habitat deterioration on Federal lands.
These efforts have contributed significantly to addressing the threat
for which the DPS was listed--the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms
in USFS and BLM land and resource management plans at that time.
Additionally, Federal partners continue to incorporate the best
available science into lynx habitat management practices on Federal
lands; however, climate change-related impacts have the potential to
reduce lynx and snowshoe hare habitat within the DPS in the future.
Special management considerations or protections that may be required
within critical habitat areas to address these threats include, but are
not limited to, maintaining high-quality lynx habitat and potential
climate refugia areas; maintaining boreal forest vegetation communities
that support high densities of snowshoe hares and resident lynx
breeding populations; supporting connectivity within and between home
ranges; implementation of forest management practices that prevent or
reduce risk of catastrophic wildfire; reducing indirect impacts to
habitat from activities adjacent to critical habitat units; and
minimizing habitat disturbance, fragmentation, and destruction through
use of best management practices for vegetation management activities.
Tools to create or maintain a desired mosaic of structural stages that
are beneficial to lynx within critical habitat can include logging and
timber management, prescribed and natural fire, and others (ILBT 2013,
p. 91; WLBT 2022, p. 27). Other management considerations or
protections may relate to ensuring highways and developments are
permeable for lynx crossing within critical habitat polygons.
Conservation Strategy and Selection Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat
Conservation Strategy
We developed a conservation strategy for the Canada lynx DPS to
determine and select areas occupied at the time of listing that contain
the PBFs essential to the conservation of the species, which was
heavily informed by our recovery plan (Service 2024). The goal of our
conservation strategy for lynx is to recover the DPS to the point where
the protections of the Act are no longer necessary. The role of
critical habitat in achieving this conservation goal is to identify the
specific areas within the range of the Canada lynx DPS that provide the
essential PBFs without which the lynx's range-wide resiliency,
redundancy, and representation would be insufficient to achieve
recovery. This, in turn, requires an understanding of the fundamental
parameters of lynx biology and ecology based on well-accepted
conservation biology and ecological principles for conserving species
and their habitats, such as those described in the SSA report (Service
2017, entire), SSA report addendum (Service 2023, entire), and recovery
plan (Service 2024, entire).
The conservation strategy is the outline for the long-term
viability of the Canada lynx DPS. In developing our conservation
strategy, we focused on maintaining sufficient representation
[[Page 43752]]
and redundancy within the DPS by maintaining or improving the
resiliency of lynx populations and conserving their habitats. The
conservation strategy includes the following:
(1) Maintenance or improvement of the current resiliency of the
five breeding lynx populations (Maine, Minnesota, North Cascades,
Northern Rocky Mountains, Southern Rocky Mountains) to preserve the
redundancy and representation of the DPS.
(2) Identification and conservation of high-quality lynx habitat
and potential climate refugia within the previously mentioned five
areas.
(3) Continued implementation and refinement of regulatory
mechanisms and other conservation measures that incorporate the best
available science to ensure the conservation of lynx habitats and
populations.
(4) Populations distributed across the three large representative
units in the DPS range (Northeast, Midwest, and West), and
(5) Habitat that:
(a) Supports high- or moderately-resilient resident lynx breeding
populations.
(b) Supports connectivity between DPS populations and the core of
the lynx's range in Canada.
(c) Provides the climatic conditions that support resident
populations.
(d) Provides the boreal forest vegetation communities that support
high densities of snowshoe hare and resident lynx breeding populations.
(e) Is potentially capable of providing climate refugia.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of
the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered
for designation as critical habitat. The occupied areas identified
encompass the varying habitat types and distribution of lynx and
provide sufficient habitat to allow for maintaining the populations. We
are not designating any areas outside the geographical area occupied by
the species at the time of listing because we have not identified any
unoccupied areas that meet the definition of critical habitat.
Designating areas outside the geographical area occupied by lynx at the
time of listing would not improve the likelihood of recovery (the point
at which the protections of the Act are no longer necessary and
delisting the DPS would be appropriate). The recovery plan did not
identify any areas that were not occupied at the time of listing as
necessary for recovery. Thus, because these areas are not essential for
the conservation and recovery of the lynx DPS, designating them would
not comply with the Act.
We considered connectivity to be important factors for the DPS, as
populations in the lower 48 states function as a metapopulation--a
network of local populations that exchanges individuals but has
somewhat independent dynamics. To maintain genetic diversity and
resilience, connectivity is important both within the SSA units (i.e.,
intra-unit connectivity) and between units (i.e., inter-unit
connectivity). Population connectivity has two components: genetic and
demographic. Genetic connectivity is defined as the degree to which
gene flow affects evolutionary processes within populations, and
demographic connectivity is the relative contribution of dispersal to
population dynamics (Lowe and Allendorf 2010, p. 3039). Both are
influenced by inter- and intra- unit movement of individuals. Within a
population unit, connectivity is important for accessing daily
resources, finding mates, and shifting home ranges to respond to
disturbances or changing habitats. While lynx primarily use boreal
forest habitats for feeding and other daily life functions, those
habitats are often naturally fragmented in the range of the DPS,
separated by drier forest types, meadows, mountain peaks, and other
habitats. The WLBT (2022) tier 1 polygons capture some of those other
habitats where they are interspersed with boreal forest habitats, and
thus we considered those other habitats to be part of the critical
habitat for lynx to support intra-unit connectivity. However, given the
well-documented ability of lynx to make long journeys across both
suitable and unsuitable habitats (Service 2017, p. 40-43; ILBT 2013, p.
8, Ivan 2012 and 2017, entire) and the lack of evidence that human-
caused factors have significantly reduced the ability of lynx to
disperse (Arnold et al. 2025, entire; ILBT 2013, p. 34), no additional
management constraints or restrictions would be placed on those other
habitats within the critical habitat. Between population units,
dispersal and transitory movements can provide genetic and demographic
connectivity. Given that lynx are adept dispersers and given the vast
array of habitats used during transitory and dispersal movements (e.g.,
Ivan 2012 and 2017, entire; Squires and Oakleaf 2005, entire; Squires
2025, unpublished data), we did not identify any specific habitats or
areas to designate as critical habitat.
The 2024 recovery plan for the Canada Lynx DPS identifies the
maintenance of multiple, resilient populations across the DPS's range
as essential for recovery. The plan emphasizes that populations
occupying areas smaller than 483 mi\2\ (1,250 km\2\) are unlikely to be
demographically or genetically viable in the long term, due to
increased risks of stochastic events, genetic drift, and local
extirpation. By using 483 mi\2\ (1,250 km\2\) as a minimum area
criterion for critical habitat, the Service ensures that designated
units are large enough to support the ecological processes necessary
for population persistence and recovery, consistent with the recovery
plan's goals for redundancy, resiliency, and representation across the
DPS.
In previous critical habitat designations, we identified lynx
habitat using expert judgement of vegetation and habitat types and
elevation thresholds. For the western United States, we now have new,
state-of-the-art lynx habitat models (Olson et al. 2021, entire;
Squires et al. 2024, entire) based on the best empirical data of lynx
locations across the western United States. The models accurately map
environmental covariates (abiotic and biotic features) found at lynx
locations, as compared to a random sample of background locations,
within and outside of known home ranges. These models were built using
data from thousands of verified fine-scale GPS locations of radio-
marked resident lynx in Montana, Washington, Wyoming, and Colorado.
Additionally, the models were tested and verified using location data
withheld from building the models and incidental lynx occurrence data
that included locations within home ranges and locations outside of
home ranges. The models cover the western extent of the Canada lynx DPS
range and indicate the relative likelihood of lynx presence in
Washington, Idaho, western Montana, northwestern and south-central
Wyoming, northeastern Utah, western Colorado, and northern New Mexico.
These models and their use to identify high-quality lynx habitat
were documented in the WLBT report (2022, entire). The WLBT included
species experts from the Service, USFS, and BLM, as well as scientists
from the USDA Rocky Mountain Research
[[Page 43753]]
Station who led the development of the new habitat models. The
interagency team used a science-based approach to identify key habitat
areas from the models and developed a tiered approach to model outputs
by evaluating the extent and proportion of modeled high-quality
habitat. The WLBT framework underwent review from lynx researchers
(WLBT 2022, p. 45-47).
The WLBT used the models to identify areas of high conservation
value for lynx where high-quality habitat is abundant, and further
assigned those areas into three tiers. Tier 1 polygons provide large
and well-connected areas with high proportions of high-quality habitat
and support long-term lynx occupancy and reproduction. Tier 2 polygons
contain lower proportions of high-quality habitat, and they provide
habitat for expansion or redundant habitat areas. In tier 2, the
objective is to provide habitat to support periodic to regular
occupancy, which may include reproductively successful individuals.
Tier 3 areas are generally smaller islands of habitat that may function
as ``stepping stones for dispersing lynx; these areas may be important
to maintain connectivity and facilitate dispersal across the landscape
and among tiers.
The WLBT mapping effort and underlying SDMs identify habitat with
the climatic and vegetation characteristics necessary to support lynx
residency and reproduction. This includes boreal and subalpine forested
habitats with a mosaic of variable forest successional and structural
stages, dense horizontal cover, persistent snow, and moderate to high
snowshoe hare densities, set within a matrix of other habitat types
that provide areas for connectivity. Our proposed critical habitat maps
relied heavily on the tier 1 areas described by the WLBT (2022, p. 23),
and we made changes to the proposed critical habitat maps based on
comments received, as detailed in Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat. When designating critical habitat, we are not required to
designate all areas where a species occurs. We chose to focus on tier 1
polygons because these are the areas that have at least 50 percent of
the polygon in the highest quality habitat. Tier 1 habitat is the most
valuable to long-term lynx occupancy and reproduction and sufficient to
provide for the conservation of the Canada lynx DPS. We did not use
tier 2 or 3 polygons because those areas have lower proportions of
high-quality lynx habitat; thus, they are not likely to support long-
term occupancy and reproduction.
Following the public comment period on our proposed rule, we
reviewed all of the proposed critical habitat polygons. We removed some
polygons entirely, and we refined the boundaries of several proposed
critical habitat units. These changes were made to the Service's
critical habitat boundaries, not to the original WLBT polygons.
In Unit 3, we removed some areas from the final critical habitat
designation that lacked evidence of regular lynx reproduction, and they
also lacked adequate size and close proximity to other larger areas of
modeled high-quality habitat with known persistent occupancy and
reproduction; these include the Lolo Pass polygon and the 3 Selkirk
Mountains polygons. These polygons are all smaller than 483 mi\2\
(1,250 km\2\), both individually and when combined, which is the
minimum area thought necessary to support a resilient lynx population
as identified in the SSA report addendum (Service 2023, pp. 50-51). We
retained a few smaller polygons where they exist within close proximity
(<10 mi or 16 km) of other large tier 1 areas (such that in combination
with those larger areas they do provide habitat areas greater than or
equal to 483 mi\2\ (1,250 km\2\)) and have known persistent lynx
residency and reproduction (i.e., the Garnet Range and the Dalton
Mountain areas in Unit 3).
We also refined the boundaries of the critical habitat in a few
areas to better align with likely habitat from the Olson et al. (2021,
entire) model outputs (i.e., the 95 percent withheld threshold that the
WLBT used), trimming out edge areas of low or moderate probability
habitat where vegetation types are dry or unsuitable. We did not remove
any patches of dry forest, meadows, or rocky areas within the interior
of critical habitat polygons, in an effort to acknowledge the role
those areas likely play in providing within-home range and between-home
range connectivity. We also added additional area onto two polygons in
two locations: southwest of Seeley Lake, Montana, and in the northern
Swan Range in Montana. In these areas, the best available information--
such as lynx detections, known family group use, or lynx movement
data--showed that high-quality or well used habitat exists in areas
with some likely lynx habitat. In several places, we chose not to make
any changes to the proposed polygons where doing so would contradict
localized knowledge, collar data, or Resource Selection Function (RSF)
models (e.g., Holbrook 2017, entire; Squires 2013, entire).
Collectively, these edits refined our critical habitat polygon
boundaries to reflect high-quality, regularly used, and ecologically
supported lynx habitat.
In Unit 5, the GYA, we removed all of the areas that were included
in the proposed rule, and we did not add any areas, resulting in no
areas of designated critical habitat in the GYA. Although habitat
models identify portions of the GYA--such as the Wyoming Range and
areas around Union and Togwotee Pass--as having some potential habitat,
and the WLBT identified those areas as tier 1, historical and
contemporary data indicate only intermittent use and lack of a
persistent breeding population in those areas or any other areas of the
GYA, and recent State and Federal surveys have repeatedly failed to
detect lynx populations in the region. The absence of a persistent
breeding population for at least the past 30 years or more indicates
that the GYA does not contain the physical or biological features
(PBFs) essential to lynx conservation--most notably, PBF 1--the
presence of snowshoe hares that support lynx residency and reproduction
over time, and PBF 5--suitable habitat enough to support a persistent
breeding population.
In Unit 6, the Service discovered that the WLBT had relied on an
earlier version of the Southern Rockies lynx habitat model (cited in
WLBT 2022 as Squires et al. in prep.), to develop the tier polygons in
the Southern Rockies. We chose to re-map polygons in the Southern
Rockies using the final habitat model (published as Squires et al.
2024, entire) and using the same delineation process originally applied
by WLBT to delineate new polygons that captured the substantial areas
of likely lynx habitat. This process produced six revised polygons for
the Southern Rockies. Two polygons fell within WLBT's original tier 2
areas, were smaller than 483 mi\2\ (1,250 km\2\), and lacked confirmed
persistent occupancy or reproduction. Thus, we treated those the same
as the original tier 2 areas and did not include them in the critical
habitat designation. The remaining four polygons fell within WLBT tier
1 areas; expert review confirmed that three adjacent northern polygons
function ecologically as a single unit despite their separation in the
final model, and the southernmost San Juans polygon reflects the most
persistent and well-documented lynx use since reintroduction.
Therefore, the critical habitat designation for the Southern Rockies
includes the four revised polygons occurring within the original WLBT
tier 1 areas.
These polygons were then reviewed by Service biologists, using the
best
[[Page 43754]]
available information, to ensure that all polygons have the PBFs
essential to Canada lynx. These features include: (1) presence of
snowshoe hares that support lynx residency and reproduction over time
within a mosaic of boreal/subalpine forest structural stages that
includes snowshoe hare habitat with dense horizontal cover at ground-
or snow-level; (2) winter conditions that provide and maintain deep
persistent unconsolidated (fluffy) snow; (3) presence of denning
structures, including downed trees, root wads, and accumulations of
coarse woody debris; (4) habitat types, such as dry forest or meadows,
that are between boreal forest patches and are likely to be used by
lynx traveling between those patches within and among home ranges; and
(5) landscapes with suitable habitat large enough (483 mi\2\ (greater
than or equal to 1,250 km\2\)) to support breeding populations.
When determining critical habitat boundaries, we made an effort to
avoid including developed areas because such lands lack physical or
biological features necessary for lynx. We could not map critical
habitat at a granular scale in order to exclude each and every
developed area or other areas that are unlikely to contain the PBFs.
The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication
within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of
such developed lands. Areas within the boundaries of this final
critical habitat designation that do not include the PBFs necessary for
lynx and are not designated as critical habitat include: lands covered
by buildings, houses, pavement, and other structures; paved highways
and roads; active mines and existing mining infrastructure; existing
developed ski runs and tree islands, ski lifts, and associated ski area
infrastructure and buildings; and irrigation infrastructure. Any such
lands inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on
the maps of this rule have been excluded by text in the final rule and
are not designated as critical habitat. Therefore, a Federal action
involving these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with
respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse
modification unless the specific action would affect the physical or
biological features in the adjacent critical habitat.
The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of
this document under Regulation Promulgation. We include more detailed
information on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in
the preamble of this document. We will make the coordinates or plot
points or both on which each map is based available to the public on
https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-RX-ES-2024-0142, and on
our internet site: https://www.fws.gov/species/canada-lynx-lynx-canadensis.
Final Critical Habitat Designation
Critical habitat was last designated for the Canada lynx DPS in
2014 and included five units in the contiguous United States (79 FR
54782, September 12, 2014). We are revising critical habitat for the
Canada lynx in the western United States to fulfill our obligations
under a settlement agreement to address issues raised by the District
Court of Montana regarding our previous critical habitat designation in
2014. Existing critical habitat units 1 (Maine) and 2 (Minnesota) were
not implicated in the court order; we also did not find new habitat
modeling or information that would necessitate a reassessment of
critical habitat for those areas. Thus, the existing critical habitat
units 1 (Maine) and 2 (Minnesota) are not addressed in this revision to
lynx critical habitat and remain in place as described in the 2014
critical habitat final rule. We did, however, take a comprehensive look
at critical habitat for lynx in the western United States, considering
new science that was not available at the time of the 2014 critical
habitat revision. The critical habitat areas we describe below
constitute our current best assessment of areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat for lynx in the western United States.
The three areas we designate as critical habitat are: (1) Unit 3:
Northern Rockies; (2) Unit 4: North Cascades; and (3) Unit 6: Southern
Rockies. Table 1, below, shows the critical habitat units and the
approximate area of each unit. All units were occupied at the time of
listing in 2000. Table 1 lists the critical habitat units and their
approximate sizes broken down by major land ownership.
Table 1--Western Critical Habitat Units for Canada Lynx (MI\2\ (KM\2\))
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical habitat unit Federal State Private Other Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Northern Rockies........................ 6,911 (17,900) 1 (2) 6 (16) 0 (0) 6,918 (17,918)
4. North Cascades.......................... 2,072 (5,367) 1 (1) 3 (7) 0 (0) 2,076 (5,375)
6. Southern Rockies........................ 4,898 (12,685) 6 (16) 126 (326) 8 (20) 5,038 (13,047)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................. 13,881 (35,952) 8 (19) 135 (349) 8 (20) 14,030 (36,340)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding. Numbers are calculated using the U. S. Geological Survey's (USGS)
Protected Areas Database for the United States 3.0 dataset (USGS 2022) supplemented with the BLM 2023 Surface
Management Agency dataset (BLM 2023).
We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for the Canada lynx DPS below.
Unit 3: Northern Rockies
Unit 3 consists of 6,918 mi\2\ (17,900 km\2\) located in
northwestern Montana in portions of Flathead, Glacier, Granite, Lake,
Lewis and Clark, Lincoln, Missoula, Pondera, Powell, and Teton Counties
and northern Idaho in portions of Boundary County. The revision
represents a 2,865-mi\2\ (7,419-km\2\) reduction from the 2014
designation for this unit (approximately 29 percent reduction),
although it includes new areas of critical habitat in northern Idaho.
This unit was occupied by lynx at the time of listing and is currently
occupied by the species. Lynx are known to be widely distributed
throughout this unit and breeding has been documented in multiple
locations. This unit supports a resident population with regular
occupancy and reproduction. The historical and current sizes of the
resident lynx population in this unit are unknown, but it is currently
thought to be capable of supporting 200 to 300 lynx home ranges
(Service 2017, p. 110). This unit is directly connected to lynx
habitats and populations in southwestern Alberta and southeastern
British Columbia, Canada. Lynx in this unit represent the southern
extent of a larger cross-border population, most of which occurs in
western Canada.
[[Page 43755]]
Land ownership within the unit is over 99 percent Federal, with
less than one 1 percent state or private. Federal lands in this unit
include National Forest System lands within the Kootenai, Flathead, and
Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forests in Montana and the Idaho
Panhandle National Forest in Idaho; National Park Service lands in
Glacier National Park; and BLM lands in the Garnet Resource Area. Most
state lands in this unit were excluded, as explained in Exclusions
Based on Other Relevant Impacts section below, including lands managed
by the Montana DNRC and MTFWP. Tribal lands within this unit were also
excluded, including parts of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai
Tribes Flathead Reservation and the Blackfeet Reservation, both in
Montana.
The PBFs essential to the conservation of the Canada lynx in this
unit may require special management considerations or protections to
address activities that may result in removal or reduction of boreal/
subalpine forest conditions that support Canada lynx and snowshoe
hares. Such activities may include, but are not limited to, forestry
and fuel reduction; efforts to reduce extensive high-severity fires in
lynx habitat; highway construction and maintenance; and commercial,
recreational, and energy/mineral development. These activities may
remove or reduce boreal forest in a manner that impacts snowshoe hare
densities, the size of suitable habitat patches to support breeding
lynx populations, and permeability of landscapes for lynx daily
movements and dispersal in this unit. Climate change is expected to
negatively impact the duration of deep fluffy snow conditions favorable
to lynx in this unit over time.
Unit 4: North Cascades
Unit 4 consists of 2,076 mi\2\ (5,375 km\2\) located in north-
central Washington in portions of northern Chelan, Okanogan, and
eastern Skagit and Whatcom Counties. The revision represents a 241-
mi\2\ (624-km\2\; 13 percent) increase from the 2014 designation for
this unit. Most of the increase is on the western side of the unit, in
the North Cascades National Park. This unit was occupied by lynx at the
time of listing and is currently occupied by the species. Lynx are
known to be distributed throughout much of this unit, and breeding has
been documented. The Service estimates that this unit is potentially
capable of supporting a resident population of 90 to 120 lynx, but
extensive large wildfires in roughly half of lynx habitat over the past
15 to 20 years are thought to have reduced its carrying capacity
commensurately (but perhaps temporarily). Nonetheless, a systematic
lynx DNA collection effort between 2018 and 2024 documented 73
individual lynx in north central Washington, including 40 males and 33
females (Akins and Preckler-Quisquater 2025, unpublished report). This
unit is directly connected to lynx habitats and populations in southern
British Columbia, Canada. Lynx in this unit represent the southern
extent of a larger cross-border population, most of which occurs in
western Canada.
Land ownership within the unit is over 99 percent Federal, with
small parcels of private land that represents less than one-half of 1
percent of the unit. The 2,072 mi\2\ (5,367 km\2\) of Federal lands in
the unit include mostly lands within the Okanogan-Wenatchee National
Forest and a small amount of North Cascades National Park. It also
includes a small area of state land on the Methow Wildlife Area, but
the majority of state land was excluded, including State Forest lands
managed by the WDNR (see Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts
section below).
The PBFs essential to the conservation of the Canada lynx in this
unit may require special management considerations or protections to
address activities that may result in removal or reduction of boreal/
subalpine forest conditions that support Canada lynx and snowshoe
hares. Such activities may include, but are not limited to, timber and
fuels management; efforts to reduce extensive high-intensity wildfires;
highway construction and maintenance; and commercial, recreational, and
energy/mineral development. These activities may remove or reduce
boreal forest in a manner that impacts snowshoe hare densities, the
size of suitable habitat patches to support breeding lynx populations,
and permeability of landscapes for lynx daily movements and dispersal
in this unit. Climate change is expected to negatively impact the
duration of deep fluffy snow conditions favorable to lynx in this unit
over time.
Unit 6: Southern Rockies
Although there is no critical habitat Unit 5 in this designation,
other documents including the SSA and SSA Addendum and the recovery
plan all refer to the Southern Rockies as Unit 6 (Service 2017, entire;
Service 2023, entire; Service 2024, entire). Thus, we have retained
that nomenclature in this critical habitat designation to retain
consistency. Unit 6 consists of 5,038 mi\2\ (13,047 km\2\) located in
west-central and southwestern Colorado in portions of Archuleta,
Chaffee, Clear Creek, Conejos, Dolores, Eagle, Gilpin, Grand, Gunnison,
Hinsdale, La Plata, Lake, Mineral, Montezuma, Ouray, Park, Pitkin, Rio
Grande, San Juan, San Miguel, and Summit Counties. Critical habitat was
not previously designated in the Southern Rockies. At the time of
listing, this unit was occupied by lynx translocated from Canada and
Alaska, and it is currently occupied by the descendants of those
released lynx. It is uncertain whether this unit historically supported
a resident population or if lynx presence was naturally ephemeral and
intermittent (Service 2017, p. 43, 112).
The area currently supports a resident breeding population that is
the result of the State of Colorado's Canada Lynx Reintroduction
Program, which included the 1999 to 2006 translocations of 218 lynx
from Canada and Alaska into the San Juan Mountains in southwestern
Colorado, with continued lynx occurrence and reproduction documented
annually since then. Lynx researchers with Colorado Parks and Wildlife
estimate the current size of the population at 75 to 150 resident lynx.
This unit is not directly connected to lynx habitats and populations
elsewhere in the DPS range or in the core of the species' range in
western Canada; however, historical records suggest that dispersing
lynx associated with cyclic irruptions of lynx from Canada into the
northern contiguous U.S. occasionally reached the Southern Rockies.
Some of the lynx released into Colorado dispersed into surrounding
states, with some traveling into the GYA, Montana, Idaho, Utah,
Nebraska, and New Mexico. The recovery plan for lynx (Service 2024,
entire) identifies maintaining a population with moderate resiliency
for the Colorado population as a component of the recovery strategy, as
that population adds to redundancy and resiliency for the DPS.
Land ownership within the unit is approximately 97 percent Federal,
less than 3 percent private, and less than 1 percent State and local
government. Most of the Federal lands (95 percent) occur on National
Forests, including the Arapaho, Gunnison, Pike, Rio Grande, Roosevelt,
San Isabel, San Juan, Uncompahgre, and White River National Forests in
Colorado. Approximately 5 percent of Federal lands occur on BLM lands
and smaller parcels of Service and Bureau of Reclamation lands.
The PBFs essential to the conservation of the Canada lynx in this
[[Page 43756]]
unit may require special management considerations or protections to
address activities that may result in removal or reduction of boreal/
subalpine forest conditions that support lynx and snowshoe hare. Such
activities may include, but are not limited to, road construction and
maintenance and commercial, recreational, and energy/mineral
development. These activities may remove or reduce boreal forest in a
manner that impacts snowshoe hare densities, the size of suitable
habitat patches to support breeding lynx populations, and permeability
of landscapes for lynx daily movements and dispersal in this unit.
Climate change is expected to negatively impact the duration of snow
conditions favorable to lynx in this unit over time; however, this unit
is among the most resilient to climate change given the geography and
high altitudes available for subalpine forests to respond to various
climatic scenarios (Service 2023, pp. 60-70).
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species.
Destruction or adverse modification means a direct or indirect
alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat
for the conservation of a listed species. Such alterations may include,
but are not limited to, those that alter the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of a species or that preclude or
significantly delay development of such features (50 CFR 402.02).
Compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) is documented
through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified
during formal consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Service Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood
of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species or avoid
the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying 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 set forth requirements for Federal
agencies to reinitiate consultation. Reinitiation of consultation is
required and shall be requested by the Federal agency or by the
Service, where discretionary Federal involvement or control over the
action has been retained or is authorized by law and: (1) If the amount
or extent of taking specified in the incidental take statement is
exceeded; (2) if new information reveals effects of the action that may
affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent
not previously considered; (3) if the identified action is subsequently
modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or
critical habitat that was not considered in the biological opinion or
written concurrence; or (4) if a new species is listed or critical
habitat designated that may be affected by the identified action. As
provided in 50 CFR 402.16, the requirement to reinitiate consultations
for new species listings or critical habitat designation does not apply
to certain agency actions (e.g., certain land management plans issued
by the BLM or USFS).
Due to the ephemeral and dynamic nature of some of the PBFs (e.g.
snow, mosaic structural stages, etc.) we do not expect all PBFs to be
present at all times. Project proponents or action agencies can use
qualitative or quantitative measures to determine the functionality of
the PBFs and proposed project related changes. The Service will
evaluate proposed actions with a Federal nexus occurring within
critical habitat based on whether or not they maintain or contribute to
the overall functionality of the critical habitat.
Destruction or Adverse Modification of Critical Habitat
The key factor related to the destruction or adverse modification
determination is whether implementation of the proposed Federal action
directly or indirectly alters the designated critical habitat in a way
that appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat for the
conservation of the listed species (i.e., Canada lynx DPS). As
discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to support physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of a listed species
and provide for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires that our proposed or final
regulations include, to the maximum extent practicable, a brief
description and evaluation of those activities (whether public or
private) which, in the opinion of the Secretary, if undertaken may
adversely modify critical habitat, or may be affected by such
designation. Activities that may be affected by designation of critical
habitat for the Canada lynx include those that may affect the physical
or biological features of the Canda lynx' critical habitat (see
Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the
Species, above). Importantly, determinations of destruction or adverse
modification consider whether the proposed action is likely to
appreciably diminish the value of the critical habitat for the
conservation of lynx. Adverse effects to one or more PBFs do not
necessarily constitute destruction or adverse modification of the
critical habitat.
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act provides that the Secretary shall
not designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense (DoD), or designated
for its use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources
management plan (INRMP) prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act
Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines
in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species for which
critical habitat is proposed for designation. There are no DoD lands
with a completed INRMP within the final critical habitat designation.
[[Page 43757]]
Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other
relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
The Secretary may exclude any area from critical habitat if the
benefits of exclusion outweigh those of inclusion, so long as exclusion
will not result in extinction of the species concerned. Exclusion
decisions are governed by the regulations at 50 CFR 424.19 and the
Policy Regarding Implementation of Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered
Species Act (hereafter, the ``2016 Policy;'' 81 FR 7226, February 11,
2016)--both of which were developed jointly with the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS). We also refer to a 2008 Department of the
Interior Solicitor's opinion entitled, ``The Secretary's Authority to
Exclude Areas from a Critical Habitat Designation under Section 4(b)(2)
of the Endangered Species Act'' (M-37016). We explain each decision to
exclude areas, as well as decisions not to exclude, to demonstrate that
the decision is reasonable.
When evaluating the exclusion of a particular area from the
designation, we identify the benefits of including the area in the
designation, identify the benefits of excluding the area from the
designation, and evaluate whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh
the benefits of inclusion. If the analysis indicates that the benefits
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may
exercise discretion to exclude the area only if such exclusion would
not result in the extinction of the species. In making the
determination to exclude a particular area, the statute on its face, as
well as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad
discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give
to any factor. In this final rule, we explain any decision to exclude
areas, as well as decisions not to exclude, to make clear the rational
basis for our decision. We describe below the process that we undertook
for deciding whether to exclude any areas--taking into consideration
each category of impacts and our analysis of the relevant impacts.
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation
of critical habitat. In order to consider economic impacts, we prepared
an IEM and screening analysis which, together with our narrative and
interpretation of effects, we consider to be our economic analysis of
the critical habitat designation and related factors (IEc 2024 and
2026, entire). The analysis, dated August 12, 2024, was made available
for public review from November 29, 2024, through January 28, 2025. The
economic analysis addressed probable economic impacts of critical
habitat designation for the Canada lynx. Following the close of the
comment period, we reviewed and evaluated all information submitted
during the comment period that may pertain to our consideration of the
probable incremental economic impacts of this critical habitat
designation. Additional information relevant to the probable
incremental economic impacts of critical habitat designation for the
Canada lynx is summarized below and available in the screening analysis
for the Canada lynx (IEc 2026, entire), available at https://www.regulations.gov.
The full description of the findings from the economic analysis is
outlined in the proposed rule (89 FR 94656; November 29, 2024). We
received an updated economic analysis on April 30, 2026, which
incorporated changes made between the proposed and final rule and
updated to 2026 dollars (IEc 2026, entire). The incremental effects of
revising critical habitat for the Canada lynx are likely to be limited
to changes in administrative effort to evaluate the potential for
adverse modification of Canada lynx critical habitat. The entities most
likely to incur incremental costs are parties who are required to
conduct section 7 consultations, including Federal action agencies and,
in some cases, third parties, most frequently State agencies or
municipalities. This analysis finds that administrative costs and cost
savings are on the order of $42,000 and $48,000 respectively, in a
given year (2026 dollars). The expected net effect of revising critical
habitat for the Canada lynx is a $5,200 decrease in administrative
costs per year. Incremental economic benefits and forgone benefits are
not anticipated. The economic analysis concludes that the revised rule
for lynx critical habitat is unlikely to reach $100 million, which
would make it a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of
E.O. 12866.
Following the issuance of E.O. 14225 (Immediate Expansion of
American Timber Production) and E.O. 14308 (Empowering Commonsense
Wildfire Prevention and Response), the Service reviewed the revised
critical habitat designation for Canada lynx to assess potential
impacts in forested areas prioritized for timber production and
wildfire mitigation. The E.O.s emphasize increasing domestic timber
output and streamlining forest management. This critical habitat
designation does not impart any restrictions on forest management
activities. The designation does necessitate section 7 consultations
for any actions, including timber and fuels, when there is a Federal
nexus, to ensure the proposed action will not result in the destruction
or adverse modification of the critical habitat. Approximately 52
percent of revised critical habitat overlaps with areas designated
under the Forest Health and Fuels Emergency Situation Determination,
where emergency authorities may be used to expedite forest health and
fuels reduction projects, including emergency consultations.
Forest management activities, including timber harvest and wildfire
risk reduction projects, can be beneficial tools for creating a mosaic
of differing successional forest stages within lynx critical habitat
(ILBT 2013, p. 91). Fuels reduction projects not only protect human
infrastructure, they may also be designed to sustain high-quality lynx
habitat by reducing the likelihood of extensive wildfire spread to
mature forest areas of clynx habitat. Forest management can also create
dense regenerating forest stands that support high hare densities as
they regrow. All of these activities, when conducted strategically and
informed by the best available science, can be a part of managing
critical habitat for lynx.
The USFS has been consulting with the Service on projects affecting
lynx critical habitat under the 2014 critical habitat designation on
National Forests in units 3, 4, and 5. Thus, this revision is not
expected to result in substantial changes for those National Forests in
terms of consultations. In areas where critical habitat has not
previously been designated (for example, National Forests in Colorado),
the USFS will have to consider effects to critical habitat in addition
to effects on the species and consult with the Service on projects that
may affect the critical habitat. As a result, there will be incremental
economic impacts resulting from the administrative costs associated
with section 7 consultations that must include additional analysis for
National Forests in Colorado. As such, the incremental economic impact
of the designation is expected to be limited to minor administrative
costs associated with section 7 consultation. Because this designation
results in a 37 percent
[[Page 43758]]
decrease in critical habitat compared to the 2014 rule, administrative
costs will be less in areas that are no longer designated.
As discussed above, we considered the economic impacts of the
critical habitat designation, and the Secretary is not exercising his
discretion to exclude any areas from this designation of critical
habitat for the Canada lynx based on economic impacts.
Exclusions Based on Impacts on National Security and Homeland Security
In preparing this rule, we determined that there are no lands
within the designated critical habitat for the Canada lynx that are
owned or managed by the DoD or Department of Homeland Security, and,
therefore, we anticipate no impact on national security or homeland
security. We did not receive any additional information during the
public comment period for the proposed critical habitat designation
regarding impacts of the designation on national security or homeland
security that would support excluding any specific areas from the final
critical habitat designation under the authority of section 4(b)(2) of
the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19, as well as
the 2016 Policy.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national
security as discussed above. To identify other relevant impacts that
may affect the exclusion analysis, we consider a number of factors,
including whether there are approved and permitted conservation
agreements or plans covering the species in the area such as safe
harbor agreements (SHAs), candidate conservation agreements with
assurances (CCAAs), ``conservation benefit agreements'' or
``conservation agreements'' (CBAs) (CBAs are a new type of agreement
replacing SHAs and CCAAs in use after April 2024 (89 FR 26070; April
12, 2024)) or HCPs--or whether there are non-permitted conservation
agreements and partnerships that would be encouraged by designation of,
or exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we look at whether
Tribal conservation plans or partnerships, Tribal resources, or
government-to-government relationships of the United States with Tribal
entities may be affected by the designation. We also consider any
State, local, social, or other impacts that might occur because of the
designation.
When identifying the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider
the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive due to the
protection from destruction or adverse modification as a result of
actions with a Federal nexus, the educational benefits of mapping
essential habitat for recovery of the listed species, and any benefits
that may result from a designation due to State or Federal laws that
may apply to critical habitat. In the case of the Canada lynx, the
benefits of critical habitat include public awareness of the presence
of Canada lynx and the importance of habitat protection.
When identifying the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result
in conservation, or in the continuation, strengthening, or
encouragement of partnerships. Additionally, continued implementation
of an ongoing management plan that provides equal to or more
conservation than a critical habitat designation would reduce the
benefits of including that specific area in the critical habitat
designation.
We evaluate the existence of a conservation plan when considering
the benefits of inclusion. We consider a variety of factors, including,
but not limited to, whether the plan is finalized; how it provides for
the conservation of the essential physical or biological features;
whether there is a reasonable expectation that the conservation
management strategies and actions contained in a management plan will
be implemented into the future; whether the conservation strategies in
the plan are likely to be effective; and whether the plan contains a
monitoring program or adaptive management to ensure that the
conservation measures are effective and can be adapted in the future in
response to new information.
After identifying the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of
exclusion, we carefully weigh the two sides to evaluate whether the
benefits of exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. If our analysis
indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion, we then determine whether exclusion would result in
extinction of the species. If exclusion of an area from critical
habitat will result in extinction, we will not exclude it from the
designation.
Based on the information provided by entities seeking exclusion, as
well as additional public comments we received, and the best scientific
data available, we evaluated whether certain lands in critical habitat
Units 3, and 4 are appropriate for exclusion from the final designation
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. If our analysis indicates that the
benefits of excluding lands from the final designation outweigh the
benefits of designating those lands as critical habitat, then the
Secretary may exercise their discretion to exclude the lands from the
final designation. In the paragraphs below, we provide our analysis of
the areas being excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Private or Other Non-Federal Conservation Plans or Agreements
Associated With Permits Under Section 10 of the Act
As mentioned above, as part of our 4(b)(2) analysis, we consider
whether there are approved and permitted conservation agreements or
plans covering the species in the area such as SHAs, CCAAs, CBAs or
HCPs. Under sections 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, non-
Federal entities may develop these agreements or plans when they seek
authorization for take that may otherwise be prohibited under section 9
through an enhancement of survival (EOS) or incidental take permit
(ITP), respectively.
Property owners seeking an EOS permit collaborate with the Service
to develop a CBA to support the application. The EOS permit authorizes
take associated with implementing the agreement and ongoing land
management activities that provide a net conservation benefit to the
covered species. The CBA replaces two previous types of voluntary
agreements (SHAs and CCAAs) going forward for new agreements after May
2024. However, permitted SHAs and CCAAs or those noticed in the Federal
Register prior to May 2024 remain in effect.
For incidental take permits issued under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the
Act, applicants are required to develop a conservation plan, more
commonly known as an HCP, to support their application. ITPs authorize
take that is incidental to, but not the purpose of, carrying out
otherwise lawful activities provided that the impact of the taking is
minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable.
For both section 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) permits, we provide
permittees with assurances. In the case of 10(a)(1)(A) permits, we may
not require additional or different conservation measures to be
undertaken by a permittee without the consent of the permittee. In the
case of section 10(a)(1)(B), we will not impose further land-, water-,
or resource-use restrictions, or require additional commitments of
land, water, or finances, beyond those agreed to in the HCP.
[[Page 43759]]
We place great value on the partnerships that are developed during
the preparation and implementation of conservation plans and
agreements. In some cases, permittees agree to do more for the
conservation of the species and their habitats on private lands than
designation of critical habitat would provide alone.
When we undertake a discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion
analysis based on conservation plans or agreements, we anticipate
consistently excluding such areas if incidental take caused by the
activities in those areas is covered by the permit under section 10 of
the Act and the plan meets all of the following three factors (see the
2016 Policy for additional details. Because combining types of
agreements such as SHAs and CCAAs into the term ``CBAs'' is a recent
development (see 89 FR 26070, April 12, 2024), the 2016 Policy did not
expressly reference CBAs. However, because CBAs replace CCAAs and SHAs
moving forward we treat CBAs similarly to how we treat CCAA/SHA/HCPs
described below:
a. The permittee is properly implementing the CCAA/SHA/HCP and is
expected to continue to do so for the term of the agreement. A CCAA/
SHA/HCP is properly implemented if the permittee is and has been fully
implementing the commitments and provisions in the CCAA/SHA/HCP,
implementing agreement, and permit.
b. The species for which critical habitat is being designated is a
covered species in the CCAA/SHA/HCP, or very similar in its habitat
requirements to a covered species. The recognition that the Services
extend to such an agreement depends on the degree to which the
conservation measures undertaken in the CCAA/SHA/HCP would also protect
the habitat features of the similar species.
c. The CCAA/SHA/HCP specifically addresses that species' habitat
and meets the conservation needs of the species in the planning area.
The Montana DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP (Montana DNRC and USFWS
2010a, entire; 2010b as amended, entire; 2010c, entire) was permitted
in 2012 under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act for a period of 50 years
(Service 2011a, entire; 2011b, entire). The HCP was amended in 2018 to
incorporate the terms of a 2015 Settlement Agreement on the Stillwater
State Forest, and it was amended again in 2022 to add newly acquired
forest lands. The permit has been amended twice to address issues and
concerns and to add lands that the Montana DNRC acquired (Service 2018,
entire; 2022, entire). The HCP covers about 889 mi\2\ (2,561 km\2\) of
forested State trust lands in western Montana. The HCP trust lands
occur on both blocked and scattered parcels within three Montana DNRC
land offices: the Northwestern, Central, and Southwestern Land Offices.
Blocked lands are primarily in three State Forests: Stillwater, Coal
Creek, and Swan. Scattered parcels refer to all other HCP project lands
outside of blocked lands. About 179 mi\2\ (463 km\2\) of lands managed
in accordance with the HCP overlap with the area we proposed as lynx
critical habitat in Unit 3. Most of those lands occur in areas
identified in the HCP as high-priority areas for lynx conservation
known as Lynx Management Areas (LMAs), with the remainder in scattered
blocks (Montana DNRC and USFWS 2010b as amended, pp. 2-46-2-61).
The HCP covers activities that are primarily associated with
commercial forest management and also includes grazing on forested
trust lands. In addition to lynx, the HCP also covers grizzly bears
(Ursus arctos horribilis) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), both
listed as threatened species under the Act, and two non-listed fish
species, the westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi)
and the Interior (Columbia River) redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss
gairdneri).
The HCP includes a Lynx Conservation Strategy consisting of a suite
of lynx habitat commitments that apply to all lands in the HCP project
area supporting lynx habitat and additional commitments that apply to
LMAs (Montana DNRC and USFWS 2010b as amended, pp. 2-46-2-61). The
Montana DNRC has been implementing the Lynx Conservation Strategy since
the first year of implementation in 2012 and reports to the Service
annually (e.g., Montana DNRC 2025, entire). The conservation
commitments of the plan were officially added into the State's
Administrative Rules for Forest Management in 2021, including the Lynx
Conservation Strategy. The Lynx Conservation Strategy minimizes impacts
of forest management activities on lynx and lynx critical habitat
associated with the HCP, while allowing Montana DNRC to meet its
fiduciary and stewardship trust responsibilities. Montana DNRC
requested that lands subject to the HCP be excluded from critical
habitat.
The goal of the Lynx Conservation Strategy is to support Federal
lynx conservation efforts by managing for habitat elements important to
lynx and their prey that contribute to the landscape-scale occurrence
of lynx. HCP commitments in the strategy are associated with two types
of habitat areas: (1) lynx habitat on lands within the HCP, and (2)
lynx habitat on specific LMA subunits of HCP lands where resident lynx
are known to occur or likely to occupy the area periodically. The HCP
includes specific objectives to achieve this goal:
(1) Minimize potential for disturbance to known den sites;
(2) Map potential lynx winter foraging, summer foraging, and
temporarily non-suitable habitats;
(3) Retain coarse woody debris and other denning attributes;
(4) Limit conversion of suitable lynx habitat to temporarily
nonsuitable habitat per decade in LMAs;
(5) Ensure adequate amounts of foraging habitat are maintained in
LMAs;
(6) Provide for habitat connectivity where vegetation and ownership
patterns allow; and
(7) Maintain suitable lynx habitat on Montana DNRC scattered
parcels outside LMAs (Montana DNRC and USFWS 2010b as amended, pp. 2-
46-2-61).
The Lynx Conservation Strategy places an additional conservation
emphasis on geographic areas most likely to remain high-priority areas
to promote lynx conservation into the future (Montana DNRC and USFWS
2010b as amended, p. 2-53). These HCP lands occur in primary lynx
habitat types, which are likely to provide snow depths and the
vegetation species compositions necessary for preferred winter foraging
conditions as well as ensure that the HCP helps support Federal efforts
to provide adequate amounts of suitable lynx habitat. It also describes
how Montana DNRC will monitor and evaluate the implementation and
effectiveness of the HCP (Montana DNRC and USFWS 2010b as amended, pp.
4-27-4-37). Prior to the HCP, Montana DNRC had been managing for lynx
diligently for over a decade under existing ARMs. The HCP and the ARMs
will ensure that habitat features important for the conservation of
lynx will occur on Montana DNRC's HCP-managed lands long term.
In the 2014 final revised critical habitat designation (79 FR
54782; September 12, 2014), we determined that the benefits of
excluding lands managed in accordance with the Montana DNRC HCP
outweighed the benefits of including them in the designation, and that
doing so would not result in extinction of the species. We reaffirm
that determination in this rule based on the analysis below.
Benefits of Inclusion--
[[Page 43760]]
On Montana DNRC HCP State lands, it is relatively infrequent for an
action with a Federal nexus that triggers consultation under section 7
of the Act to occur; therefore, little benefit would be realized
through section 7 consultation if these lands were included in the
critical habitat designation. Some educational benefits of designating
critical habitat for lynx on Montana DNRC HCP-managed lands may exist;
however, we believe there is already substantial awareness of lynx
conservation issues because of the following: lynx are listed under the
Act and addressed by Montana State law, the public review process for
the Montana DNRC HCP, Montana DNRC's forest management alignment with
the recovery plan (Service 2024, entire), and lynx and snowshoe hare
research and surveys being conducted by various entities within the
state of Montana.
Benefits of Exclusion--
The Montana DNRC HCP provides substantial protection of features
essential to the conservation of lynx on HCP-managed lands and provides
a greater level of lynx management on these State lands than would be
achieved with designation of critical habitat. Because the HCP provides
lynx-specific objectives and strategies for different geographic
locations, guidelines to meet the objectives, and monitoring to
evaluate implementation and effectiveness, the measures contained in
the HCP exceed any measures that might result from critical habitat
designation. As a result, we do not anticipate any actions on these
lands that would reduce the landscape-scale availability of important
lynx and hare habitats or would otherwise diminish the conservation
value of these lands to the lynx DPS.
The exclusion of Montana DNRC HCP-managed lands from critical
habitat would help preserve the partnerships that have developed
between the Service and the State through development and
implementation of the HCP, the existing ARMs, and the intent of the
State Forest Land Management Plan, all of which provide for long-term
lynx conservation. Requiring additional redundant processes of permit
applicants/holders who have already undergone an extensive Federal
process to apply for a permit also appreciably undermines the benefit
of HCPs for cooperators and reduces the certainty otherwise provided by
a single clear plan.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion--
We have evaluated the exclusion of approximately 179 mi\2\ (463
km\2\) of lands managed by the Montana DNRC in accordance with the HCP.
We have determined that it is unlikely that including these HCP-managed
areas in the final designation would lead to any changes in Montana
DNRC management (i.e., no additional conservation measures would be
recommended to further avoid impacts to lynx and hare habitats);
therefore, the benefits of inclusion are low.
We find that few, if any, additional conservation benefits would be
realized through section 7 of the Act because activities with a Federal
nexus are infrequent on these State lands. Additionally, the habitat
conservation measures addressing the features essential to conservation
of lynx are already being implemented on Montana DNRC lands under the
HCP, have been demonstrated to be effective, will be in place until at
least 2061, and are providing for the maintenance and protection of the
PBFs essential to the conservation of the lynx DPS.
Therefore, we have determined that the benefits of excluding lands
managed in accordance with the Montana DNRC HCP in Unit 3 outweigh the
benefits of including these lands as critical habitat. Based on the
above considerations, and consistent with the direction provided in
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we find that greater benefits to lynx are
likely to be achieved by excluding Montana DNRC HCP lands from the
final designation rather than by including them.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species--
The Montana DNRC HCP (1) provides biologically meaningful and
quantifiable measures for the long-term conservation of lynx and the
PBFs essential to the species, (2) includes long-term certainty of
implementation, (3) employs rigorous monitoring and reporting
requirements, and (4) applies an adaptive management approach.
Therefore, it is our determination that the exclusion of Montana DNRC
HCP lands from critical habitat will not result in the extinction of
the lynx DPS. We therefore exclude 179 mi\2\ (463 km\2\) of lands
managed in accordance with the Montana DNRC HCP from Unit 3 of this
final revised lynx critical habitat designation.
Non-Permitted Conservation Plans, Agreements, or Partnerships
Shown below is a non-exhaustive list of factors that we consider in
evaluating how non-permitted plans or agreements affect the benefits of
inclusion or exclusion. These are not required elements of plans or
agreements. Rather, they are some of the factors we may consider, and
not all of these factors apply to every plan or agreement. We also
consider information provided by proponents of an exclusion on the non-
permitted plan or agreement.
(i) The degree to which the record of the plan, or information
provided by proponents of an exclusion, supports a conclusion that a
critical habitat designation would impair the realization of the
benefits expected from the plan, agreement, or partnership.
(ii) The extent of public participation in the development of the
conservation plan.
(iii) The degree to which there has been agency review and required
determinations (e.g., State regulatory requirements), as necessary and
appropriate.
(iv) Whether National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.) was required.
(v) The demonstrated implementation and success of the chosen
mechanism.
(vi) The degree to which the plan or agreement provides for the
conservation of the physical or biological features that are essential
to the conservation of the species.
(vii) Whether there is a reasonable expectation that the
conservation management strategies and actions contained in a
management plan or agreement will be implemented.
(viii) Whether the plan or agreement contains a monitoring program
and adaptive management to ensure that the conservation measures are
effective and can be modified in the future in response to new
information.
The proposed critical habitat designation included areas that are
covered by the following non-permitted plans providing for the
conservation of the Canada lynx: (1) State of Montana Department of
Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Wildlife Management Areas (MTFWP WMAs); (2)
WDNR) Lynx Habitat Management Plan for DNR-managed Lands (WDNR LHMP);
(3) Green Diamond Resource Company lands; and (4) Idaho State Trust
lands.
MTFWP WMAs
The MTFWP manages multiple state-owned WMAs across the state of
Montana. These WMAs are managed with wildlife and wildlife habitat
conservation as the priority. Six WMAs are within the proposed critical
habitat boundary, including Nevada Lake, North Swan Valley, Fish Creek,
Blackfoot-Clearwater, Marshal Creek, and Bad Rock Canyon WMAs. Each WMA
has a specific management plan that includes management strategies to
benefit the diversity of wildlife species and their habitats, including
Canada lynx. The state manages the WMAs with the goal of providing
wildlife habitat. Some of the WMAs have seasonal
[[Page 43761]]
closures that restrict public access to the WMA during the winter and
spring, which allows for undisturbed habitat during the breeding season
for lynx and during winter and early spring when food sources are most
limited. The Marshal Creek WMA, sits in the heart of some of the best
lynx habitat in Montana (Olson et al. 2021, entire), and it has
supported multiple reproductively successful female lynx (Kosterman et
al. 2018, entire) and regular occupancy (Southwestern Crown Carnivore
Monitoring Team 2023, p. 25-26) under the State's management.
Management goals for the Marshal Creek WMA include permanently
protecting and restoring critical wildlife habitat, and forest
management projects are designed to recruit, enhance, and maintain
multistoried mature mesic and boreal forest stands, which provides
benefits to lynx (MTFWP 2010, entire). The Blackfoot-Clearwater WMA
(BCWMA) has been managed by FWP since 1948 and has continued to support
habitat for primarily big game but also for Canada lynx and other
native species since that time (MTFWP 1989, 2025, entire). A recent
forest management project proposed on the BCWMA was designed to reduce
fuels and promote forest health and will result in overall benefits to
lynx habitat. Other WMAs also provide habitat for lynx, and the MTFWP
often confers with the Service regarding lynx management when planning
land management projects in the WMAs. MTFWP requested that lands in the
WMAs be excluded from critical habitat.
Benefits of Inclusion--
On MTFWP WMAs, it is relatively infrequent for an action with a
Federal nexus that triggers consultation under section 7 of the Act to
occur; therefore, little benefit would be realized through section 7
consultation if these lands were included in the critical habitat
designation. Minimal educational benefits of designating critical
habitat for lynx on MTFWP WMAs may exist. We believe there is already
substantial awareness of lynx conservation issues because of the
following: lynx are listed under the Act; the public review process
MTFWP must undertake for habitat management activities that MTFWP
proposes to conduct on its WMAs, including compliance with the Montana
Environmental Protection Act (MEPA); the MTFWP's inclusion of lynx
conservation considerations in their State Wildlife Action Plan (MTFWP,
in prep); and lynx and snowshoe hare research and surveys being
conducted by various entities within the state of Montana, including
lynx occupancy surveys conducted by MTFWP.
Benefits of Exclusion--
The MTFWP's management that specifically prioritizes habitat for
wildlife on WMAs provides a greater level of management for the lynx on
these State lands than would be achieved with designation of critical
habitat. Since WMAs are already under active management for wildlife
habitat conservation, adding them to the critical habitat designation
would be redundant and would not provide additional conservation
benefits. While the consultation requirement associated with critical
habitat on WMAs would only be triggered if there was a Federal nexus,
such review would add little benefit, and it would require the use of
resources to ensure regulatory compliance that could otherwise be used
for on-the-ground management of targeted listed or sensitive species.
Therefore, the benefits of exclusion include the reduction of
administrative costs of section 7 compliance in the event that the
MTFWP is conducting management actions on WMAs that have a Federal
nexus that would trigger section 7 consultation, eliminating the need
for a separate analysis of the effects of an action on lynx habitat.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion--
We have evaluated the exclusion of approximately 43 mi\2\ (113
km\2\) of lands managed by the MTFWP as WMAs. We have determined that
it is unlikely that including these areas in the final designation
would lead to any changes in MTFWP management, as they manage these
lands to conserve fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats.
Exclusion of these lands will not increase the likelihood that
management activities would be proposed which would appreciably
diminish the value of the habitat for the conservation of the species.
Designation of critical habitat on WMAs would provide redundant, but no
additional increment of conservation value for lynx in terms of
management emphasis or public recognition or education by the MTFWP
beyond what currently exists. We find that few, if any, additional
conservation benefits would be realized through section 7 of the Act,
because activities with a Federal nexus are infrequent on these State
lands.
Therefore, we have determined that the benefits of excluding MTFWP
WMAs outweigh the benefits of including these lands as critical
habitat. Based on the above considerations, and consistent with the
direction provided in section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we find that greater
benefits to lynx are likely to be achieved by excluding MTFWP WMAs from
the final designation rather than by including them.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species--
The MTFWP WMAs represent a fraction of a percent of the lands with
the PBFs necessary to support the lynx DPS. MTFWP's wildlife-focused
management assures long-term certainty of adaptive management that
benefits wildlife habitat by the state wildlife management agency.
Therefore, it is our determination that the exclusion of MTFWP WMAs
from critical habitat will not result in the extinction of the lynx
DPS. We therefore exclude 43 mi\2\ (113 km\2\) of MTFWP WMAs from this
final revised lynx critical habitat designation.
WDNR Lynx Habitat Management Plan for DNR-Managed Lands (WDNR LHMP)
The WDNR LHMP encompasses 197 mi\2\ (510 km\2\) of WDNR-managed
lands distributed throughout north-central and northeastern Washington
in areas delineated as Lynx Management Zones in the Washington State
Lynx Recovery Plan (Stinson 2001, p. 39; WDNR 2006, pp. 5-13). Of the
area covered by the plan, 166 mi\2\ (430 km\2\) overlaps the area
proposed as critical habitat. The WDNR LHMP was finalized in 2006 and
is a revision of the 1996 WDNR lynx plan. The 1996 plan was developed
as a substitute for a species-specific state critical habitat
designation required by Washington Forest Practices rules in response
to the lynx being State-listed as threatened (WDNR 2006, p. 5). The
2006 WDNR LHMP included further provisions to avoid the incidental take
of lynx (WDNR 2006, p. 6). WDNR is committed to following the LHMP
until 2076, or until the lynx is delisted (WDNR 2006, p. 6). WDNR
requested that lands subject to the LHMP be excluded from critical
habitat.
The WDNR LHMP contains measures to guide WDNR in creating and
preserving quality lynx habitat through its forest management
activities. The objectives and strategies of the LHMP are developed for
multiple planning scales (ecoprovince and ecodivision, Lynx Management
Zone, Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU), and ecological community), and include:
(1) Encouraging genetic integrity at the species level by
preventing bottlenecks between British Columbia and Washington by
limiting size and shape of temporary non-habitat along the border and
maintaining major routes of dispersal between British Columbia and
Washington;
(2) Maintaining connectivity between subpopulations by maintaining
[[Page 43762]]
dispersal routes between and within zones and arranging timber harvest
activities that result in temporary non-habitat patches among
watersheds so that connectivity is maintained within each zone;
(3) Maintaining the integrity of requisite habitat types within
individual home ranges by prolonging the persistence of snowshoe hare
habitat that provides lynx forage and retaining coarse woody debris
that provides denning habitat; and
(4) Maintaining connectivity between and integrity within home
ranges used by individuals and/or family groups by providing a
diversity of successional stages within each LAU and connecting denning
sites and foraging sites with forested cover without isolating them
with open areas by prolonging the persistence of snowshoe hare habitat
and retaining coarse woody debris for denning sites (WDNR 2006, p. 29).
The LHMP identifies specific guidelines to achieve the objectives
and strategies at each scale; it also describes how WDNR will monitor
and evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the LHMP (WDNR
2006, pp. 29-63). In response to several wildfires that reduced the
availability of suitable lynx habitat in the Okanogan Lynx Management
Zone, WDNR developed the Okanogan Lynx Management Zone Interim
Management Guidelines and Recommendations (WDNR 2008, entire) to
protect the remaining lynx habitat and assure no net loss of quality
foraging habitat as a result of timber management activities. The
Okanogan guidelines are considered a modification of the 2006 LHMP that
will be implemented until WDNR, in conjunction with the Service and
WDFW, have determined they are no longer necessary as additional
conservation measures. WDNR has been managing for lynx for almost three
decades, and lynx continue to be detected on and around the WDNR lands.
A review of the WDNR monitoring report sent to the Service in March of
2025 demonstrates the WDNR has been following the LHMP (WDNR 2025,
entire). The Service has concluded that the management strategies
implemented are effective but could potentially be updated to
incorporate newer science. The WDNR has committed to working with the
Service to review newer science and determine what, if any, changes
need to be made to the LHMP. They have committed to completing any
updates to the LHMP by 2028 (Crump, C. in litt. 2025).
In the 2014 final revised critical habitat designation, (79 FR
54782; September 12, 20214), we determined that the benefits of
excluding lands managed in accordance with the WDNR LHMP outweighed the
benefits of including them in the designation, and that doing so would
not result in extinction of the species. We reaffirm that determination
in this rule based on the analysis below.
Benefits of Inclusion--
On WDNR State lands, it is uncommon for an action with a Federal
nexus that triggers consultation under section 7 of the Act to occur;
therefore, little benefit would be realized through section 7
consultation if these lands were included in the designation. Some
educational benefits to designating critical habitat for lynx on WDNR-
managed lands may exist; however, we believe there is already
substantial awareness of lynx conservation issues because lynx are
listed both under the Act and Washington State law; the public review
process for the WDNR LHMP and the Washington State Lynx Recovery Plan
(Stinson 2001, entire); lynx and snowshoe hare research that has been
or is being conducted by the USFS Pacific Northwest Research Station,
Washington State University, University of Washington, University of
Montana, and Home Range Wildlife Research; and surveys that have been
or are being conducted by WDNR, WDFW and the USFS.
Benefits of Exclusion--
The WDNR LHMP has provided substantial protection of features
essential to the conservation of lynx on WDNR lands and has provided a
greater level of lynx management on these State lands than would be
achieved with the designation of critical habitat. Because the LHMP
provides lynx-specific objectives and strategies for different planning
scales, guidelines to meet the objectives, and monitoring to evaluate
implementation and effectiveness, the measures contained in the WDNR
LHMP exceed any measures that might result from critical habitat
designation. As a result, we do not anticipate any actions on these
lands that would destroy or adversely modify habitats essential to the
conservation of the lynx DPS. The exclusion of WDNR lands from critical
habitat would help preserve the partnerships that we have developed
with the State of Washington through development and implementation of
the 2006 LHMP and the original 1996 lynx plan, both of which provide
for long-term lynx conservation.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion--
We evaluated the exclusion of approximately 166 mi\2\ (430 km\2\)
of lands managed by the WDNR. Including WDNR lands managed in
accordance with the LHMP in the final designation would not lead to
additional conservation measures being implemented because WDNR already
manages in a way that provides benefits for lynx and snowshoe hare
habitat; therefore, the benefits of inclusion are low. We find that few
additional conservation benefits would be realized through section 7 of
the Act because actions on these State lands rarely have a Federal
nexus. The habitat conservation measures addressing the features
essential to the conservation of lynx are already being implemented on
WDNR lands under the WDNR LHMP, have a proven record of effectiveness,
will be in place until at least 2076, and are providing for those PBFs
essential to the conservation of lynx.
Therefore, we have determined that the benefits of excluding lands
managed in accordance with the WDNR LHMP in Unit 4 outweigh the
benefits of including these lands as critical habitat. Based on the
above considerations, and consistent with the direction provided in
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we find that greater benefits to lynx are
likely to be achieved by excluding WDNR LHMP lands from the final
designation rather than by including them.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species--
We have determined that the exclusion of lands managed in
accordance with the WDNR LHMP from Unit 4 of this final revised
critical habitat designation for the lynx DPS will not result in the
extinction of the species because the WDNR LHMP provides for the
conservation of lynx and the PBFs essential to the conservation of
lynx. The jeopardy standard of section 7(a)(2) of the Act and routine
implementation of conservation measures through the section 7 process
also provide assurances that the subspecies will not go extinct. The
protections afforded to the lynx under the jeopardy standard will
remain in place for the areas excluded from revised critical habitat.
We therefore exclude 166 mi\2\ (430 km\2\) of lands managed in
accordance with the WDNR LHMP from Unit 4 of this final revised lynx
critical habitat designation.
Green Diamond Resource Company Lands
The Green Diamond Resource Company (hereafter Green Diamond) is a
family-owned business that owns and manages over 2,500 mi\2\ (6,475
km\2\) of land in California, Oregon, Washington, and Montana.
Approximately 7 mi\2\ (18
[[Page 43763]]
km\2\) of the proposed critical habitat overlaps Green Diamond lands in
Montana in Unit 3. Green Diamond has a long history of developing and
implementing long-term habitat and species conservation plans to guide
its forest management practices. Green Diamond lands in northwestern
Montana that overlap the tier 1 polygon are all under a permanent
conservation easement that precludes development and protects wildlife
habitat in perpetuity. The easement was completed in early 2025 through
the Montana Great Outdoors Conservation Easement with MTFWP. This
preclusion of development is particularly beneficial for maintaining
the integrity of ecosystems that support lynx prey and other ecological
functions. In the event the lands are sold, the easement stays with the
land, ensuring conservation in perpetuity. The easement allows
landowners to sustainably harvest wood products from the timberlands,
and Green Diamond's lands are independently certified as sustainably
managed under Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) standards. The SFI
mission is to promote sustainable forest management and conserve water
quality, biodiversity, wildlife habitat, species at risk, and forests
with exceptional conservation value. Green Diamond also manages its
lands under an HCP designed to conserve native fishes until 2030. While
not lynx-specific, the HCP provides incidental benefits for lynx by
ensuring considerable riparian protection that provides dense forest
for foraging and travel. Additionally, the HCP, conservation easement,
and SFI certification demonstrate Green Diamond's commitment to
conservation and offer incidental protections for lynx and their
habitat.
Benefits of Inclusion--
The principal benefit of including an area in a critical habitat
designation is the requirement of Federal agencies to ensure that
actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to result in
the destruction or adverse modification of any designated critical
habitat, which is one of the regulatory standards of section 7(a)(2) of
the Act, under which consultation is completed. A critical habitat
designation may provide a regulatory benefit for lynx when there is a
Federal nexus present for a project that may affect critical habitat;
however, as Green Diamond lands are private property and consultations
are expected to be rare, critical habitat is expected to have little
effect due to the lack of a Federal nexus. Thus, the regulatory benefit
is limited and dependence on private conservation actions is more
important.
Another important benefit of including lands in a critical habitat
designation is that it can serve to educate landowners, agencies,
Tribes, and the public regarding the potential conservation value of an
area and may help focus conservation efforts on areas of high value for
certain species. Some educational benefits to designating critical
habitat for lynx on Green Diamond lands may exist; however, we believe
there is already substantial awareness of lynx conservation issues
since lynx have been listed under the Act since 2000 and through the
past critical habitat rules that designated critical habitat for the
species on the lands now owned by Green Diamond, who purchased the
lands knowing they were designated critical habitat. As a result, the
educational value of the designation is minimal.
Benefits of Exclusion--
The benefits of excluding Green Diamond lands from the designation
of critical habitat are substantial. The area will continue to provide
conservation value to the species by continuing and strengthening our
effective working relationship with Green Diamond to promote voluntary,
proactive conservation and recovery of the lynx and its habitat on
their lands. Green Diamond has indicated to the Service a desire to
renew and expand the HCP that currently covers native fish and is valid
until 2030, including an interest in adding lynx and other listed
species to the HCP, which would cover roughly 453 mi\2\ (1,173 km\2\)
of Green Diamond lands in Montana. Excluding the Green Diamond lands
from the critical habitat designation would minimize any additional
review of future projects if there is a Federal nexus, and encourage
voluntary conservation measures such as the HCP, conservation easement,
and SFI certification. The exclusion may also serve to encourage other
private landowners to pursue voluntary conservation measures that
benefit lynx and other listed species in the future.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion--
We evaluated the exclusion of approximately 7 mi\2\ (18 km\2\) of
Green Diamond lands. Including Green Diamond lands in the final
designation would likely not lead to any changes in Green Diamond
management (to further avoid destroying or adversely modifying that
habitat), and therefore, the benefits of inclusion are low. We find
that few additional conservation benefits would be realized through
section 7 of the Act, because actions on these private lands rarely
have a Federal nexus. Recognizing the contributions of private
landowners committed to sustainable forest management, and the
substantial value of conservation easements that benefit wildlife
species and their habitat, not only aligns with the conservation goals
of the Service but also strengthens partnerships with private
stakeholders. The Green Diamond lands, managed under voluntary
conservation efforts, are providing for those PBFs essential to the
conservation of the species.
Therefore, we have determined that the benefits of excluding lands
owned and managed by Green Diamond in Unit 3 outweigh the benefits of
including these lands as critical habitat. Based on the above
considerations, and consistent with the direction provided in section
4(b)(2) of the Act, we find that greater benefits to lynx are likely to
be achieved by excluding Green Diamond lands from the final designation
rather than by including them.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species--
We have determined that the exclusion of Green Diamond lands from
Unit 3 of this final revised critical habitat designation for the lynx
DPS will not result in the extinction of the species because the
voluntary conservation easement and Green Diamond's conservation-
focused management provide for the conservation of the species and the
PBFs essential to it and because the amount of land excluded is a
fraction of a percent of the overall area identified as critical
habitat for the lynx DPS. The jeopardy standard of section 7(a)(2) of
the Act, and routine implementation of conservation measures through
the section 7 process, also provide assurances that the species will
not go extinct. The protections afforded to the lynx under the jeopardy
standard will remain in place for the areas excluded from revised
critical habitat. We therefore exclude 7 mi\2\ (18 km\2\) of lands
owned by Green Diamond Resource Company in Unit 3 of this final revised
lynx critical habitat designation.
Tribal Lands
Several E.O.s, Secretary's Orders (S.O.s), and policies concern
working with Tribes. These guidance documents generally confirm our
trust responsibilities to Tribes, recognize that Tribes have sovereign
authority to control Tribal lands, emphasize the importance of
developing partnerships with Tribal governments, and direct the Service
to consult with Tribes on a government-to-government basis.
[[Page 43764]]
A joint S.O. that applies to both the Service and the NMFS--S.O.
3206, American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act (June 5, 1997)--is the
most comprehensive of the various guidance documents related to Tribal
relationships and Act implementation, and it provides the most detail
directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat. In addition
to the general direction discussed above, the appendix to S.O. 3206
explicitly recognizes the right of Tribes to participate fully in any
listing process that may affect Tribal rights or Tribal trust
resources; this includes the designation of critical habitat. Section
3(B)(4) of the Appendix requires us to consult with affected Tribes
``when considering the designation of critical habitat in an area that
may impact Tribal trust resources, Tribally owned fee lands, or the
exercise of Tribal rights.'' That provision also instructs the Service
to avoid including Tribal lands within a critical habitat designation
unless the area is essential to conserve a listed species, and it
requires the Service to ``evaluate and document the extent to which the
conservation needs of the listed species can be achieved by limiting
the designation to other lands.''
Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19 and the 2016 Policy
are consistent with S.O. 3206. When we undertake a discretionary
exclusion analysis, in accordance with S.O. 3206, we consult with any
Tribe whose Tribal trust resources, Tribally-owned fee lands, or Tribal
rights may be affected by including any particular areas in the
designation, and we evaluate the extent to which the conservation needs
of the species can be achieved by limiting the designation to other
areas. When we undertake a discretionary 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis, we
always consider exclusion of Tribal lands, and give great weight to
Tribal concerns in analyzing the benefits of exclusion.
However, S.O. 3206 does not override the Act's statutory
requirement of designation of critical habitat. As stated above, we
must consult with any Tribe when a designation of critical habitat may
affect Tribal lands or resources. The Act requires us to identify areas
that meet the definition of ``critical habitat'' (i.e., areas occupied
at the time of listing that contain the essential physical or
biological features that may require special management considerations
or protection and unoccupied areas that are essential to the
conservation of a species), without regard to land ownership. While
S.O. 3206 provides important direction, it expressly states that it
does not modify the Secretaries' statutory authority under the Act or
other statutes.
Flathead Indian Reservation and Blackfeet Reservation Lands
Areas proposed for critical habitat designation overlap with Tribal
lands in Unit 3 including 186 mi\2\ (482 km\2\) of lands on the
Flathead Indian Reservation and 44 mi\2\ (113 km\2\) on the Blackfeet
Indian Reservation. We communicated with representatives for the
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) of the Flathead Nation
and the Blackfeet Tribe, all of whom expressed a desire for their lands
to be excluded from the final critical habitat designation.
In the previous final rules designating revised critical habitat
for lynx, published in the Federal Register on February 25, 2009 (74 FR
8616) and September 12, 2014 (79 FR 54782), we determined that the
benefits of excluding Flathead Indian Reservation Lands outweighed the
benefits of including them. We determined that exclusion of these
Tribal lands from the designation of critical habitat for the lynx will
not result in the extinction of the species because the CSKT implement
programs for the conservation of the species, and physical and
biological features essential to it, in occupied areas. The protections
afforded to the lynx under the jeopardy standard will remain in place
for the areas considered for exclusion from revised critical habitat.
Therefore, and in light of S.O. 3206 and Tribal management of lynx and
their habitat, we are excluding 186 mi\2\ (482 km\2\) of Flathead
Indian Reservation Lands from the revised lynx critical habitat
designation. Previous rules did not consider excluding any Blackfeet
Reservation lands, as these were only identified as meeting the
definition of critical habitat in the more recent habitat models (Olson
et al. 2021, entire; Squires et al. 2024, entire) and identified as
part of the tier 1 areas by the WLBT (WLBT 2022, entire).
Benefits of Inclusion--
The principal benefit of including an area in a critical habitat
designation is the requirement of Federal agencies to ensure that
actions that they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to
result in the destruction or adverse modification of any designated
critical habitat, which is one of the regulatory standards of section
7(a)(2) of the Act under which consultation is completed. Although the
CSKT and Blackfeet Tribes are not Federal agencies, some actions taken
by the Tribes may have a Federal nexus if they fall under the
jurisdiction of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) due to Federal
funding or authorization or because actions are occurring on lands held
in trust for the Tribe.
We have provided the Tribes and the BIA with technical assistance
on project implementation and conducted informal consultations with
agencies implementing, funding, or authorizing actions on Tribal lands.
We have conducted one formal consultation with the BIA related to lynx,
a framework programmatic consultation for the Blackfeet Forest
Management Plan that concluded some future forest management activities
on the Blackfeet lands may result in short-term adverse effects to lynx
due to habitat modifications, but they will not likely jeopardize the
continued existence of the species. In fact, the forest management
actions may provide benefits to lynx habitats by reducing the risk of
catastrophic wildfire and creating a mosaic of forest structural
stages. Because both tribes practice land management and prioritize
conservation, we do not anticipate an increase in section 7
consultations in the future and, as a result, the regulatory benefit of
critical habitat would be minimal.
Another potential benefit of critical habitat designation would be
to signal the importance of these lands to Tribal governments, Federal
agencies, scientific organizations, State and local governments, and
the public to encourage conservation efforts, funding, or research to
benefit the lynx and its habitat. By publication of the proposed rule
and this final rule, we are educating the public of the location of
core lynx habitat and areas most important for the conservation and
recovery of the lynx DPS. Given that lynx have been listed and
researched in these areas for over two decades and given that the
habitat mapping efforts have already informed the public and Tribes
about the value of these areas and helped to focus potential
conservation actions, the educational benefits from designating
critical habitat on Tribal-owned or -managed Lands would be small.
Benefits of Exclusion--
Under self-governance, the CSKT and Blackfeet Nation Tribes
maintain their own high conservation standards and their own Wildlife
Management divisions. According to their mission statement, the CSKT's
Wildlife Management Program is charged with the protection, enhancement
and management of terrestrial wildlife species and habitats to provide
for viable populations of all wildlife species, and the Program
actively engages in partnerships and research to benefit wildlife
species and their
[[Page 43765]]
habitats. Additionally, most of the high-quality lynx habitat on the
Flathead Reservation occurs in areas with formal protective status,
including (1) The long-designated Mission Mountains and Rattlesnake
Tribal Wilderness Areas, which are largely roadless and managed for
wilderness qualities; (2) the South Fork/Jocko Primitive Area, which is
open to use only by Tribal members and in which commercial timber
harvest is prohibited. The Blackfeet Tribe's Fish and Wildlife
Department has proven to be a model of professional wildlife management
in the region through a variety of programs, services, research,
meaningful collaborations and projects. The Forest Management Plan
includes considerations for mapped lynx habitat for the next 15 years,
including a variety of forestry practices to promote a mosaic of
structural stages, and the Tribe recognizes the conservation measures
from the Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (ILBT 2013,
entire) to incorporate into planned forest management activities.
Tribal lands that fall within the proposed critical habitat are
small in size relative to the large landscape required to sustain the
lynx populations in these areas. Although these Tribal lands support
lynx habitat and the PBFs, they have a smaller role in lynx
conservation compared to the extensive National Forest lands in the
western United States. Due to Tribal natural resource management
philosophies, plans, and practices that are already in place on Tribal
lands (e.g., Blackfeet Forest Management Plan 2024, Confederated Salish
and Kootenai Forest Management Plans 1999 and 2005), it is highly
unlikely that activities approaching the threshold of adverse
modification would occur.
The Tribes have a long history of professional wildlife management
and conservation. The designation of critical habitat on their lands
would be considered an unwanted intrusion into Tribal self-governance,
thus compromising the government-to-government relationship essential
to achieving our mutual goal of managing for healthy ecosystems upon
which the viability of threatened and endangered species populations
depend. It is unlikely that additional benefits to lynx would result
from designating these lands as critical habitat.
S.O. 3206, ``American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act'' (June 5, 1997)
states that, ``critical habitat shall not be designated in such areas
unless it is determined essential to conserve a listed species.'' The
President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, ``Government-to- Government
Relations with Native American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951); E.O.
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) also emphasize that Tribal
lands should be evaluated to determine whether their inclusion in a
critical habitat designation is essential to the species. Therefore, 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.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion--
Exclusion of Tribal lands is warranted because affected Tribes
already take actions to avoid negative impacts to lynx and to conserve
habitat. In discussions with each of the Tribes, we heard them voicing
their commitment to ensuring that lynx remain a viable part of the
ecosystem.
We have determined that conservation of lynx can be achieved on
Tribal lands within the critical habitat units through the continuation
of the cooperative partnerships between the Service and the Tribes, and
without designating them as critical habitat. The management plans,
activities, and land-use designations being implemented on Tribal lands
described above are likely to ensure continued conservation of lynx on
Tribal lands. Given the importance of government-to-government
relationship with Tribes, the benefit of maintaining our commitment to
the E.O. by excluding these lands outweighs the benefit of including
them in critical habitat. Therefore, pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, we have excluded Tribal lands in Unit 3 in this final rule from
critical habitat for the lynx DPS.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species--
We have determined that exclusion of Tribal lands from the
designation of critical habitat for the lynx will not result in the
extinction of the species because the Confederated Salish and Kootenai
Tribes and Blackfeet Tribe implement natural resource and wildlife
management programs that ensure conservation of the species, and the
physical and biological features essential to it, in occupied areas.
Additively, the Tribal lands excluded from critical habitat comprise
230 mi\2\ (595 km\2\), which is approximately 1 percent of the total
critical habitat proposed in the western United States (Units 3, 4, 5,
and 6). The protections afforded to lynx under the jeopardy standard
will remain in place for the areas considered for exclusion from
revised critical habitat. Therefore, in light of S.O. 3206 and Tribal
management of lynx and their habitat, 186 mi\2\ (482 km\2\) of lands on
the Flathead Indian Reservation and 44 mi\2\ (113 km\2\) on the
Blackfeet Indian Reservation lands have been excluded from lynx
critical habitat designation in this final rule.
Summary of Exclusions
As discussed above, based on the information provided by entities
seeking exclusion, as well as any additional public comments received,
we evaluated whether certain lands in the proposed critical habitat
were appropriate for exclusion from this final designation pursuant to
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We are excluding the following areas from
critical habitat designation for the Canada lynx: lands covered by the
Montana DNRC HCP, lands covered by the Washington DNR Lynx Habitat
Management Plan, Green Diamond Resource lands, and Tribal lands of the
Flathead Reservation and Blackfeet Reservation.
Table 2--Areas Excluded From Critical Habitat Designation by Critical Habitat Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Areas meeting the definition
of critical habitat
Unit Specific area excluded, in square miles
(mi\2\) (square kilometers
(km\2\))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Northern Rockies........................... Tribal Lands: Flathead 186 (482)
Reservation, MT.
3. Northern Rockies........................... Tribal Lands: Blackfeet 44 (113)
Reservation, MT.
3. Northern Rockies........................... Montana DNRC Multi-species HCP.... 179 (463)
3. Northern Rockies........................... Montana Fish Wildlife & Parks 43 (113)
Wildlife Management Areas.
3. Northern Rockies........................... Green Diamond Resources........... 7 (18)
[[Page 43766]]
4. North Cascades............................. Washington DNR Lynx Habitat 166 (430)
Management Plan.
-----------------------------
Total..................................... .................................. 625 (1,619)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O.s 12866, 13563, 14192)
E.O. 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) in the OMB will review all significant rules as defined
by section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. OIRA has determined that this final rule
is significant under E.O. 12866.
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for
improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
E.O. 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that
reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the
public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent
with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that
regulations must be based on the best available science and that the
rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent
with these requirements This final rule is considered an E.O. 14192
deregulatory action.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA; title II of Pub. L. 104-121, March 29, 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 RFA to require Federal agencies to
provide a certification statement of the factual basis for certifying
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine whether potential
economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered
the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under
this designation as well as types of project modifications that may
result. In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant
to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
Under the RFA, as amended, and as understood in light of recent
court decisions, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the
potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly
regulated by the rulemaking itself; in other words, the RFA does not
require agencies to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly
regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical
habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which
requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure
that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not
likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore,
under section 7, only Federal action agencies are directly subject to
the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse
modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Consequently,
only Federal action agencies will be directly regulated by this
designation. The RFA does not require evaluation of the potential
impacts to entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies
are not small entities. Therefore, because no small entities will be
directly regulated by this rulemaking, we certify that this critical
habitat designation will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
During the development of this final rule, we reviewed and
evaluated all information submitted during the comment period on the
proposed rule (89 FR 94656; November 29, 2024) that may pertain to our
consideration of the probable incremental economic impacts of this
critical habitat designation. Based on this information, we affirm our
certification that this critical habitat designation will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (E.O. 13211)
E.O. 13211 (``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'') requires agencies to
prepare statements of energy effects ``to the extent permitted by law''
when undertaking actions identified as significant energy actions (66
FR 28355; May 22, 2001). E.O. 13211 defines a ``significant energy
action'' as an action that (i) is a significant regulatory action under
E.O. 12866; and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on
the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This rule is a significant
regulatory action under E.O. 12866. In our economic analysis, we did
not find that this proposed critical habitat designation revision would
significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore,
this action is not a significant energy action, and no statement of
energy effects is required.
[[Page 43767]]
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following finding:
(1) 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, or 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 mandates'' include 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; Aid to Families
with Dependent Children 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 are not likely to 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 onto State governments.
(2) This rule will not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, because much of the designation (99 percent) occurs on
Federal lands. Furthermore, based on an analysis conducted for the
previous designation of critical habitat in 2014 and extrapolated to
this designation, we do not expect this rule to significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. Small governments will be affected
only to the extent that any programs having Federal funds, permits, or
other authorized activities must ensure that their actions will not
adversely affect the critical habitat. Therefore, a small government
agency plan is not required.
Takings (E.O. 12630)
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (``Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights''), we
have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating
critical habitat for the Canada lynx in a takings implications
assessment. The Act does not authorize the Services to regulate private
actions on private lands or confiscate private property as a result of
critical habitat designation. Designation of critical habitat does not
affect land ownership, or establish any closures, or restrictions on
use of or access to the designated areas. Furthermore, the designation
of critical habitat does not affect landowner actions that do not
require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of
habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to
permit actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go
forward. However, Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out,
funding, or authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. A takings implications assessment has been completed
and concludes that this designation of critical habitat for the Canada
lynx DPS does not pose significant takings implications for lands
within or affected by the designation.
Federalism (E.O. 13132)
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (``Federalism''), this rule does not
have significant federalism effects. A federalism summary impact
statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior
and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and
coordinated development of this critical habitat designation with, the
appropriate State resource agencies. From a federalism perspective, the
designation of critical habitat directly affects only the
responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other duties
with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local
governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the proposed rule does
not have substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the
relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the
distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.
The designation may have some benefit to these governments because
the areas that contain the features essential to the conservation of
the species are more clearly defined, and the physical or biological
features of the habitat necessary for the conservation of the species
are specifically identified. This information does not alter where and
what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist
State and local governments in long-range planning because they no
longer have to wait for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur.
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would be required. 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.
Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
In accordance with E.O. 12988 (``Civil Justice Reform''), the
Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule will not unduly
burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are designating critical
habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To assist the
public in understanding the habitat needs of the species, this rule
identifies the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. The proposed areas of critical habitat are
presented on maps, and the
[[Page 43768]]
rule provides several options for the interested public to obtain more
detailed location information, if desired.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and
a submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not
required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
Regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act are exempt
from the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and do not require an
environmental analysis under NEPA. We published a notice outlining our
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25,
1983 (48 FR 49244). This includes listing, delisting, and
reclassification rules, as well as critical habitat designations. In a
line of cases starting with Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495
(9th Cir. 1995), the courts have upheld this position. The Department
has determined that this agency action does not require an
environmental analysis under NEPA.
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, May 4, 1994), E.O. 13175 (``Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''), the President's
memorandum of November 30, 2022 (``Uniform Standards for Tribal
Consultation;'' 87 FR 74479, December 5, 2022), and the Department of
the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized
Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations on a government-to-government
basis. In accordance with S.O. 3206 of June 5, 1997 (``American Indian
Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the
Endangered Species Act''), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities
to work directly with Tribes in developing programs for healthy
ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal lands are not subject to the
same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian
culture, and to make information available to Tribes.
On October 13, 2022, the Service sent a letter to federally
recognized Tribal partners across the range of the Canada lynx in the
western United States, indicating that we would be updating the SSA,
explaining why it was necessary to revise the SSA to inform this
critical habitat revision, and requesting additional information.
During development of the proposed rule and this final critical habitat
rule, we coordinated with Tribes that have lands within the boundary of
the proposed critical habitat revision to determine eligibility for
exclusion of those lands from the final designation of critical
habitat. As described above, we are excluding Flathead Indian
Reservation and Blackfeet Reservation lands from the final critical
habitat designation for the Canada lynx DPS. As a result, no Tribal
lands fall within the boundaries of the final critical habitat for the
Canada lynx, so no Tribal lands are be affected by the designation.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from
the Montana Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Montana
Ecological Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec. 17.95, in paragraph (a), amend the entry for ``Canada Lynx
(Lynx canadensis)'' by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (1) through (5);
0
b. Adding figure captions to paragraphs (6) and (7);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (8) through (10); and
0
d. Adding paragraph (11).
The revisions and additions read as follows
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(a) Mammals.
* * * * *
Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for States and Counties on
the maps in this entry.
(2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of Canada lynx consist of the following
components:
(i) Presence of snowshoe hares that support lynx residency and
reproduction over time within a mosaic of boreal/subalpine forest
structural stages that includes snowshoe hare habitat with dense
horizontal cover at ground- or snow-level.
(ii) Winter conditions that provide and maintain deep persistent
unconsolidated (fluffy) snow.
(iii) Presence of denning structures, including downed trees, root
wads, and accumulations of coarse woody debris.
(iv) Habitat types, such as dry forest or meadows, that are between
boreal forest patches and are likely to be used by lynx traveling
between those patches within and among home ranges.
(v) Landscapes with suitable habitat large enough (483 mi\2\
(greater than or equal to 1,250 km\2\)) to support breeding
populations.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (lands
covered by buildings, houses, pavement, and other structures; paved
highways and roads; active mines and existing mining infrastructure;
existing developed ski runs and tree islands, ski lifts, and associated
ski area infrastructure and buildings; and irrigation infrastructure)
and the land on which they are located existing within the legal
boundaries on August 17, 2026.
(4) Critical habitat units were delineated using a combination of
datasets, including the Interagency Western Lynx Biology Team (WLBT)
tier 1 polygons and multiple lynx habitat predictive models developed
by lynx researchers. The WLBT polygons were based on the aforementioned
habitat models that identified high probability lynx habitat, while
accounting for minimum patch size necessary to support multiple home
ranges and high-quality habitat metrics to support persistent occupancy
and reproduction. These areas were then verified by species experts to
contain
[[Page 43769]]
the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of
the species. For purposes of designating critical habitat under the
Act, the Service made adjustments to the critical habitat boundaries--
not to the WLBT polygons themselves--based on information received
during public comment and interagency review, including additions,
removals, and refinements where warranted to better reflect the best
available information. Additional processing information is available
in our files.
Critical habitat units were mapped and analyzed using Environmental
Systems Research Institute (ESRI) ArcGIS Pro 3.5 Geographic Information
System (GIS) program. Area calculations were done in ArcGIS Pro using
the North American Datum (NAD) 1983 USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area
Conic USGS projection. The maps in this entry, as modified by any
accompanying regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the critical
habitat designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on which
each map is based are available to the public at the Service's internet
site, https://www.fws.gov/species/canada-lynx-lynx-canadensis, at
https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2024-0142 and
Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2013-0101, and at the field office responsible for
this designation. You may obtain field office location information by
contacting one of the Service regional offices, the addresses of which
are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
(5) Index map follows:
Figure 1 to Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) paragraph (5)
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JY26.001
(6) * * *
Figure 2 to Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) paragraph (6)
* * * * *
(7) * * *
Figure 3 to Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) paragraph (7)
* * * * *
(8) Unit 3: Northern Rockies--The entirety or portions of Boundary
County, ID, and Flathead, Glacier, Granite, Lake, Lewis and Clark,
Lincoln, Missoula, Pondera, Powell, and Teton Counties, MT.
(i) Unit 3 consists of 6,918 mi\2\ (17,918 km\2\) located in
northwestern Montana and northern Idaho. Land ownership within the unit
is more than 99 percent Federal, with small parcels of State and
private lands that represent less than one-half of 1 percent of the
unit (total of 7 mi\2\/18 km\2\ State and private).
(ii) Map of Unit 3 follows:
Figure 4 to Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) paragraph (8)(ii)
[[Page 43770]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JY26.002
(9) Unit 4: North Cascades--The entirety or portions of Chelan,
Okanogan, Skagit, and Whatcom Counties, WA.
(i) Unit 4 consists of 2,075 mi\2\ (5,375 km\2\) located in north-
central Washington. Land ownership within the unit is over 99 percent
Federal, with small parcels of private lands and one parcel of State
land that represent less than one-half of 1 percent of the unit (less
than 4 mi\2\/8 km\2\).
(ii) Map of Unit 4 follows:
Figure 5 to Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) paragraph (9)(ii).
[[Page 43771]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JY26.003
(10) Unit 6: Southern Rockies--The entirety or portions of
Archuleta, Chaffee, Clear Creek, Conejos, Dolores, Eagle, Gilpin,
Grand, Gunnison, Hinsdale, La Plata, Lake, Mineral, Montezuma, Ouray,
Park, Pitkin, Rio Grande, San Juan, San Miguel, and Summit Counties,
CO.
(i) Unit 6 consists of 5,037 mi\2\ (13,047 km\2\) located in west-
central and southwestern Colorado. Land ownership within the unit is
approximately 97 percent Federal, 3 percent private, and less than 1
percent State and other.
(ii) Map of Unit 6 follows:
Figure 7 to Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) paragraph (11)(ii)
[[Page 43772]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JY26.004
* * * * *
Brian Nesvik,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2026-14299 Filed 7-15-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C