Canada Lynx
Revised Critical Habitat for
the Contiguous United States Distinct
Population Segment of the Canada
Lynx - Federal Register Notice
Go here for the complete Federal Register Notice (38-page PDF File: 971KB). Below is the Summary and Public Comments sections of the Notice.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR: Fish and Wildlife Service, 50 CFR Part 17
[FWS–R6–ES–2008–0026] [92210–1117–0000-B4] RIN 1018–AV78
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for
the Contiguous United States Distinct
Population Segment of the Canada
Lynx (Lynx canadensis)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
revise designated critical habitat for the
contiguous United States distinct
population segment of the Canada lynx
(Lynx canadensis) (lynx) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). In the contiguous
United States, the lynx generally
inhabits cold, moist boreal forests. Approximately 42,753 square miles
(mi2) (110,727 square kilometers (km2))
fall within the boundaries of the
proposed revised critical habitat
designation. The proposed revised
designation would add an additional
40,913 mi2 (105,959 km2) to the existing
critical habitat designation of 1,841 mi2
(4,768 km2). The proposed revised
critical habitat is located in Boundary
County, Idaho; Aroostook, Franklin,
Penobscot, Piscataquis, and Somerset
Counties in Maine; Cook, Koochiching,
Lake, and St. Louis Counties in
Minnesota; Flathead, Glacier, Granite,
Lake, Lewis and Clark, Lincoln,
Missoula, Pondera, Powell, Teton,
Gallatin, Park, Sweetgrass, Stillwater,
and Carbon Counties in Montana;
Chelan and Okanogan Counties in
Washington; and Park, Teton, Fremont,
Sublette, and Lincoln Counties in
Wyoming.
DATES:
We will accept comments
received or postmarked on or before
April 28, 2008. We must receive
requests for public hearings, in writing,
at the address shown in the ADDRESSES
section by April 14, 2008.
ADDRESSES:
You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• U.S. mail or hand-delivery:
Public
Comments Processing, Attn: [FWS–R6–ES–2008–0026];
Division of Policy and
Directives Management;
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service;
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222;
Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept e-mail or faxed
comments. We will post all comments
on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us
(see the Public Comments section below
for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark Wilson, Field Supervisor,
Montana Ecological Services Office,
585 Shepard Way,
Helena, MT, 59601;
telephone 406–449–5225.
If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD), call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
We intend that any final action
resulting from this proposal will be as
accurate and as effective as possible.
Therefore, we request comments or
suggestions on this proposed rule. We
particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or
should not designate specific habitat as
‘‘critical habitat’’ under section 4 of the
Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
(2) Specific information on:
• The amount and distribution of
lynx habitat,
• What areas occupied at the time of
listing and that contain features
essential for the conservation of the
species we should include in the
designation and why that might be so,
and
• What areas not occupied at the time
of listing are essential to the
conservation of the species and why
that might be so.
(3) Comments or information that may
assist us with identifying or clarifying
the primary constituent element.
(4) Land use designations and current
or planned activities in the areas
proposed as critical habitat and their
possible impacts on proposed revised
critical habitat.
(5) Whether Tribal lands in the
Northern Rockies, Maine, and
Minnesota units need to be included as
critical habitat pursuant to Secretarial
Order Number 3206.
(6) Whether lands the Southern Rocky
Mountains contain the physical and
biological features that are essential for
the conservation of the species and the
basis for why that might be so
(7) Whether lands in any unoccupied
areas, such as the ‘‘Kettle Range’’ in
Ferry County, Washington, are essential
to the conservation of lynx and the basis
for why that might be so.
(8) How the proposed boundaries of
the revised critical habitat could be
refined to more closely circumscribe the
boreal forest landscapes occupied by
lynx. Refined maps that accurately
depict the specific vegetation types on
all land ownerships are not readily
available. We are especially interested
in this information for the Greater
Yellowstone Area unit.
(9) Whether our proposed revised
critical habitat for the lynx should be
altered in any way to account for
climate change.
(10) Whether the proposed revised
critical habitat designation for the lynx
should include private lands, or
whether the proposed Federal lands are
sufficient to conserve lynx.
(11) Whether U.S. Forest Service
(USFS) lands that occur in the wildlandurban-
interface (WUI) should be
excluded from critical habitat under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act so that fuelsreduction
projects designed to protect
human life and property from wildfire
would not be impeded in any way in
these areas.
(12) Whether the Greater Yellowstone
Area is essential to the conservation of
lynx. Lynx in this proposed unit occur
at lower densities than in other
proposed units, and the population is
not connected to Canada, which is an
important source of lynx in the United
States.
(13) Any foreseeable economic,
national security, or other potential
impacts resulting from the proposed
designation and, in particular, any
impacts on small entities, and the
benefits of including or excluding areas
that exhibit these impacts.
(14) Whether we could improve or
modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for
greater public participation and
understanding, or to better
accommodate public concerns and
comments.
The size of the individual Indian
reservation lands in the Northern
Rockies, Maine, and Minnesota units is
relatively small. As a result, we believe
conservation of the lynx can be
achieved by limiting the designation to
the other lands in the proposal without
including Tribal lands (see
‘‘Relationship of Critical Habitat to
Tribal Lands’’ below).
The southern Rocky Mountains in
Colorado, Utah, and southern Wyoming
are disjunct from other lynx habitats in
the United States and Canada. The
nearest lynx population occurs in the
Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA), which
is a small, low density population also
disjunct from other lynx populations
and is unlikely to regularly supply
dispersing lynx to the Southern Rockies.
Native lynx were functionally extirpated from their historic range in Colorado
and southern Wyoming by the time the
lynx was listed as a threatened species
under the Act in 2000. In 1999, the State
of Colorado began an intensive effort to
reintroduce lynx. Although it is too
early to determine whether the
introduction will result in a selfsustaining
population, the reintroduced
lynx have produced kittens and now are
distributed throughout the lynx habitat
in Colorado and southern Wyoming.
These animals are not designated as an
experimental population under section
10(j) of the Act. Although Colorado’s
reintroduction effort is an important
step toward the recovery of lynx, we are
not proposing revised critical habitat in
the Southern Rockies because of the
current uncertainty that a self-sustaining
lynx population will become
established.
The Kettle Range in Washington
historically supported lynx populations
(Stinson 2001). However, although
boreal forest habitat within the Kettle
Range appears of high quality for lynx,
there is no evidence that the Kettle
Range is currently occupied by a lynx
population nor has there been evidence
of reproducing lynx in the Kettle Range
in the past two decades (Koehler 2008).
Fuels-reduction projects in the WUI
may degrade lynx habitat by reducing
its ability to support snowshoe hares. For this reason, if WUI areas were
designated as revised critical habitat,
fuels-reduction projects may be
impaired or delayed as a result of
requirements under section 7(a)(2) of
the Act, which could lead to reduced
effectiveness of the fuels-reduction, and
increased risk to human life and
property. Mapped WUI areas can be
viewed on the Internet at: ftp://
ftp2.fs.fed.us/incoming/r1/FWS/wui_1mile_buffer_oct06.pdf.
In addition to public comments
received on this proposed rule, between
the proposed and final rules, the Service
will analyze the following for its
relevance in revising critical habitat for
lynx: (1) Comments received in
response to our initiation of a 5-year
review for lynx; (2) a new study
addressing effects of snowmobile trails
on coyote movements within lynx home
ranges (Kolbe et al. 2007, pp. 1409–
1418); (3) a study on lynx prey selection
(Squires and Ruggiero 2007, pp. 310–315); (4) new reports we have received
on the numbers and distribution of lynx
in some locations; (5) a newly released
study on the effects of climate change
on snowpack in western mountains and
how that may affect lynx, snowshoe
hares, and their habitats (Gonzalez et al.
2007); and (6) additional new studies
(e.g., Knowles et al. 2006 and Danby and
Hick 2007) that may provide insight on
changes to lynx habitat. If necessary and
appropriate, revisions to this proposed
rule will be made to address this
information. We will also be revising
the economic analysis and
environmental assessment prepared for
the previous designation and providing
drafts of the new economic analysis and
environmental assessment to the public
before finalizing this proposal.
On the basis of public comment,
during the development of the revised
final rule we may find, among other
things, that areas proposed are not
essential to the conservation of the
species, are appropriate for exclusion
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are
not appropriate for exclusion. In all of
these cases, this information will be
incorporated into the revised final
designation. Further, we may find as a
result of public comments that areas not
proposed should also be designated as
critical habitat. Final management plans
that address the conservation of the lynx
must be submitted to us during the
public comment period so that we can
take them into consideration when
making our final critical habitat
determination.
You may submit your comments and
materials concerning this proposed rule
by one of the methods listed in the
ADDRESSES section. We will not accept
comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an
address not listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not accept anonymous
comments; your comment must include
your first and last name, city, State,
country, and postal (zip) code. Finally,
we will not consider hand-delivered
comments that we do not receive, or
mailed comments that are not
postmarked, by the date specified in the
DATES section.
We will post your entire comment—
including your personal identifying
information—on http://
www.regulations.gov. If you provide
personal identifying information in
addition to the required items specified
in the previous paragraph, such as your
street address, phone number, or e-mail
address, you may request at the top of
your document that we withhold this
information from public review.However, we cannot guarantee that we
will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation we
used in preparing this revised proposed
rule, will be available for public
inspection on http://
www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Montana Ecological Services
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT). Maps of the proposed revised
critical habitat are also available on the
Internet at http://mountain-prairie.
fws.gov/species/mammals/lynx/.
Above are the Summary and Public Comments sections of the Federal Register Notice. Go here for the complete Federal Register Notice (38-page PDF File: 971KB).
Back
