# Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Contiguous U.S. Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2026-14299 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** July 16, 2026 - **Citation:** 91 FR 43732 ## Text 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of the species. Similarly, critical [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2026-14299. Public record. Not legal advice.