TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. SUMMARY 1
II. PREAMBLE 2
III. PURPOSE AND INTRODUCTION 3
IV. METHODS 3
V. OVERVIEW OF MAJOR MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS 4
Washington 4
Idaho 6
Montana 6
Wyoming 7
USDA Forest Service Regions 1 and 6 8
Okanogan National Forest 8
Colville National Forest 9
Kootenai National Forest 9
Colville Tribe 11
Blackfeet Tribe 11
VI. RESULTS 11
Part 1, Expert Opinion 11
Part 2, Rating Tables 17
Discussion of Results 23
VII. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND GUIDELINES 25
Additional Management-Related Comments 45
VIII. CONCLUSIONS 46
IX. LITERATURE CITED 47

Lynx Management Assessment and Comment

to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service_s

Proposal to List Lynx

Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973

Philip D. Tanimoto, Wildlife Biologist
121 Sweet Ave. , Moscow, Idaho 83843
7 October 1998

I. SUMMARY

This document presents a case to support the USFWS proposed listing of the lynx (Felis=Lynx canadensis) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. It recommends the listing of lynx as Endangered, and not Threatened, for many well-founded reasons that will be presented here. This comment is the result of extensive review of existing management guidelines at federal, state agency, and tribal levels; and of formal interviews with several lynx experts.

To develop this opinion, I conducted a directed review of the published literature on lynx ecology in North America, and lynx management guidelines of tribal, state, and federal government agencies in the states of Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming to evaluate the efficacy of management guidelines to achieve the long-term conservation of viable lynx populations. I also presented a series of specific, forest management-related questions to recognized lynx biologists to garner and document their professional opinions about those questions. I compared those professional opinions and existing literature to assess the concordance between expert opinion and existing lynx management guidelines.

Key findings include:
C Existing management plans range from detailed to absent entirely, and the likelihood that lynx populations can be conserved under such disparate planning contexts is negligible.
C The lynx management plan of Washington DNR is the most comprehensive available, but even it falls far of what is necessary to conserve or recover lynx populations.
C All plans bear enormous room for improvement.
C A large number discrepancies arose between written lynx habitat management objectives and the professional opinions and recommendations made by lynx experts.

From my interviews with lynx experts, consensus prevailed on several points. Expert consensus includes:
C There are conditions where logging could produce good snowshoe hare habitat, if specific silvicultural prescriptions are followed. Those prescriptions require the retention of large amounts of residual material and dense regeneration.
C Logging, as generally and historically practiced is detrimental to hare and lynx habitat because resulting clearcuts are too open and not sufficiently heterogeneous.
C Prescriptions that result in complex habitat mosaics are beneficial
C Clearcut logging does not compare to wildfire to produce conditions that are beneficial to lynx.
C Appropriate scales for analysis of lynx population viability should be driven by demographic (i.e. population) parameters.
C Roads pose a threat to lynx with regard to roadkill, trapping, and backcountry disturbances by motorized vehicles.
C Logging roads are used by actual and potential lynx competitors.
C With respect to road density, the grizzly bear and lynx can both be served by adhering to road density standards.
C Trapping can have pronounced negative effects on lynx population persistence in southerly portions of lynx range.

In addition, I ranked 13 land management agencies on their lynx management efforts, and provided a fairly comprehensive discussion of 31 lynx management-related parameters in a section entitled, Best Management Practices and Guidelines.

II. PREAMBLE

The vast majority of conifer forests in the western U.S. are managed for timber extraction, which by tradition, requires the full suppression of wildfires, and intensive, widespread manipulation of the forest environment. Along with trapping, forest management has had detrimental effects on lynx populations. The _conversion_ of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) ecosystems to preferred tree species such as Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and other desirable lumber species (such as routinely occurs on the Kootenai National Forest) changes the ecology of the conifer forest to one less-preferred by lynx. Fire suppression in lodgepole pine--a fire-dependent and fire-evolved species-- has prevented vast areas of old lodgepole pine from being recycled by fire to dense, early-to-mid-seral lodgepole forests, which are broadly considered optimal forage for the snowshoe hare, the principal lynx prey.

Numerous other factors associated with logging are detrimental to lynx and hare. These include high road densities, loss of old growth spruce-fir forests, high backcountry use by humans, clearcuts that do not regenerate promptly, clearcuts that do not generate densely, and others.

The general scientific consensus is that industrial logging, as historically and generally practiced in the western U.S., has caused great harm to lynx.

However, lynx biologists agree that a great deal can be done to modify silvicultural objectives, prescriptions, and considerations to manage conifer forests to maintain production of wood fiber and to encourage the conservation and recovery of lynx. This document provides background and interpretation for implementing such changes.

III. PURPOSE AND INTRODUCTION

The lynx (Felis canadensis) has undergone a dramatic range contraction and population decline in the U.S. during the last several decades and was proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Federal Register. Vol. 63, No. 130. 7/8/98). The present report comprises a comment to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to support the listing option, and to recommend listing the lynx as Endangered, rather than Threatened.

This report is not an overview of lynx research or available lynx-related literature. Such reviews are available elsewhere (e.g. Butts 1992; WDNR 1994; USDA 1994, Weaver 1993). Instead, it focuses on the relationship between what is known or speculated about lynx ecology in the northwestern U.S., and actual implementations of lynx management strategies on federal, state, and tribal lands. By examining the concordance between management and professional opinion, this paper will provide constructive suggestions for improved management approaches for the conservation and recovery of lynx populations. In addition, this document provides a fairly comprehensive, lynx conservation-oriented interpretation of the scientific literature and existing expertise in the Best Management Practices and Guidelines section.

IV. METHODS

I reviewed a majority of the most up-to-date literature available from state and federal land management agencies and tribes and I contacted management biologists and representatives of the principal land-management agencies in the northwestern U.S. to understand their perspectives on the lynx conservation issue. Existing documentation for lynx or lynx habitat management was solicited from those contacts. Where none existed, that information was taken into account and the contacts were queried to ascertain existing levels of concern and management for lynx.

In addition to literature and agency contacts, I formally interviewed lynx biologists from the U.S. and Canada. For this purpose, I developed a list of questions that pertain to the ecology of lynx in managed forested environments. I contacted eight wildlife biologists with direct experience related to lynx ecology, gained from field-based studies, all of which involved trapping and radio-tracking or snow tracking. Of those eight, six consented to participate in the formal interview, however only five were available to complete the interview. Each interviewee was asked the same questions, in the same sequence. Interview results are presented in the results section.

My geographic area of interest (Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Wyoming) was selected because it covers those areas with the greatest potential benefit to lynx, if they can effectively managed. Results from my agency contacts were compiled into a series of tables. The tables rate each agency or unit on a 0-10 scale on 31 criteria related to the quality of its lynx management guidelines. The ranks were assigned, somewhat subjectively, by referring to specific stated goals provided in printed documents, when they existed. When printed documentation did not exist, I assigned my ranks based upon my personal conversations with agency representatives, during which I queried each representative about the existing, area-specific management direction concerning lynx. Additional discussion of the ranking criteria is provided in section VII.

V. OVERVIEW OF MAJOR MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATIONS

The number of completed field studies on lynx (those which specified lynx as its principal research target), in the lower 48 states stands at one_ that of Koehler (1990). Other studies are too limited to derive substantive management implications (e.g. Koehler et al. 1979), or are only recently-started (Krebs, pers. comm). One other somewhat incidental study (Brainerd, 1985) reported on three lynx in Montana. A shortage of hard data has largely driven the process of stasis regarding lynx management. However, in lieu of hard data, some agencies have taken the initiative to act upon behalf of lynx, using existing data and subjective interpretations of lynx and hare literature.

No plan in existence can purport success in either conservation or recovery of lynx, and all existing plans are deficient in a wide variety of critical areas. Below, I briefly describe the plan or planning status for each of the four states considered, along with major land administrative units, and, based upon the tables presented in the results section, I point out its most obvious weaknesses.

Washington
In my opinion, the Washington Department of Natural Resources has gone to greater length than other agencies to develop an academically-based lynx management plan (WDNR 1996). This statement is based upon the level and quality of discussion and interpretation and integration of data and information from academia. I note, however, that the Kootenai National Forest has implemented a spatial modeling protocol_ a subject that was not addressed in the Washington plan. The WDNR plan defines seven lynx management zones in the state and describes standards and direction for forage, travel, denning, and non-lynx habitat within managed (principally for timber extraction) areas; seral and structural habitat characteristics, roads, and other factors. WDNR focuses intensively upon hare productivity. This focus is justified by the concept that lynx population viability is governed primarily by prey abundance (if no population sinks are acting). WDNR also provides lengthy discussions and ecological justifications for many aspects of lynx and hare management objectives. WDNR (1996) is exhaustively cited and interpretations of the literature are fully documented.

Weaknesses: Although commendable in several respects, the plan is flawed in that WDNR takes an extremely reductionist approach to the concept of lynx population management, and does not substantively discuss the natural forest dynamics, including wildfire and lodgepole pine succession, that hares have thrived under historically and prehistorically.

The plan fails to specify the implementation, monitoring, and oversight process, or how success or failure will be measured. There are no provisions for stochastic effects such as wildfire, nor how wildfire or tree pathogens will affect the viability of the plan. There are no measures for cumulative effects analysis, and no proposed studies to follow up on many of the statements, often excised from existing literature, which may hold true for far-northern populations, but not for those of Washington.

While landscape linkages are provided for by the plan (although not mapped), the graphic on page 3-37 makes it clear that even ridge tops, which are specifically considered as valuable lynx travel corridors, are available for clearcutting. Page 3-75, paragraph c. states, _If harvest activities must occur within the travel corridor along a ridge or saddle...._ However, the document does not state how frequently or why a harvest _must_ occur on a ridge or saddle. In addition, although the document indicates that new roads should avoid major ridge tops, it does not state the criteria on which that judgement will be based. The tone established by WDNR suggests that commercial forestry is the overriding forest management consideration.

WDNR (1996) provides ample documentation for hare habitat consideration, but nearly all of it is derived from studies in the far north, where strong cyclicity is the norm. Various assumptions are made by basing this plan on those data sources.

The document specifies (e.g. page 3-76) that a minimum of 2 den sites will be provided for by the plan although there are no quantifiable data on which to base that figure. An abundance of den sites could be substantially more important than indicated by WDNR. Typically, when a den site is discovered by a potential predator or disturbed by an intruder, a natural reaction of many wildlife species is to relocate young to an alternative den site. Such sites should ideally be redundantly available.

There is no protocol or plan in place to either mitigate or measure the impacts of roads on potential or actual lynx habitat, lynx predators, or competing hare predators.

Although stem density in regenerating clearcuts is perhaps the most important criterion for maintaining viable hare populations, there are no stem density standards provided in the section called _Guidelines and Ratios_ (page 3-71) that set target or proposed regeneration densities for hare forage. This omission is one of the more prominent weakness in this document.

No protocol is provided whereby lynx habitat will be routinely mapped or quantified to ensure compliance with the plan. In that respect, WDNR (1996) falls short.

Table 1 provides additional information on the strengths and weaknesses of the WDNR plan.

Idaho
In Idaho, the lynx is classified as a nongame species, and a _species of special concern._ Idaho currently allows no trapping of lynx. However, the State of Idaho has not published specific land management guidelines for the conservation of lynx on State lands. The Wildlife Procedures Manual (IDL 1992) provides no useful guidance for the management or conservation of lynx.

Montana
Lynx management guideline for Montana state lands are published in the Montana State Forest Land Management Plan (MSFLMP, 1988). The plan states that lynx are a concern in three of its state land offices whose districts contain lynx habitat (MSFLMP 1998). Lynx management considerations occupy four pages of the MSFLMP and no citations are provided. In general, lynx habitat protection is considered by
C delayed thinning of early seral lodgepole pine within 2 km of lynx denning habitat
C leaving 10% of such habitat unthinned
C maintenance of _connecting cover patches_ between 3rd order drainages.
C _a consideration of_ the negative effects of roads
C the general, perceived condition of the landscape

MSFLMP also provides definitions for denning habitat and potential denning habitat, but little context about conservation needs related to that habitat (such as the fact that in most areas, old growth spruce-fir habitat has been deleted).

Giddings (1994) indicated that current lynx distribution (1985-1993) in Montana includes _a minimum of 24 counties_ (pg. 9), while indicating that all but 5 of those counties had five or fewer records during that period and five counties had only a single record. A section in Giddings (1994) called _Supplemental Information_ indicates that the statewide lynx population was estimated between 1,750 and 2,400 animals, although a citation is not provided and no data are available to corroborate or justify that optimistic estimate.

Since 1994, Montana has supported winter track surveys for lynx.

In the early 1980s, approximately 50 lynx were trapped each year in Montana. Currently, Montana is the only state in the lower 48 that permits lynx harvest, with an annual statewide trapping quota of two animals.

Weaknesses: Montana lynx guidelines represent a starting point, but only the most obvious problems related to industrial forest activities in lynx habitat are included. Moreover, they do not specify who can make field-based decisions (i.e. the logger, sale administrator, biologist, surveyor, etc.). The guidelines also refer to a landscape context that cannot be quantified, and indicates that field-based judgements will be subjectively made.

MSFLMP (1998) makes no attempt at literature citation. It fails to address natural disturbance, stochastic effects, or to provide a generally-accepted standard for creating early seral habitats for hares. It does not qualify such objectives as leaving 10% of habitat unthinned. This is important because it implies that maximum thinning of hare habitat is permissible on 90% of the land area.

There are no provisions for objective interpretation of habitat parameters, there is no oversight infrastructure, no discussion of actual lynx status in Montana, nor a listing of the conservation objectives of the guidelines.

Wyoming
Currently, Wyoming has no guidelines for management of lynx or lynx habitat (Wyoming Game and Fish, pers. comm.).

USDA Forest Service
In the Northern and Pacific Northwest Regions (Regions 1 and 6, respectively), lynx are classified as a Sensitive Species, which implies that each National Forest should undertake precautionary measures to protect lynx. In practice, however, outside of two or three national forests, little of substance has been done to address lynx population viability.

In Regions 6 (Pacific Northwest Region), lynx occur principally on the Okanogan and Colville National Forests. Those forests base their approaches to lynx habitat management, in part, on the works by Koehler (1989, 1990) and Brittell et al. (1989).

Weaknesses: The lack of regional direction for sensitive species management at the National Forest level has contributed greatly to the loss of lynx habitat in the northwestern United States. The failure of the Forest Service to act substantively at a regional or national level resulted in the near-complete failure of the National Forests to develop critical, working plans to conserve (let alone recover) this designated Sensitive Species.

Region 1 shares the same weaknesses as Region 6. In Region 1, lynx are present on the Flathead, Lewis and Clark, Kootenai, and likely other National Forests.

Okanogan National Forest (Region 6)
The Okanogan National Forests provides for lynx on its _Management Area 12" (MA12) lands and contains the following considerations:

1. Lodgepole pine retention
2. Denning cover (10%)
3. Travel cover (20-30%)
4. Forage/hiding/thermal/stalking cover (30%)
5. Opening width (less than 600 feet).
6. Roads and road density
7. Motor vehicles (including snowmobiles) during winter.
8. Not type conversion from lodgepole pine.

Lynx management considerations on the Okanogan National Forest are contained in two pages of the Okanogan National Forest Plan (USDA 1989).

Weaknesses: Within lynx habitat, conflicting management objectives apply. These include:

1. Encouraging the gathering of coarse woody material and the felling of existing snags through firewood gathering. This has the effect of removing coarse woody material from the ecosystem even though such material provides habitat heterogeneity and denning material recommended for retention by lynx biologists.

2. Fires and fuels: The preferred strategy is suppression (contain and control). The elimination of wildfire is the principal cause behind the failure of dense, young lodgepole pine forests to regenerate in industrial forest lands. There is every reason to state that the suppression of wildfires in lynx habitat is detrimental to lynx.

Furthermore, MA12 lands cover a relatively small percentage of lynx habitat on the forest and lynx management guidelines are restricted to MA12 lands. On other lands, different management guidelines apply that give little or no consideration to lynx conservation needs.

The comments above reference the Okanogan National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 1989).

Colville National Forest
Current lynx habitat management guidelines on the Colville National Forest include:
1. Denning habitat (10% minimum / lynx analysis unit)
2. Forage habitat (30% minimum)
3. Travel habitat (no specific recommendations provided).
4. Non-lynx habitat (not more than 30% / lynx analysis unit)
5. Open roads (not to exceed 1 mile per square mile, except during active projects)

Details of these considerations are based upon the works of Koehler and Britell (J. McGowan, pers. comm). The Colville National Forest could provide no documentation available beyond what is contained in its Forest Plan.

Kootenai National Forest
Of the 17 National Forests in Region One, only the Kootenai has developed a conservation strategy (KNF 1997). The author of this document assisted with the implementation of the first landscape-scale analysis for lynx habitat viability of the Forest Service (KNF 1997).
.
The Kootenai National Forest _Lynx Task Force_ developed and has implemented a set of guidelines for lynx habitat analysis and compiled them as the Lynx Conservation Strategy (KNF 1997). The guidelines provide recommendations for lynx habitat components including:
1. Denning habitat (6% minimum per lynx management unit [LMU])
2. Forage habitat (30% minimum / LMU)
3. Travel cover or movement corridor habitat (40-60%).
4. Silvicultural prescriptions (described below).

The plan also recommends:
1. Clearcuts less than 20 acres in size.
2. Clearcuts less than 1,200 feet wide
3. Leaving down, woody material
4. Not _treating_ stands until adjacent areas are at least six feet high.
5. Minimizing clearcuts on major saddles and ridges.
6. Maintaining cover widths of at least 300 feet.

Perhaps most importantly (and aside from potential deficiencies in actual standards), the Lynx Task Force developed a straight forward, standardized approach to spatially modeling lynx denning, travel, and foraging habitat using standardized GIS data sets that are believed to be of good quality. By doing so, the Kootenai National Forest has demonstrated a sophisticated (though limited) protocol that should be adopted by other agencies and National Forests. The modeling output is a map of lynx habitat, classified as denning, forage, or travel, for any project boundary specified.

Weaknesses: The Lynx Conservation Strategy is entirely based upon the managed forest stand for its strengths. This means that it fails to address, either substantively or at all, potential problems associated with road density, potential lynx competitors, ORV/snowmobile use, the density of seral regeneration, emulation of wild fire, provisions for stochastic effects, or cumulative effects.

In addition, some of its proposed guidelines are themselves weak. For example, the _treatment_ of stands that are _at least six feet high_ indicates that regenerating forest that are at least six feet high can be thinned to silvicultural standards. When a forest stand is six feet high, all of, or a majority of its foliage is likely to be unavailable to hares in winter, when those stands are covered with snow. The Kootenai Forest has a mesic, modified maritime climate, resulting in very high snow falls in lynx habitat. Therefore, the thinning of stands at a minimum of six feet is an extremely weak standard.

The standard of creating openings of less than 1,200 feet is also a very weak standard. 1,200 feet (just under a quarter mile) represents a compromise, and is not supported by the scientific literature.

Indian Nations
The Colville and Blackfeet Tribes Were consulted for the purposes of this report.

The Colville Tribe has recently adopted the guidelines developed by WDNR (1996) but has not reached full implementation (Karl. Hruska, pers. comm.). Recent lynx sightings indicate that elevation limits proposed in WDNR (1996) do not encompass lower-elevation habitat use by lynx on the Colville Reservation, which was below 3,000 feet. The adoption of WDNR (1996) represents hope for lynx on the Colville Reservation. However, it suffers from all of the weaknesses of that plan.

The Blackfeet Tribe does not currently have any lynx protection or habitat management guidelines in place. Within the last year, 5 lynx Were trapped on the Blackfeet reservation (Dan Carney, pers. comm.).

VI. RESULTS

I have chosen to refer to those wildlife biologists who participated in interviews anonymously. The point of this paper is not _who said what_, but rather, to compile a substantial subset of existing knowledge and expertise about lynx ecology in a management context.

Each of the five experts interviewed has had substantive and direct involvement, and have played key roles, in executing ecological field studies of lynx. All have monitored lynx habitat use with radio telemetry, and/or snow tracking. Although the interview questions did not include, _how long have you been involved in lynx research?_, the prominence of these individuals in their field allows me to estimate that those biologists represent approximately 46 years of field study that have resulted in several peer-reviewed journal articles and theses, and other publications. Two of the individuals are faculty members at universities, one is formerly a faculty member, and the participants derived their knowledge of lynx from U.S. and Canada-based studies.

Results are presented in two parts. Part 1, Expert Opinion, is presented question by question. Part 2 is a set of tables which rank each management agency or unit on a subjective scale of 0-10 on 31 factors related to lynx, showshoe hare, and habitat management.

Results Part 1, Expert Opinion
I present each question, followed by a discussion of the answers elicited.

Question 1a. Are there some circumstances under which logging is likely to be beneficial for lynx?
Four respondents answered in the affirmative, while one responded with _possibly._

Question 1b. If so, please describe these circumstances specifically.
Consensus on this question centered on the need for dense (to very dense) regeneration and habitat heterogeneity consisting of various species of trees and shrubs, and the retention of as much coarse, woody material as possible. One exception to this _rule_ is that in the case of lodgepole pine, a very dense, monoculture regeneration is excellent for lynx.

Respondents_ other comments:
C Retention of overstory is a desirable condition that may encourage lynx to enter the regenerating stand sooner.
C The exact species composition of early-seral sites is not critical because hares feed on a wide variety of species.

Question 1c. Under what conditions is logging likely to adversely affect the species?

Answers focused on the quality of resulting hare habitat. The following attributes were identified as negative attributes:
- Intensive, commercial clearcutting, as generally practiced on corporate and
governmental lands.
- regeneration as open-structured stands
- artificial thinning in early-and-mid-seral stages
- slow or patchy regeneration
- lack of habitat corridors
- decreases in conifer cover
- total percentage of lands dedicated to logging and roads

Another participant felt that high levels of activity during the natal period were detrimental to lynx and could result in direct disturbance by logging-related activities. That biologist felt that closing roads during this period was a viable option.

Question 2. Under conditions where logging may be beneficial, what would be an ideal set of silvicultural prescriptions for logging in lynx habitat? Please describe these prescriptions in terms of canopy cover, stand density, species composition, levels of CWD, tree size/age, patch size/configuration, landscape context, and any other variables in the residual stands that you think are important. Are there key stand and landscape-level variables for lynx habitat that need to be considered here?

Suggestions for optimizing lynx and hare habitat were numerous. They included:
- Encourage regeneration that is much denser than that resulting from traditional
silviculture.
- leave large amounts of coarse, woody material.
- leave overstory trees.
- Implement prescriptions that result in a mosaic of small patches containing high levels
of habitat diversity and various ecological communities and seral stages.

Other comments included:
C Areas with maximal stem density (such as 12,000 per acre or more) are associated with high hare densities.
C precommercial thinning is not recommended under any circumstances since hare forage and cover is degraded by this activity. After 40 years, a commercial thin is acceptable.
C Fire suppression has had a great negative effect by reducing the availability of early seral stands with extremely high stem densities.
C Landscape travel corridors must be identified and protected.
C Grouping harvest units together (while providing for corridors between harvest units) may have beneficial effects.
C _A female with kittens would never enter a clearcut_ (this statement was made by an interviewee).

Question 3. How might these prescriptions change (or not) between lynx habitat in the North Cascades, northern Rockies and southern Rockies?

This question presented some problems in that few data are available to conclusively answer it. However, it was noted that:
- In southern areas, habitat fragmentation increases so that anthropogenic factors can
pose
increasingly significant obstacles for lynx conservation. For example, development in
valley
bottoms can constrain or eliminate lynx travel corridors.
- Elevational considerations pertain to the distribution of habitats and levels of probable
competition between lynx and bobcats.

In addition, one ecologist noted that the ecological differences between the North Cascades and the Colorado Rockies and Wyoming were so entirely different, that the North Cascades _template_ should not be applied to Colorado or other areas that have disparate ecologies.

Question 4. What are the effects of logging versus Fire to create a mosaic beneficial to lynx?

The biologists noted:
- Regeneration from logging is not sufficiently dense to provide good hare habitat
- Size and patchiness between fire and logging differ.
- in montane and subalpine areas where the bulk of lynx habitat occurs, silvicultural
prescriptions
- include harvest rotations that are shorter than occur naturally by fire. Therefore,
longer logging
rotations may be better.

Additional comments included:
C Logged stands are not very beneficial because they have low stocking densities and insufficient coarse, woody material, whereas fires more consistently leave more coarse, woody material and result in higher regeneration stocking densities.
C Fires result in more standing trees (both alive and dead) and in more of a habitat mosaic than logging.
C Intermediate fire intensities can be beneficial when they leave a mosaic of habitats. However, hot fires in lodgepole habitats are also beneficial to hares.

Question 5. Given that individual lynx range over areas that are many square miles, what do you think is a defensible/appropriate methodology for analyzing cumulative effects?

The biologists indicated that larger, landscape-scales are generally best for this species and that analysis areas should be based on demography and populations. In effect, this means that the minimum unit of analysis should be defined by the boundaries of a population, or, as a surrogate, the boundaries of large blocks of habitat that encompass both lynx habitat an non-lynx habitat such valley bottoms and urban areas.

A majority also agreed that satellite remote sensing was an appropriate technology to study such land areas.

Additional comments included:
- The scale of analysis should depend upon the question being asked. For example,
the
juxtaposition of habitats in local mosaics is also a concern.
- Lynx analysis should have a temporal component to respond to changes over time,
particularly with regard to the prey base.
- When examining local patch characteristics, the scale should be such that it can focus
upon habitat quality such as structure.
- Areas of at least 1,000 square kilometers should be analyzed.
- We may not know enough about lynx to model cumulative effects effectively

Question 6. Can any thresholds of road density and motorized access be determined beyond which they pose significant negative effects on lynx?

Lack of consensus on this question points out the need for additional data on which to base thresholds. However, one biologist pointed out that lack of data should not prevent us from taking a conservative approach regarding road densities, and proposing thresholds (i.e. decision rules) just as is done for grizzly bears in recovery zones. That biologist also noted that the level of both human activity and use by other potential predators including coyotes and wolves is higher near roads, and that these factors should be considered when proposing thresholds.

Two biologists referred to the case of the Adirondack lynx reintroductions in which approximately twenty of the known lynx mortalities were caused by collisions with automobiles.

Question 7. How should road density standards for lynx habitat be integrated with road density standards for grizzly bear habitat in areas where they overlap?

Discussion: Consensus was that both the lynx and grizzly bear can be benefit by establishing and adhering to road density standards.

Question 8. Is there any evidence that roads and motorized access (including snowmobiles) result in adverse impacts to lynx?

Consensus was that roads do adversely impact lynx, especially with regard to roadkill. In addition, one biologist had specific data wherein a lynx was displaced by snowmobile activity. All agreed that more data are needed.

Other comments included the suggestion that cougars may use roads, and to the extent that roads caused an increase in lynx-cougar interactions, this could be detrimental to lynx.

It was pointed out that in many situations, road density may be less important than traffic volumes in conferring detriment to lynx.

Question 9. Is there any evidence that motorized recreational use in winter poses a threat to lynx by allowing competitors (coyotes, mountain lions, bobcats) to access habitat that would be otherwise unavailable to them?

A majority of respondents indicated theat there was some evidence that snowmobile activity promoted the use of trails by coyotes, however there exist little, if any empirical evidence.

One biologist believed that, although coyotes use snowmobile trails, they are unlikely to pose negative effects on lynx. However this was contradicted by another biologist who said that there was considerable dietary overlap between lynx and also, that coyotes can form packs, which makes them considerably more formidable opponents in an interspecific confrontation.

Question 10. To what extent is trapping a threat to lynx (legal in Canada and Montana; illegal or incidental everywhere)?

There was consensus that in the western U.S., incidental trapping poses a major threat to lynx. Biologists agreed that trapping, both legal and incidental are principal factors in the decline of lynx in the lower 48 states. Because they are easy to trap, lynx are easily extirpated locally. One biologist also noted that trapping in southern Canada reduces the probability of immigration to the U.S. Another noted that under efforts to restore lynx populations, trapping (including bobcat or coyote trapping) should be reduced or eliminated in recovery zones.

One biologist stressed that trappers can provide support for conservation efforts.

Question 11. Are there steps that can readily be taken to mitigate this threat?

Discussion: Only one biologist was responsive to this question. He indicated that spatial management of trapping effort is very important and that trapping effort could be spread out so that local extirpations would not occur. In addition, trapper education could largely eliminate incidental trapping.

Results Part 2. Rating Tables

I talked with representatives and reviewed the existing literature provided by 13 federal, state, and tribal agencies, and management units in order to gauge the explicitness, effectiveness, strengths, weaknesses, level of detail, academic rigor, monitoring, oversight, and other approaches to conserve wild lynx. Whereas all tables originally existed as a single table, it was split up for printing and formatting purposes. A synopsis and a discussion of the rating system is provided in the following section entitled, Best Management Practices and Guidelines.

Management Item/agency or unit USFS R1 USFS R6 WADNR IDFG

1. Roads: road standards 0 0 8 0

2. Roads: effectiveness of closures: not addressed = 0 0 0 0 0

3. Roads: density thresholds 0 0 0 0

4. Roads: density analysis 0 0 0 0

5. Habitat: denning habitat needs 0 0 4: (2/sq. mi) 0

6. Habitat: travel habitat needs 0 0 7: can log habitat on ridges, saddles 0

7. Habitat: forage habitat needs 0 0 9 0

8. Landscape: lynx management unit delineation 0 0 8: (delineated only in specific zones) 0

9. Landscape: GIS-based implementation 0 0 4: (little detail) 0

10. Landscape: quality of data: 0 if no plan exists 0 0 2: (not described) 0

11. Landscape: connectivity within population 0 0 9 0

12. Landscape: connectivity with northern population sources 0 0 0 0

13. Landscape: percentages by seral stage 0 0 10 0

14. Silviculture: opening size 0 0 8 0

15. Silviculture: juxtaposition of harvest units 0 0 4: (not quantified-little detail) 0

16. Silviculture: precommercial thinning 0 0 0 0

17. Silviculture: slash treatment: 0 little retention or unaddressed / 10 = full retention 0 0 0 0

18. Silviculture: lodgepole forest type conversions 0 0 0 0

19. Silviculture: heterogeneity of regenerated mosaic 0 0 9 0

20. Silviculture: overstory retention 0 0 2: "will be considered_ 0

21. Silviculture: density of regen maximized 0 0 5: only as a result of other objectives 0

22. Wildlife: mid-upper elevations 0 0 0 0

23. Recreation: snowmobile use 0 0 0 0

24. Incidental trapping precautions 0 0 0 0

25. Level of plan detail 0 0 8 0

26. Robustness of citations on which plan is based 0 0 10 0

27. Level of implementation oversight 0 0 1: monitoring not described 0

28. Is plan reinforce by governmental laws? 0 0 1: policy-not law 0

29. Cumulative effects analysis 0 0 0 0

30. Emulation of natural disturbance regimes 0 0 0 0

31. Provision for stochastic events 0 0 0 0

Overall average score: 0 0 3.22 0

Table 1. Subjective ratings for USDA Forest Service Regions 1 and 6, Washington DNR, and Idaho Fish and Game.

Management Item/agency or unit MTDNR WYG&F Okanogan NF Colville NF

1. Roads: road standards 0 0 5 3

2. Roads: effectiveness of closures: not addressed = 0 0 0 0 0

3. Roads: density thresholds 0 0 8: (1 mi./sq. mi.) 5: (no doc)

4. Roads: density analysis 0 0 0 0

5. Habitat: denning habitat needs 5 0 3: undocumented 2

6. Habitat: travel habitat needs 3 0 2: undocumented 2

7. Habitat: forage habitat needs 2: only within 2 mi of den. Habitat 0 2: undocumented 2

8. Landscape: lynx management unit delineation 6: Based on the BMU 0 0 0

9. Landscape: GIS-based implementation 0 0 2 2

10. Landscape: quality of data: 0 if no plan exists 0 0 2: undocumented 2

11. Landscape: connectivity within population 5: decision is subjective 0 0 0

12. Landscape: connectivity with northern population sources 0 0 0 0

13. Landscape: percentages by seral stage 6 0 3: decision subjective 0

14. Silviculture: opening size 8 0 2 : 600 feet 0

15. Silviculture: juxtaposition of harvest units 2: decision is subjective 0 0 0

16. Silviculture: precommercial thinning 3: provides for some retention 0 0 0

17. Silviculture: slash treatment: 0 = little retention or unaddressed / 10 = full retention 0 0 0 0

18. Silviculture: lodgepole forest type conversions 8: no lodgepole conversion 0 10 0

19. Silviculture: heterogeneity of regenerated mosaic 5: up to 10% of are not thinned 0 0 0

20. Silviculture: overstory retention 0 0 0 0

21. Silviculture: density of regen maximized 2: addressed only in lodgepole 0 0 0

22. Wildlife: mid-upper elevations 0 0 0 0

23. Recreation: snowmobile use 2: snowmobile problem stated 0 2: closure decisions unstated 0

24. Incidental trapping precautions 0 0 0 0

25. Level of plan detail 3 0 2 0

26. Robustness of citations on which plan is based 0 0 0 0

27. Level of implementation oversight 0 0 2 0

28. Is plan reinforce by governmental laws? 0 0 0 0

29. Cumulative effects analysis 0 0 0 0

30. Emulation of natural disturbance regimes 3: thinning delays 0 0 0

31. Provision for stochastic events 0 0 0 0

Overall average score: 2.03 0 1.45 0.58

Table 2. Subjective ratings for Montana DNR, Wyoming Fish and Game, Okanogan National Forest, and Colville National Forest.

Management Item/agency or unit Colville Tribe Kootenai Nat. Forest Flathead Nat. Forest

1. Roads: road standards 8 0 0

2. Roads: effectiveness of closures: not addressed = 0 0 0 0

3. Roads: density thresholds 5 0 0

4. Roads: density analysis 0 0 0

5. Habitat: denning habitat needs 6 5 0

6. Habitat: travel habitat needs 7 10 0

7. Habitat: forage habitat needs 9 9 0

8. Landscape: lynx management unit delineation 8 10 0

9. Landscape: GIS-based implementation 4 10 0

10. Landscape: quality of data: 0 if no plan exists 0 8 0

11. Landscape: connectivity within population 9 7 0

12. Landscape: connectivity with northern population sources 0 0 0

13. Landscape: percentages by seral stage 10 10 0

14. Silviculture: opening size 8 2 (1,200') 0

15. Silviculture: juxtaposition of harvest units 4 4 0

16. Silviculture: precommercial thinning 0 7: thinning allowed on 70% of stand area with partial retention 0

17. Silviculture: slash treatment: 0 little retention or unaddressed / 10 = full retention 0 3: mentioned 0

18. Silviculture: lodgepole forest type conversions 0 0 0

19. Silviculture: heterogeneity of regenerated mosaic 9 3: implied by cwm retention 0

20. Silviculture: overstory retention 7: clearcuts not preferred 0 0

21. Silviculture: density of regen maximized 5 2 0

22. Wildlife: mid-upper elevations 0 0 0

23. Recreation: snowmobile use 0 0 0

24. Incidental trapping precautions 0 0 0

25. Level of plan detail 7 6 0

26. Robustness of citations on which plan is based 10 4 0

27. Level of implementation oversight 0 0 0

28. Is plan reinforce by governmental laws? 0 0 0

29. Cumulative effects analysis 0 0 0

30. Emulation of natural disturbance regimes 0 0 0

31. Provision for stochastic events 0 0 0

Overall average score: 3.48 3.1 0

Table 3. Subjective ratings for the Colville Indian Reservation, Kootenai National Forest, and Flathead National Forest. Note that the Colville Tribe has recently adopted the standards of WDNR and has its own GIS facility. These ratings are subjective and preliminary.

Management Item/agency or unit Lewis & Clark NF Blackfeet Tribe

1. Roads: road standards 0 0

2. Roads: effectiveness of closures: not addressed = 0 0 0

3. Roads: density thresholds 0 0

4. Roads: density analysis 0 0

5. Habitat: denning habitat needs 0 0

6. Habitat: travel habitat needs 0 0

7. Habitat: forage habitat needs 0 0

8. Landscape: lynx management unit delineation 0 0

9. Landscape: GIS-based implementation 0 0

10. Landscape: quality of data: 0 if no plan exists 0 0

11. Landscape: connectivity within population 0 0

12. Landscape: connectivity with northern population sources 0 0

13. Landscape: percentages by seral stage 0 0

14. Silviculture: opening size 0 0

15. Silviculture: juxtaposition of harvest units 0 0

16. Silviculture: precommercial thinning 0 0

17. Silviculture: slash treatment: 0 = little retention or unaddressed / 10=full retention 0 0

18. Silviculture: lodgepole forest type conversions 0 0

19. Silviculture: heterogeneity of regenerated mosaic 0 0

20. Silviculture: overstory retention 0 0

21. Silviculture: density of regen maximized 0 0

22. Wildlife: mid-upper elevations 0 0

23. Recreation: snowmobile use 0 0

24. Incidental trapping precautions 0 0

25. Level of plan detail 0 0

26. Robustness of citations on which plan is based 0 0

27. Level of implementation oversight 0 0

28. Is plan reinforce by governmental laws? 0 0

29. Cumulative effects analysis 0 0

30. Emulation of natural disturbance regimes 0 0

31. Provision for stochastic events 0 0

Overall average score: 0 0
Table 4. Subjective ratings for Lewis and Clark National Forest and the Blackfeet Tribe.

Discussion of Results
A. Interviews
It is clear from discussions with lynx biologists that there is great room for improvements in lynx and hare habitat management and that specific silvicultural procedures and objectives can foster lynx conservation efforts. It is also clear that little effort is being made by most agencies to incorporate existing scientific knowledge into their operational plans.

B. Rating Tables
Tables 1-4 demonstrate several things. They show that some headway has been made by a limited number of agencies or management units. Second, they show that even the best existing plans leave much to be desired regarding potential to conserve and recover lynx. Third, they point to a historic neglect of the lynx as a species worthy of management attention at all levels of government. Fourth, they show that autonomous, haphazard, and voluntary approaches to lynx conservation are unlikely to effect the conservation or recovery of lynx. In addition, they show that much more needs to be done (and can be done), even by those with the best current policies and intentions.

The ratings shown in Tables 1-4 are fairly subjective, but not arbitrary, and not based upon uneducated speculation. A full discussion of each plan_s ranking for each item is a large task, and it should definitely be undertaken, this was not included in the current project. These tables can facilitate that process in the future. Most importantly, the tables point to consistent types of weaknesses that are common to all existing agencies and land areas_ namely, the complete failure to substantively address any of the following items.

C road density thresholds
C road density analysis
C landscape connectivity to northern populations
C incidental trapping risks
C snowmobile access to the back country and the compressed trails they create
C implementation oversight
C legal mandates
C cumulative effects analysis
C emulation of natural disturbance
C provisions for stochastic events

Each of those omissions point to weak, relatively unsophisticated plans that likely lack the rigor necessary to conserve or recover lynx. Virtually any of the low-ranking elements could contribute to the failure of a plan to realize its objectives.

The ratings between table elements cannot be compared with each other. The evaluation of each table item is a preliminary one that should be studied in depth. Some items, such as number 8_ lynx management unit delineation is a yes or no option_ either the units have been delineated or they have not, while other items such as _quality of GIS data_ require extensive review of the resources available to each unit. The tables items are presented as a starting point for the critical evaluation of lynx management plans, as they develop, now and in the future.

Intermediate values in the tables imply that at some level, the item of concern has been addressed, but that implementation is either incomplete or is lacking entirely, or that the standards for that item are either not specific, or are explicitly weak.

An additional comment on the rating definition is provided for each of the 31 table items in the next section of this document.

VII. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND GUIDELINES

The importance of best management practices and guidelines demands a separate section. Optimal lynx management requires a reorienting of priorities in managed forests. It also demands that many actions for which we have little or no quantitative data, should be implemented completely and effectively, based upon expert opinion, conservation intent, and logic. Conservation biology has been defined as a _crisis discipline_ (Soule, 1986) because academicians realize that all too often, corrective actions are not implemented until long after they are needed. The lynx is a case in point. Conservation biologists also realize that the deliberate deferment of conservation actions until _all the data are in_ can be compared with intentional extirpation by society in general.

This section lists each of the 31 criteria presented in the results tables, and provides a _conservative_ (meaning conservation-oriented) discussion of each criterion. For each criterion provided in Tables 1-4, a zero indicates that the criterion has either not been addressed, or, has not been addressed in any substantive way that benefits lynx.

1. Road standards. Rating is based upon actual stated standards explained in the appropriate reference documents. A ten implies that strict road standards, for the benefit of lynx, are stated, implemented, overseen, and monitored, and adhered to.

Many National Forests are densely strewn with both open and closed logging roads. For example, the Kootenai National Forest, with area of 2.3 million acres, has approximately 9,000 miles or roads, or an average of 2.5 miles of roads per square mile of forest. This estimate includes wilderness areas and roadless areas, indicating that in many areas, roads are a principal if not dominant component of the landscape. Although few data are available, the best implications and advice suggests that roads and associated traffic, back country use, and use by other wildlife species, including coyotes cougars (this author has seen both species in lynx habitat, actually on roads), represent actual and potential hazards to lynx. Because roads potentially affect a broad array of species (benefitting some, such as the coyote), any conservation plan that purports to support the conservation of a major sensitive carnivore, must effectively and thoroughly address the roads issue. Any best management practice must definitively address roads-related issues.

2. Effectiveness of road closures. Rating is based upon a value of zero if roads are not expressly closed for the benefit of lynx and no monitoring of closure effectiveness is in place. A ten implies that roads are closed expressly to reduce impacts to lynx and that those closures are monitored closely. Obviously, this criterion will play a much more important role in the future, after the lynx is listed under the Endangered Species Act, much like grizzly bear-induced road closures.

Various studies have shown that roads that are closed _on paper_ are in reality, not closed. For example, the so called _phantom gate_ phenomenon was well documented in the early 1990s on the Kootenai National Forest. That issue brought about a positive response by Forest personnel to enhance the monitoring of its road closure program. The point here, is not to lay blame, but rather to emphasize that without a formal mechanism to evaluate both recreational and administrative use of closed roads, there can be no assurance that road closures are effective.

Along the same lines, road obliteration, reseeding, and recontouring are relatively new concepts in the management of industrial forest lands. Often, closed roads are heavily traveled administratively, or traveled for the principal purpose of evaluating the condition of culverts. This is a simple waste of taxpayer dollars, misuse of the public concept of road closure, and poor forest management. Such roads should be identified, their culverts removed or rendered inert, and the roads should be closed effectively rather than ineffectively.

Whether closed roads are intended for recreational or administrative use or whether they are intended to be truly closed, comprehensive record keeping can provide invaluable information on the effectiveness of closures of both gated and permanently closed roads. Undetermined levels of administrative use is a problem that will plague any wildlife conservation plan. A best management practice requires comprehensive knowledge of the status and effectiveness of road closures.

3. Road density thresholds. Rating is based upon actual stated road density thresholds for the conservation of lynx. A ten implies both establishment, implementation, and oversight of those thresholds.

No agency has yet to propose or establish road density thresholds, even in known or optimal lynx habitat. A best management practice will include the proposal, identification, and implementation of road density standards. Where grizzly bear-related standards are already in place on the so-called _situation one_ lands, such standards tend toward one mile of road per square mile of habitat, as measured on a _timber compartment_ basis (in Forest Service Region One). In roaded areas that are managed largely for timber production, the one mile per square mile _standard_ is a starting point. If and when the lynx recovery becomes a management objective, roads should be further reduced in the back country. A best management practice must provide for evaluation and reduction of road density in the best interest of the lynx.

4. Road density analysis. Rating is based on actual existing road density analysis or documented intent to perform such analysis for the benefit of lynx. A ten implies that road density analyses are in effect for the benefit of lynx.

As has been recommended by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Recovery team and approved by the USFWS, I recommend the establishment of road density objectives and the establishment of a GIS-base _moving window_ protocol for measuring road density and for mapping core habitat areas in lynx habitat. Because evidence suggests that roads are vectors for potential lynx competitors (either through agonistic, interspecific behavior, or through prey competition), high road density areas should be identified and reduced.

The quality and availability of current road data sets has prevented most forests from conducting a comprehensive analysis of their road densities. Part of this problem is driven by the question of effectiveness of road closures. However, when one considers that neither kelly humps nor gates are restrictive to potential wildlife competitors, the distinction between open and closed roads makes little difference in that context.

As a GIS expert involved in wildlife applications, I strongly believe that, given the tremendous resources of the National Forest System, the appropriate analysis area for a moving window road density analysis on a National Forest, is the National Forest itself. Such an analysis should include all inholdings and intervening areas where the forest boundary is disjunct. An analysis such as this, and subsequent efforts to reduce road densities, can be considered a best management practice.

5. Denning habitat needs. Rating is based upon an assumption that native denning habitat such as old growth spruce-fir represent optimal denning conditions and that optimal conditions are those resulting from ecological rather than anthropogenic processes such as logging or hand-construction of den sites. A ten would indicate that an abundance of appropriate habitat is actually being maintained or that there are ongoing efforts to increase the abundance of denning habitat to emulate that which would occur under prehistoric conditions.

I have personally surveyed, using aerial photographs, millions of acres of National Forest and corporate forest lands in the northwestern United States, including large quantities of actual and potential lynx habitat. In addition, I have conducted comparative surveys using historic and contemporary aerial photograph sets, and I noted the wholesale preferential logging, in many areas, of old growth Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmanni) and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) that make up the most important lynx denning habitat (Koehler, 1990). Groves of that habitat type are prominent as fire refugia in ecosystems that are dominated by lodgepole pine. Even a casual survey of industrial forest lands (whether federal, state, or corporate) points to the dramatic loss of quality, old-growth denning habitat.

When the safety of the next generation is at stake, a mother lynx (or nearly any mammal species, for that matter) needs an abundance of redundant options that approximate a natural evolutionary conditions _ and not just the number of options prescribed by people (e.g WDNR 1996). This is particularly prudent when we are establishing lynx conservation and recovery guidelines.

Contrary to the reductionist approach promoted in WDNR (1996) which suggests that retaining a minimum of two nesting sites per square mile of habitat, I believe that any conservative lynx conservation plan must maintain not just denning sites, but larger blocks of intact denning habitat that is protected in a substantial (e.g. half of a square mile) matrix buffer of other forest habitats.

The suggestion that lynx denning habitat can be monitored, provided for, and managed on a site by site basis--even to the point of constructing dens by hand (WDNR, 1996:3-82) is unreasonable, and flies in the face of responsible _ecosystem management_ and conservation biology. A reductionist approach to denning habitat has not served the lynx favorably in the case of WDNR (1996).

A straight forward and direct implementation of denning habitat provisions is very simple. It requires that all old-growth spruce-fir stands are located, mapped, and fully protected, with ample buffer zones; that roads are minimized, closed, and rehabilitated in those areas, and that all efforts should be made ensure the natural character of those areas. This is a best management practice for the conservation of lynx.

6. Travel habitat needs. Rating is based upon the stated and actual conservation of lynx travel habitat including attention to corridors, both local-scale and landscape-scale. A ten implies that travel habitat has been quantified and evaluated as serving the intended purpose for lynx.

That lynx can and will use virtually all habitats for travel, is part of the literature on lynx (B. Slough, cited in WDNR 1990:3074, Brainerd 1985). To consider it as a _type_ of habitat is in itself an abstraction. Lynx are highly mobile and have home ranges that have been documented as large as 640 square miles (Brocke, pers. comm. 1991). Lynx thrive best in areas that have large blocks of continuous conifer coverage containing early and mid-seral forests originating from fire. They do not thrive best in areas that are laced with high road densities or accentuated topography with highways and roads in the valleys, nor in areas with high densities of clearcuts that are regenerating sparsely compared to wild fire-induced regeneration.

Therefore, we can best provide for lynx travel needs by limiting roading and fragmenting of their conifer forests, and by keeping sparsely-regenerating clearcuts to a minimum. In addition, we can identify high-priority road crossing areas to facilitate the safe crossing of lynx and other wildlife across or beneath high-speed roads, as is demonstrated in Banff National Park on the Trans Canada Highway, and along Alligator Alley (Interstate 75) in south Florida.

There is general consensus among biologists that lynx, while extremely vulnerable to traffic collisions in some areas, are regulated principally by prey density. In general, travel habitat is not a limiting factor for the recover of lynx. However, road kill represents a real threat to lynx. In addition, some documents suggest that lynx do not use elevations below 3,500 feet. On various occasions, that subjective limit has been shown to be arbitrary. For example, there were recently two sightings of lynx on the Colville Indian Reservation below 3,000 feet (Karl. Hruska, pers. comm.). Therefore, no lynx management guidelines should incorporate such arbitrary elevations. To the extent that the lower limit of conifer forests is established by ecological variables (e.g. a grassland interface), such an elevation can and should be incorporated into lynx travel habitat, per se. However, indications are that during dispersal, even open areas are crossed frequently.

Best management practices regarding travel habitat in managed areas requires the following elements:
A. Retention of continuous conifer coverage along major saddles and ridges, major drainages, and between drainages of all orders. Under no circumstances should those areas be clearcut.
B. Retention of continuous canopy coverage along highways in order to make crossing them less difficult.

C. Reduced-speed zones to reduce roadkill, as implemented along Alligator Alley to reduce hazard to Florida Panthers (automobile collisions is the greatest known cause of mortality to Florida Panthers -- and was the greatest known cause of mortality of lynx in the Adirondacks [R. Brocke, pers. comm.]).

D. The spatial staggering of harvest units, to maintain as much corridor width between them as possible (I suggest a minimum of 200 yards between timber harvest units. Although I cannot quantitatively justify this figure, it is considerably more conservative than the 100-meter corridor width proposed by WDNR (1996), and correspondingly, in the better interest of lynx travel habitat management. This figure should not be applied to major, landscape-scale corridors connecting southerly populations with northerly populations in Canada because such corridors should likely be many times that width (see item 11, below).

7. Forage habitat needs. Rating is based upon the actual implementation and oversight of a forage habitat component of a lynx management program. A ten indicates that objectives are scientifically defensible and that the program is in effect.

The _lynx habitat ratio_ as proposed in WDNR (1996) is an excellent concept that can be used to promote lynx productivity. Forage considerations are perhaps the strongest section of that document, and is likely to adequately provide (on a aerial but not necessarily quality basis) forage habitat for lynx. Although WDNR describes this habitat type somewhat minimally (page 3-53) it points out that to be most effective, forage habitat must extend well above the average high snow mark in winter. In addition it states that such cover should have a minimum of _40% horizontal cover_ which, although not defined, may be interpreted as 40% canopy closure. This is an excellent reference for a best management practice for lynx.

Among all of the lynx-management documents examined, none discusses the natural density of lodgepole pine seedlings that can regenerate from wildlife. This is unfortunate given that dense lodgepole pine stands in early-to-mid-seres may comprise the best potential hare forage habitat type in the lower 48 states, and that natural, fire-related regeneration can result in seedling densities of 20,000 stems per acre or more (personal communications with biologists and silviculturists).

By not addressing the discrepancies related to planted stands versus natural regeneration after harvest, in lodgepole forests, one of the most important aspects of lynx and hare ecology is neglected.

To provide for the best possible forage habitat for hares, a best management practice for lynx includes the regeneration of decadent lodgepole forests into early-seral lodgepole stands, by using hot prescribed burns that emulate natural fire.

If, instead of attempting to convert lodgepole-dominated ecosystems to other species (a major silvicultural interest in northwest Montana, for example) we maintain the integrity of the lodgepole-dominated ecosystem (with its inclusions of spruce-fir forest), we will be acting in the best interest of lynx.

8. Landscape: lynx analysis unit delineation. This criterion is relatively binomial. That is, lynx management units have or have not been delineated. A ten indicates that lynx analysis units have been delineated.

Unfortunately actual standards for delimiting lynx management units have not been published by those (apparently two) units that have delineated them. On the Kootenai National Forest, lynx analysis units are apparently subdivisions of preexisting grizzly bear management units (BMUs) and their co-existing subdivisions called bear analysis areas (BAAs). The principal benefit of delineation such areas is that monitoring change (analysis) and adherence to standards is facilitated. In addition, because they are based upon drainages, their boundaries may be incorporated into a travel corridor management plan for lynx, and will assist with mapping. Because lynx management areas are based upon watersheds, that GIS theme can be used to establish buffer zones along major saddles and ridges.

The establishment of mapped lynx analysis units is one aspect of an appropriate approach toward lynx conservation.

In delineating lynx analysis units, the following criteria may be helpful.

A. All elevations should be included (there should be no subjective lower elevation cutoff.

B. When delimiting BMUs, a hypothetical approximate size was established as the amount of land area that would be needed by a female grizzly bear with young. Although this is crude, and may have yet to bear any actual correspondence to known demographic parameters, it is somewhat defensible and may be the best existing option. However, as additional data become available regarding lynx home ranges in various _ecosystems_, it might be reasonable to modify the concept of lynx analysis units to reflect a) the lynx ecology of the region in question b) natural barriers to movement, and c) the home range boundaries of radio-collared lynx.

Perhaps most importantly, I recommend that all established (and yet to be established) lynx analysis units be used for their intended purpose_ that is, for analysis. Within each analysis unit, the actual amounts of various type of lynx habitats should be mapped and defined. On National Forests, existing aerial photos can be stereo-interpreted and used to map habitat. In other areas, data from the National Gap Analysis Program can be used. Any data set should be updated periodically to reflect change over time. By quantifying the existing lynx habitats, a baseline will be established for future monitoring and comparison. Such information will be needed to evaluate the progress and effectiveness of lynx guidelines, and may be compared with changes in lynx abundance at a later time.

9. Landscape: GIS-based implementation. Rating is based upon the known level of implementation of GIS systems to specifically assist with the conservation of lynx from a landscape analysis perspective. A ten implies full implementation of a standardized protocol using high-quality data.

In order to effectively evaluate and quantify landscape-scale phenomena, including the demographic properties of lynx populations and the distributions of habitats, a GIS must be used. Most major land holders including the Colville Tribe, National Forests, Plum Creek Timber Company, Boise Cascade Corporation, and Potlatch Corporation, have already made large investments in GIS capability. In addition, each state has a Gap Analysis Program office, which can undertake suitable analyses. In addition, there are private consultants to perform such work on a piecemeal basis. Unfortunately, GIS data development is relatively expensive. However, GIS is now widely accepted as the tool for natural resources management.

It would be a tremendous effort to fully evaluate the exact status of GIS facility development, data development, and implementation of GIS at all of the agencies and land units I contacted. Therefore my rating of them is very subjective, and is based upon both known and stated capability_ tempered by the level of actual implementation for lynx conservation purposed.

The Kootenai National Forest has demonstrated an excellent start for the spatial analysis of landscape to identify lynx habitat. Other lynx habitat modeling approaches, using GIS, are also available. For example, Boise Cascade Corporation has developed a GIS-based analysis tool that evaluates not only the distribution of lynx habitat, but also the proximity of the various lynx habitat components to each other (G. Roloff, pers. comm.), which has the definite benefit of providing additional contextual information for evaluating habitat quality.

A best management practice requires a full-scale, GIS-based study of lynx habitat variables across the full areal extent of a particular land ownership. Alternatively, I recommend that each state provide sufficient funds to perform appropriate analysis of habitat, road density, lodgepole pine distribution, spruce-fir distribution, canopy closure distribution, and seral stage (size class) distribution in its conifer-dominated ecosystem. This objective corresponds very nicely with the objectives of the Gap Analysis Program.

10. Landscape: quality of GIS data. Rating is based upon known quality of existing GIS data. Accuracy ratings should accompany all themes. A ten implies thata large set of standardized and well-described data are in use and that all data themes required for a quality landscape analysis are currently available. In this case, the assigned ratings cannot be taken as fact since I do not have a detailed knowledge of existing data quality beyond the Kootenai and Flathead National Forests.

Quality GIS data bases usually take several years and considerable funding to develop. Fortunately, the US Geological Service and other state and federal entities have made great strides in producing high quality GIS data. Moreover, many data files are available for download, free, over the Internet. However, data needs generally go far beyond that which is publicly available. In particular, themes such as existing and historic land cover, canopy closure, and structure, are difficult to develop and acquire. Therein lies a great challenge to those who need GIS analysis and do not have appropriate data.

In this case, rating must be based, again subjectively, upon the known or stated level of GIS data. Because I am familiar with state-based Gap Analysis Project data sets (among others) I can speak to the question of existing land cover data. In addition, I can speak to the level of data development acquired by the US Forest Service.

In short, a best management practice requires a dedicated project to acquire, develop, and maintain GIS data that are of sufficient quality to drive suitable landscape-scale analyses of lynx habitat. Ideally, landscape analysis will evolve into a modeling process that tracks land cover change by implementing existing models of landscape change such as those developed at the USDA Forest Service Forestry Sciences Lab in Missoula, Montana. SIMPPLE, developed by Jim Chew, and CRBSUM, developed by Bob Keane, can both be used to predict seral change over time and both models can be used to develop alternative management scenarios into the future. By linking land cover change (habitat change) with lynx demographic parameters under a variety of management scenarios, optimal solutions for lynx conservation and restoration can be produced.

11. Landscape: connectivity within a population. Rating is based upon stated proposed guidelines. A ten indicates that implementation is underway with appropriate monitoring and oversight.

It is clear both from the literature and from interviews with experts, that a habitat mosaic, that is not heavily fragmented with clearcuts, roads, reservoirs, train tracks, developments, or other items, and a landscape that has a great deal of both conifer cover and seral stands, is optimal for lynx. To the extent that as much _landscape integrity_ can be maintained as possible, a given management area will optimize landscape connectivity. A number of sophisticated, GIS-based tools (e.g. Fragstats and UTOOLS) are now available for quantifying landscape connectivity, patch complexity, patch density, fractal dimension, contagion, and other landscape metrics. However, those tools can be used only if appropriate land cover data are available. Fortunately, Gap Analysis Project data sets for Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Wyoming have already been completed or are scheduled for completion within the next few months. Information pertaining to that program can be found on the Internet at http://www.gap.uidaho.edu.

Under a best management practice, landscape connectivity is maximized and landscape fragmentation (defined as landscape alteration that is disadvantageous to lynx) should be minimized. Landscape alternations that are disadvantageous to lynx include:

A. Clearcuts which remain or regenerate into sparsely-treed stands.
B. Early-seral conifer regeneration that is pre-commercially-thinned.
C. Dense road networks.
D. Roads on major ridges and saddles.
E. Reservoirs.
F. Permanent deforestation (e.g. at large mine sites or ski areas).
G. Urban sprawl.
H. Motorized noise (loud noises are frequently a landscape-scale feature).

12. Landscape: connectivity with northern populations. Rating is based upon stated goals and actual implementation of landscape linkages on a large scale. A ten implies that a high-quality, ecologically-defensible plan has been proposed and that efforts are under way to implement it.

One of the major threats to lynx viability in the lower 48 states is the loss of landscape-scale connectivity with more northerly areas. In this case, I speak not only of habitat losses, but also of trapping pressures in southern Canada, which represents a sizeable population sink there. The main point here is that genetic contiguity must be maintained with lynx populations in Canada in order to maximize the likelihood of long-term retention of lynx in the lower 48.

A best management practice will involve the identification, conservation, and restoration of critical landscape-scale linkage zones that link occupied and unoccupied lynx habitats in the lower 48 states with occupied areas in Canada. This should occur both within the United States and Canada, under an international agreement.

Once the appropriate linkage zones are identified, every effort should be made to increase their functional potential to convey lynx into the U.S. and simultaneously, to provide for a high survivorship of lynx entering the United States. In general, this means that major landscape-or-bioregional-scale corridors should be many times the width of local management corridors. In theory, larger corridors are much safer for dispersing animals than narrow ones (Noss and Harris, 1986), and the width required for a corridor to be functional may depend on its length (Harrison, 1992). Therefore, it would be reasonable from the perspective of a dispersing lynx, that the width of a long corridor between core habitats separated by miles, should be measured in miles or kilometers rather than feet or meters.

13. Landscape: percentages by seral stage. Rating is based upon a stated plan to maintain lynx habitat based upon an academically-defensible standard. A 10 indicates that percentages have been established.

An appropriate context for this subject is provided by prehistoric (and pre-suppression) fire regimes in lynx habitat. The restoration of native fire regimes to the northern Rocky Mountains and Cascade Ranges would provide a seral distribution that could support viable lynx populations. All management plans and guidelines published (or unpublished) so far, have discuss neither the stochastic nature of prehistoric land cover disturbances, nor the evolution of hares or lynx in that context.

Natural stochastic and probabilistic phenomena are an ideal reference because they provide both spatial and temporal contexts for the interpretation of land cover distribution.

Lodgepole and spruce forest types predominate in lynx habitat in the lower 48 states. Lodgepole pine is a fire climax species, which, if fires are absent, is often replaced by Englemann spruce if sufficient moisture is available. For that reason, natural fire refugia in lodgepole-dominated ecosystems are composed of old growth spruce forests ( ideal denning habitat). Topography and physiography are excellent tools for evaluating the location of such areas (Camp 1995) and could be useful in reconstructing those distributions on land that has been clearcut. In addition, topography is an important input parameter for computer-driven fire spread models. This indicates that such tools can be used to evaluate the probable distribution of late-seral reserves in lynx habitat. By suppressing wildfires, agencies have greatly reduce the capacity of the land to support hares and lynx.

A best management practice for lynx requires that lightning-caused wildfires be permitted to burn in lodgepole-dominated ecosystems. Because wildfire is the dominant dynamic force in those ecosystems, it is contrary to the concept of _ecosystem management_ to both suppress fires, and to attempt to convert those forests to other, commercially-important species. To produce optimal hare forage, a fire in lodgepole-dominated forests must burn hot.

To the extent that prescribed fire can be shown to duplicate the ecological effects conducive to hare forage production, I believe that they can be implemented. Unfortunately, timber stands are obligated by obsolete forest planning processes to be sold to commercial entities, thereby eliminating the possibility of regenerating large areas of early-seral lodgepole pine.

The actual distribution of percentages of habitat, by seral stage, cannot be answered with a formula, as such percentages are, and should be, area-specific. This being said, there is considerable evidence that current early-to-seral distributions proposed by WDNR (1996; 20-40%) are appropriate ball parks in the natural fire-adapted ecosystems of the Cascades and Northern Rockies. However, traditional silvicultural prescriptions that yield that amount of early-to-mid-seral habitat do not emulate natural disturbance regimes. Although fire ecologists understand that the direct ecological comparison between fire regeneration and clearcut regenerations is a fallacy, the U.S. Forest Service continues to promote clearcuts as fire emulators (see the poster: Kootenai National Forest: portrait of a working forest_available from the Kootenai National Forest).

14. Silviculture: opening size. Rating is based upon the adherence of stated objectives to recommendations made by Koehler (1990). Inherent in this assumption is that the opening created is a clearcut, with little retention of residual biomass. A ten indicates adherence to the 300-foot _standard._

Koehler (1990) indicated that lynx seldom crossed openings of more than 300 feet. I believe this figure represents a potential obstacle for the restoration of lynx, principally because large, hot burns in lodgepole forests have the potential to regenerate the most and best browse for hares possible, and by logic, the potential to generate the most hares possible. We should not be blind to the evolutionary context of snowshoe hares in North America and we should not disregard the fact that wildfires in lynx habitat did not prescribe to a size limit rule.

That being said, it is not scientifically reasonable to infer from the above paragraph that an industrial clearcut, hundreds of acres in size, would therefore be beneficial for lynx. The truthfulness of such contention would be found not in the size of the clearcut, but rather, in the density and composition of the seral response_ and in other factors such as the presence of roads and other disturbance.

Therefore, the problem of opening size cannot be answered definitively unless regeneration results and contextual specifics are specified. Under traditional silvicultural treatments (wherein very high regeneration stem densities are not permitted) larger clearcuts are undoubtedly worse for hares than smaller ones. However, if seral regeneration is the most-dense obtainable, there is a high probability that the resulting conditions could comprise excellent hare forage.

It is clear from this discussion that implementation of silvicultural treatments that largely duplicate or emulate natural disturbance regimes is a best management practice for lynx.

15. Silviculture: juxtaposition of harvest units. Rating is based upon the stated recognition of associated criteria and of its interpretation related to the availability of lynx and hare habitats. A ten implies that the agency has a full understanding of this issue and has the ability to compare the stated objectives with landscape patterns that originate from natural disturbance in lynx habitat.

In general, clearcuts should be both spatially and temporally staggered in order to prevent elimination of effective travel corridors for lynx. This issue is particularly important in major corridor areas. As stated in item number 5 of this section, I propose a minimum corridor width of 200 yards as appropriate for lynx travel corridors in managed areas. However, interpretation of that figure should be set in the context of the local or meso-scale habitat distribution. When clearcuts are spatially dense and temporally clustered, they may play an ecological role that is similar to one large clearcut rather than many smaller ones. In such cases, one should consider that the minimum corridor widths surrounding the group of harvest units should be considerably larger in order to offset the fragmentation effects of the harvest units and accompanying roads.

16. Silviculture: pre-commercial thinning. Rating is based upon the specific definitions presented here, and do not purport to thoroughly discuss the concept that some thinning applications may be beneficial to hares when they open up a dense forest that has grown beyond the reach of snowshoe hares.

Pre-commercial thinning_ the process of killing trees to reduce competition between trees, may have benefit for hares if:
C the trees have grown too tall for hares to reach foliage, even in winter.
C shrubs are abundant and responsive to the added sunlight and moisture made available by thinning.

However, in order to be effective, a pre-commercial thin must not kill the foliage that hares can eat.

To me, this implies that a commercial thin, after perhaps 40 years is more appropriate than a pre-commercial thin, which could degrade hare forage.

This concern was emphasized by one of the biologist interviewed. He emphasized that, for approximately 40 years, no thinning should occur if the best interest of lynx is in question. During that time span, the growing stand is at its most critical stage for hare forage production.

By way of example, Sullivan and Sullivan (1988) showed that thinning lodgepole pine stands and leaving the slash on the ground attracted hares through immigration (indicating that hares like to eat lodgepole pine foliage). However, no sustained benefit was realized by the thinning, and most likely, thinning probably permanently decreased the quality of the treated area to hares by killing the trees.

17. Silviculture: slash treatment. Rating is based upon the stated objective of retaining as much slash as possible after timber harvest.

During traditional silvicultural activities, clearcut harvesting results in a large quantity of tree branches and tree boles that are too small to be of commercial value. Those materials are collectively known as slash. After the forest stand is clearcut, typically, those materials are burned either in a broadcast burn (which involves the use of a drip torch across the area of the clearcut), or the slash is bulldozed into piles, which are subsequently burned. Both types of _brush disposal_ drastically reduce the amount of carbon biomass and structural complexity below that which typically results from wildfire or normal forest senescence. Therefore, both clearcutting itself and disposal of slash are difficult (if not impossible) to justify under a conservative lynx conservation strategy.

The implication is that, if timber harvesting is absolutely necessary, a best management practice dictates that a maximum amount of slash is left on-site. Although the slash will generally have the effect of suppressing regeneration, the resulting habitat will be structurally much more complex than one resulting from a clearcut followed by extensive slash removal. There was general consensus of the biologists that slash should be left on-site after timber harvesting.

18. Silviculture: lodgepole forest type conversions. Rating is based upon the stated goal of maximum lodgepole forest type retention at elevations where lynx are likely to use them.

Lodgepole pine is a tree species that cannot compete with _desired species_ for commercial value. It is therefore common practice at, for example, the Kootenai National Forest, to _convert_ lodgepole forests to other species such as Douglas-fir and western larch. This practice is explicitly harmful to lynx for several reasons including:

A. In early and mid-seral stages, the planted stands never reach an optimal density to create excellent hare forage (indeed, loss of planted seedlings to any wildlife species presents a real problem for silviculturists).

B. The introduction of _exotic_ commercial tree species into the lodgepole ecosystem mandates ever more vigilant fire suppression to protect the _investment._

C. Exotic tree species have a fire ecology that is far different from native lodgepole pine.

D. The planted exotic stand is explicitly intended for short-period rotation harvesting and will never be allowed to senesce as would a fire refugium dominated by old growth spruce.

E. The planted stand will be periodically thinned to quickly generate quality lumber

F. Conversion of those forests requires the building and maintenance of additional roads and associated negative effects on lynx habitat.

A best management practice, in favor of lynx conservation, requires the retention of all native lodgepole cover that occurs in lynx habitat, except that they may undergo further ecological succession, resulting a succeeding sere.

Note: This best management practice does not necessarily include low-elevation lodgepole pine that commonly regenerates below 3,500 feet, but neither does it explicitly exclude those areas. Additional data on the use of such areas by hares, lynx, and other species is needed.

19. Silviculture: heterogeneity of regenerated mosaic. Rating is based upon the stated goal of maximizing the structural and seral complexity of stands to create a diverse mosaic of habitats within the harvested area, including densely- regenerating saplings and shrubs.

Heterogeneity, as defined in this context, must include the spatial distribution of vegetation within regenerating stands and the variety and distribution of either regenerating or residual (retained) stand components. In general, the biologists interviewed believe that maximum retained and regenerated heterogeneity is beneficial to hares and lynx.

However, this too must be understood in the context of alterations and habitat conditions that exist at a landscape scale. I feel that dense forest regeneration is an optimal condition for hares. However, this must exist in a broad, landscape context that contains a full compliment of ecological diversity in all respects, in order to retain is ecological functionality.

A best management practice encourages diversely heterogeneous stand regeneration including the retention of large amounts of coarse woody material and retention of forested islands within harvest unit boundaries. It also includes the vigorous growth of new shrubs and seedlings in some parts of the unit.

20. Silviculture: overstory retention. Rating is based upon the stated objective of maintaining and retaining at least 10 percent crown closure, distributed unevenly, for the express purpose of lynx conservation in all harvest units.

Because lynx may be unwilling to enter open areas, some degree of overstory retention (e.g. a shelterwood cut) is desirable in order to encourage re-utilization of harvested areas. A best management practice (for a great many wildlife species in addition to lynx) involves the retention of a substantial overstory (at least 10% crown closure) over a majority of areas harvested. To increase heterogeneity, such retention can be unevenly distributed across the stand.

Traditional silvicultural practices include the retention of seed trees in order to foster establishment of new seedlings without planting (also referred to as _natural regeneration_). However, the standard silvicultural practice is to harvest seed trees (which block sunlight) after the new crop has been established. Removing that overstory is unlikely to confer any benefit to lynx, and is therefore not part of a best management practice for lynx conservation.

21. Silviculture: density of regeneration maximized. Commercial silviculture that involves the planting of trees involves planting trees sparsely, compared to densities that regenerate after fire, at least in lodgepole and larch-dominated ecosystems. The difference between planted versus natural, fire-regenerated stands can easily be two or three orders of magnitude (hundreds of trees per acre versus tens of thousands of trees per acre). Tree planting is labor intensive and expensive, and high-density planting is probably not a silvicultural option. Therefore, this represents an area where, although there is great room for improvement, it will require entirely new silvicultural objectives or methods.

If and when lodgepole pine forests are harvested, it is reasonable to conduct a hot burn, containing the slash and ripe cones of lodgepole pine, in order to densely regenerate lodgepole pine. As implied earlier, a thinning is acceptable after lodgepole pine has grown beyond the reach of hares in both winter and summer.

Where conservation and recover of lynx is an objective, forests should be regenerated as densely as possible. Exceptions to this guideline occur where structural heterogeneity is preferred over regeneration density.

22. Wildfire suppression: mid-to-upper elevations. Rating is based upon the implementation of, either singly or in combination, a _let burn_ policy, or a prescribed fire program consisting of the regeneration of lodgepole pine forests through the application of high-intensity fire over areal expanses that are characteristic of natural fire regimes in the area under consideration.

The intended wholesale suppression of wildfires in forested ecosystems across the western U.S. is deemed detrimental to forest ecology by scientists throughout the region, for many reasons. Wildfire suppression in lynx habitat prevents the regeneration of early-seral habitats that are highly beneficial to hares. For maximum regeneration of lodgepole pine forests, fires must burn hotly. It is likely that the widespread fires of 1910 resulted in a prolonged, elevation of hare and lynx densities during the early, and possibly the middle part of this century in the northern Rockies.

A best management practice for lynx includes a let-burn policy in lodgepole pine-dominated ecosystems. Such a policy should be acceptable since the trees themselves are not commercially valuable.

23. Recreation: snowmobile use. Rating is based on actual restrictive policies against snowmobile in actual or potential, high-probability lynx habitat, as indicated by elevation ranges, snow depth, plant species composition, seral stages, mosaic patterns, hare survey data, and lynx research.

There is both field evidence (although minimal) and logical concern that backcountry use by snowmobiles in lynx habitat can disturb lynx directly, and that it can permit coyotes to venture where they would not otherwise go.

From the perspective of direct disturbance of lynx by back country snowmobile use, a best management practice would involve the restriction of snowmobiles to areas that are:

A. not currently used by lynx.
B. poor hare forage areas

The subject of snowmobile trail use by coyotes or other potential lynx predators and competitors requires the additional discussion presented below.

Murray and Boutin (1991) determined that, at least in the Yukon, coyotes are sympatric with lynx and both prey predominantly upon snowshoe hares. They also found that differential use of habitats permitted the two species to coexist in the winter, and apparently, to exploit the same prey resource along a network of snowmobile trails. This is direct evidence that competition for prey between coyotes and lynx is caused by snowmobiles. In summer, which was not analyzed by Murray and Boutin, logic indicates that competition between lynx and coyotes could shift from prey competition to agonistic competition, particularly in light of the fact that coyotes are known to hunt cooperatively.

From the perspective of interspecific prey competition, a best management practice regarding snowmobile use in lynx habitat, is the exclusion of snowmobiles from important designated areas.

24. Trapping: incidental trapping precautions. Rating is based on existing policy toward educating and or working with trappers to ensure that lynx are not accidentally captured, and upon trapping restrictions in lynx habitat areas, for the purpose of conserving and recovering the species.

Lynx are widely regarded as sensitive to trapping and can be caught both when targeted, and incidentally, by trappers who are targeting other species. Trapping is generally regarded as an activity that strongly impacts lynx populations in southern Canada (e.g. Hatler 1988).

Best management practices for the conservation and recovery of lynx include cessation of trapping activities that can result in harm to lynx. Trapper education and the implementation of more target-specific trapping techniques can play an important role in this best management practice.

25. Level of plan detail. Rating is based upon the thoroughness of the plan and its coverage of a wide array of pertinent ecological and management-related issues.

To date, no existing plan addresses the suite of considerations presented here. It is imperative that lynx management and recovery plans be thorough and explicit with regard to conservation and recovery considerations and methods. To be conservative, all plans should cover virtually all bases, on behalf of lynx.

A best management practice involves the development of a plan that is detailed, thorough, well-cited, logical, and provides supporting documentation for the statements made. In addition, a best management plan for lynx does not base its entire strategy on published literature because to do so, ignores other factors that can be logically concluded but not scientifically proven.

26. Robustness of citations on which the plan is based. Rating is based upon the agency_s published, synthesized analysis of and citation of literature. A ten implies both an excellent citations section and a demonstrated, thorough understanding of the significance of the cited documents in the context of the ecosystem of concern.

A high quality plan should include a careful examination of all pertinent and available literature and should reference that literature. The plan should exhibit an explicit understanding of the literature by stating the significance of findings in the context of the management area an in the overall plan. The plan should also be critically peer-reviewed by others who are not associated with the plan_s development.

27. Level of implementation oversight. Rating is based upon the level of oversight infrastructure provided for by the agency. A ten implies that specific personnel have been identified to monitor the implementation of the plan in a scheduled manner and to produce regularly-scheduled reports that quantify the progress and quality of plan implementation, its obstacles, and its successes.

Plan implementation should proceed on a directed and scheduled basis that is predetermined so that adherence to the plan can be validated or refuted. This oversight should be provided in the plan itself. Without such infrastructure, implementation progress cannot be effectively evaluated.

28. Is plan reinforced by governmental laws? Rating is based on the existence of laws that make the implementing agency accountable to public scrutiny of the implementation process. A ten indicates that a legal protocol is being followed and that the results are compiled, on a regular basis, to a central repository, to which the public has access.

The fact that none of the existing lynx management plans currently are supported by law is a major weakness of all of them. This is an important reason why the listing of lynx, under the endangered species act, is essential.

29. Cumulative effects analysis. Rating is based upon the actual implementation of a GIS-driven cumulative effects model and a numerical evaluation of habitat effectiveness for lynx.

To date, no one, has attempted to analyze cumulative impacts of human activities on lynx. An excellent precedent for this process, a cumulative effects model (Anonymous 1990) is operational on the Gallatin National Forest (Bev Dixon, pers. comm.1998). The cumulative effects modeling process was created for grizzly bears, but may be adapted to other sensitive vertebrates.

None of the existing plans entertain or mandate cumulative effects analysis. I strongly recommend the adoption of the Incremental Cumulative Effects (ICE) process that was developed by Collin Bevins of Systems for Environmental Management (SEM) of Missoula, Montana, for the purpose of evaluating cumulative effects on grizzly bear habitat within specified recovery zones, throughout the actual and potential range of lynx in the lower 48 states. I am familiar with this model because I worked toward its implementation in the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem of Northwest Montana and Northern Idaho (1992-1996).

A best management practice includes a fully-implemented cumulative effects modeling protocol to evaluate the habitat effectiveness for lynx.

30. Emulation of natural disturbance regimes. Rating is based upon the stated intent to emulate, or the actual programmatic emulation of natural disturbance regimes. A ten implies that the agency has embraced this paradigm in defining its overall management goals for lynx habitat.

None of the existing plans purport to emulate natural disturbance regimes, and none of the plans purport to regenerate hare forage in densities that emulate natural stem densities that can regenerate after natural fire (e.g. 10,000-15,000 stems per acre), which are greatly beneficial to hares.

A best management practice for the conservation and recovery of lynx includes substantial reference to, and emulation of, natural fire disturbance regimes.

31. Provisions for stochastic events. Rating is based upon the incorporation of stochastic modeling into the planning process. A ten indicates that stochastic modeling is implemented on a landscape scale that permits the agency to evaluate the implications for lynx resulting from probabilistic wild fires.

Currently, virtually all forested lands that are managed for commercial purposes are managed under the assumption that a) all wildfires will be suppressed, and b) therefore, administration of timber sales and other forest management practices will proceed as planned. No provisions are made for stochastic events in the forest planning process and they have not been made for lynx. This is especially important for lynx and hares, which co-evolved in the stochastic context of fire-dependent conifer forests. The stochastic nature of natural forest ecology, and lynx and hare ecology, are linked by evolution and should not be separated. This consideration is an obvious weak point in all existing plans.

The fire-related lessons of Yellowstone, of Storm King Mountain, of the Payette National Forest, and countless other areas are obvious, and yet agency still attempt to suppress virtually all wild fires_ in spite of the ecological roles they play in reestablishing _ecological normality_ that has been disrupted by fire suppression.

A best management practice for lynx, regarding stochastic events, is to admit they will happen, and then work on ways of integrating this fact with lynx conservation goals, and other, more utilitarian goals.

Additional Management-Related Comments
The potentially disparate, lynx-oriented management goals of a) promulgating the densest seral regeneration possible, and 2) providing for high levels of habitat heterogeneity in harvested stands should be reconciled at a landscape scale. Clearly, it impossible for every harvest unit to fulfill both objectives. I believe this points to the true variability of landscape patch and seral dynamics over large areas and underscores our need to emulate natural conditions in managed environments.

Most of the ratings in Tables 1-4 are subjective, and this process represents a suggested methodology that can be refined over time.

Clearly the standards offered above are pro-lynx. They can generally be considered extreme by centrist positions, and are not likely to be popular with large segments of the management establishment. However, because they are truly intended to define an optimal set of conditions for lynx conservation and recovery, these recommendations may help to further define the arena for discussion of lynx recovery options.

This paper is not intended to be comprehensive. A complete and well-cited document is not possible under current time restrictions. However, many of the statements and positions stated are backed up by existing literature. Moreover, because I decided to present survey results anonymously, I was prevented from subsequently referring to specific individuals as personal communications.

VIII. CONCLUSIONS

This document has shown that piecemeal, weak, and nonexistent lynx management guidelines bode ominously for the species in the United States. By comparing actual guidelines with an ideal set of management criteria, I have pointed out tremendous gaps, weaknesses, and shortfalls in lynx conservation. The suggestion that such an approach can ever recover lynx populations is unrealistic, at best. Even those land areas with the strongest lynx management guidelines cannot purport either actual conservation resulting from those guidelines, nor recovery. Moreover, in the face of continually expanding human populations, continued fire suppression, losses of habitat, and many factors beyond the control of management agencies, the lynx, like many other species, is likely to continue its historic decline.

One of the most important weaknesses of all plans is the absence of monitoring protocols to ensure effective implementation of the plans, and additionally, to monitor success or failure of the plans. With historic annual operating budgets ranging from 10 million dollars to more than 20 million dollars, the timber-producing National Forests of the northwest could easily support comprehensive carnivore surveys on a perennial basis. The historic lack of such monitoring programs leaves us with few historic data on habitat use, distribution, or trends in lynx (or other wildlife) abundance over the decades.

Perhaps most importantly, the implementation of plans that are driven by policy and not law, is an activity that can never be held fully accountable to the public interest. None of the existing lynx management guidelines are defined by law. This means that implementation cannot be legally mandated, cannot be legally enforced, and cannot reap the benefit of public scrutiny, oversight, and involvement in the lynx conservation process.

It is therefore essential that lynx conservation and recovery efforts be supported by the full and effective oversight of the Endangered Species Act. Without such oversight, the lynx is destined to continually lose ground, just as it has from Colorado, Oregon, and Minnesota, from its scanty remaining occupied habitat.

All of the examinations, interviews, evaluations, and conclusions of this document point to the need for listing of the lynx as Endangered under the Endangered Species Act. With only a few hundred individuals remaining in the lower 48 states, and the management of its habitat strongly controlled by commercial interests, the lynx is gravely vulnerable to extinction. By way of effective implementation of the optimal guidelines presented in this document; by the concerted restoration of natural ecological communities and processes in the northern forests; and by increasing the amount and quality of ecological data from the field, the lynx can reassume its evolutionary prominence in the ecology of montane coniferous forests in the northwestern United States.

IX. LITERATURE CITED

Anonymous. 1990. CEM--a model for assessing effects on grizzly bears ( _the green book_). USDA Forest Service, Missoula, Montana. 23 pp.

Butts, TW. 1992. Lynx (Felis lynx) biology and management: a literature review and annotated bibliography. USDA Forest Service Northern Region, Missoula, Montana. 115 pp.

Brainerd, S.M. 1985. Reproductive ecology of bobcats and lynx in western Montana. M.S. Thesis. Univ. Mont., Missoula. 90 pp.

Brittell, J.D., R.J. Poelker, S.J. Sweeney, G.M. Koehler. 1989. Native Cats of Washington. Washington Department of Wildlife, Olympia, Wash. 168 pp.

Camp, A.E. 1995. Predicting late-successional fire refugia from physiography and topography. Ph.D. Thesis. Univ. Of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 135 pp.

Giddings, B. 1994. Population status of lynx in Montana. Unpubl. Rep. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

Harrison, R.L. 1992. Toward a theory of inter-refuge corridor design. Cons. Biol. 6:293-295.

Hatler, D.F. 1988. A lynx management strategy for British Columbia. Wildlife Bulletin No. B-61. British Columbia Ministry of Environment. Victoria, B.C. 115 pp.

Idaho Department of Lands (IDL) 1992. Wildlife Procedures Manual. Idaho Department of Lands, Boise, Idaho.

Koehler, G.M. 1990. Population and habitat characteristics of lynx and snowshoe hares in north central Washington. Can. J. Zool. 68(5):845-851.

___________ 1991. Snowshoe hare, Lepus americanus, use of forest successional stage and population changes during 1985-1989 in north-central Washington. Can. Field-Nat. 105:291-293.

Kootenai National Forest (KNF). 1997. Lynx conservation strategy. USDA Forest Service, Kootenai National Forest, Libby, Mont.

Montana State Forest Land Management Plan (MSFLMP) 1998. Sensitive Species Implementation Guidance. Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Helena, Mont. pp. Ss-1-ss-25.

Noss, R.F. and L.D. Harris. 1986. Nodes, networks, and MUMs: preserving diversity at all scales. Env. Management 10:299-309.

Soule, M.E. 1986. Conservation Biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1989. Okanogan National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Region

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1994. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 184 pp.

Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 1996. Lynx habitat management plan for DNR managed lands. Olympia, Wash. 180 pp.

Weaver, J. 1993. Lynx, wolverine, and fisher in the western United States: research assessment and agenda. Rep. For the Interagency Lynx-wolverine-fisher working group. Contract No. 43-0353-2-0598. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station. 132 pp.