Canada Lynx: Denial and Loss

In a report just released, the Yellowstone to Uintas Connection takes on the failure of the Fish and Wildlife Service and Forest Service to implement management requirements consistent with science and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The report provides a detailed analysis and critique of agency management and its current Recovery Plan and Critical Habitat Designation. The Forest Service model was used by the Fish and Wildlife Service as the basis for the critical habitat revision. In the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) they reduced critical habitat by 88% by ignoring historical lynx occupancy and claiming that little habitat exists. Yet the model shows that some of the best habitats in the Northern and Southern Rockies occur in the GYA. This report illustrates agency deflection around most of the factors that adversely affect Canada lynx , its habitat and prey base. It shows that science has been misapplied in developing recovery plans and critical habitat designations, resulting in vast areas of lynx habitat being omitted from protections. If protected, these areas and their connecting corridors would also maintain other wide-ranging species such as wolverine, grizzly bear and the many species, forests and watersheds that are associated with them.

History

Canada lynx once occurred throughout the Rocky Mountains. They were listed as Threatened under the ESA in 2000 due to a lack of regulatory mechanisms protecting the species. Forest Plans were so inadequate that their implementation was considered a “taking” of Canada lynx under the ESA. Under the Endangered Species Act, “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect an endangered species, or attempt to engage in such conduct. This prohibition applies to both purposeful actions and, through regulation, significant habitat modification that actually kills or injures wildlife by disrupting essential behaviors like breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Agency experts on lynx produced conservation assessments and science reviews describing the factors adversely affecting lynx habitat. These included logging, mining, livestock grazing reducing forage for prey species, roads and winter recreation, trapping and shooting, predation, vehicle collisions, highways and private land developments, among others.

In 2007, the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction was released by the Forest Service and was intended to be used as the basis of land use plan amendments to provide for protection of lynx habitat. Even though the science used to formulate the NRLMD identified many human actions as adversely affecting lynx habitat, most of those were discounted due to “lack of evidence” even though their own science reports and conservation assessments had identified them as factors adversely affecting lynx habitat. The end result has been that management direction and land use plans are watered down to the point of being almost useless, enabling logging, mining, intensive recreation and high road densities, livestock grazing and other factors affecting lynx habitat and its principal prey, snowshoe hares to go unabated.

The NRLMD was then further limited in its application to apply only to “occupied habitat”, that is, habitat that was occupied at the time of listing in 2000. A national lynx survey that took place just prior to listing found few to no occurrences of lynx across much of its historical range. This omitted large areas that had historical observations and failed to account for the explosive levels of logging, mining, and recreation across the landscape that occurred prior to the national lynx survey. Even Yellowstone National Park and the National Forests surrounding it have been minimized as lynx habitat. Hundreds to thousands of reliable historical observations of lynx were discounted, enabling greater denial that lynx ever occurred in areas like the Caribou National Forest in SE Idaho, the Ashley and Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forests and Uinta Wilderness in northern Utah, as well as areas to the south into Colorado. These were classified as “unoccupied” and therefore not subject to the NRLMD or Forest Plan requirements.

Trends in Habitat Fragmentation

Examples of the growth in timber harvest and mining in lynx habitat show that large amounts of habitat were being destroyed before the National Lynx Survey. The NRLMD excluded mining as impacting lynx because “mining and grazing, were not specifically addressed [in the Remand Notice] because we have no information to indicate they pose threats to lynx”. An example from the Caribou National Forest, where lynx were historically trapped and observed is today classified as “unoccupied”. The chart shows the growth in mining over time in southeast Idaho which is also an important linkage area that was defined by the Forest Service early on. This area is part of what we have named the Yellowstone to Uintas Connection, that corridor connecting the GYA to the Uinta Mountains and Colorado. When individual mines in former lynx habitat in southeast Idaho are clearing the forest, digging up the soil and excavating pits hundreds of feet deep across thousands of acres, how is that not an impact? Then overburden piles burying thousands of acres of habitat, tailings ponds, and haul roads that are like highways, the impacts are further compounded. This one example amplifies the inherent bias and what appears to be willful blindness by the Forest Service in excluding mining as impacting lynx.

Similarly, a look at an example of timber harvest over time in lynx habitat in the Tally Lake Ranger District in the Flathead National Forest in Montana shows the heaviest level of logging occurred before lynx were listed or the National Lynx Survey occurred. This pattern reflects logging across the Rocky Mountains as well. These figures show that lynx observations decreased over time as logging increased. Failure to account for these effects combined with huge increases in recreation in lynx habitat have led to the obvious outcome. More habitat destruction and fewer to no lynx.

Recovery Plan

The current Recovery Plan issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service consists of semantics, but no description of lynx habitat needs and no criteria relative to those needs for protection or recovery of that habitat. The Recovery Plan does not provide recommended parameters with quantitative habitat standards, instead leaving that to individual Forests or other land management agencies. This is a recipe for zero consistency of approach and weak land use plan requirements. The Recovery Plan did not identify corridors to connect isolated patches of lynx habitat, thus dooming lynx in those patches to try and move across fragmented landscapes with little security and little chance of success. For example, a map of the Regionally Significant Wildlife Corridor in the Rockies was produced by the Wasatch-Cache NF for its 2003 Revised Forest Plan. The map illustrates the high elevation areas and connections needed by wildlife species such as lynx, grizzly bears, wolverine and associated species. Protecting habitat for these wide-ranging species would inherently protect habitat for the many other species that should be present.

Map of the Regionally Significant Wildlife Corridor in the Northwest.

Revised Critical Habitat

The revised Critical Habitat Designation removed millions of acres of lynx habitat that was previously considered critical habitat. In the Greater Yellowstone Area, critical habitat was reduced by 88% from that designated in 2014. The Fish and Wildlife Service based this on “recent modeling (Olson et al 2021) shows this area does not contain the physical and biological features necessary to support lynx residency and is not directly connected to lynx habitats elsewhere”. We obtained and used that model to show that, in fact, the GYA contained huge amounts of suitable habitat and that entire landscapes were arbitrarily excluded from critical habitat. The small patches of critical habitat remaining were disconnected with no identified corridors, guaranteeing further isolation and decline of remaining populations. Ironically, Colorado, which was considered unoccupied at the time of listing, was given millions of acres of critical habitat. The reasoning was that “it is uncertain whether this unit historically supported a resident population or if present, it was ephemeral. It is not connected to lynx habitats elsewhere. It now supports a resident population as the result of the State of Colorado reintroductions.” Meanwhile, the GYA was not considered for supplementation of populations and increased critical habitat even though the model shows it has better habitat than Colorado. And, while admitting this disconnect from habitats elsewhere, neither the Recovery Plan nor the Critical Habitat revision mapped or protected any connecting corridors.

The Figure below shows the revised critical habitat outlined in red with the historical lynx observations in yellow. The gap between the models used by the Fish and Wildlife Service is also evident. There are not defined connecting corridors between these patches of critical habitat.

The Greater Yellowstone Area.

Observation records in the Greater Yellowstone Area show the 2014 Critical Habitat grossly understated lynx habitat where lynx historically occurred, while the revised critical habitat shown above is minimal

When the model developed by the Forest Service research arm and adopted by the Fish and Wildlife Service was used to rank lynx habitat at the National Forest level, the Greater Yellowstone Area ranks very high. The GYA, Bridger-Teton NF and Caribou-Targhee NF are equivalent to the habitat in northern Montana National Forests. Other Forests in the GYA such as the Custer Gallatin and Shoshone NFs rank high as well. An analysis and model developed in 2007 identified the connecting corridor, the Yellowstone to Uintas Connection, that could allow lynx and other wide-ranging species such as wolverine to move back and forth and restore and maintain populations in the GYA and Colorado. The maps below show areas with higher suitability in red or orange with lower suitability in yellow. They clearly show that National Forests such as the Bridger-Teton and Caribou-Targhee are highly suitable for lynx. In the mix also is Yellowstone National Park which the model also ranks high.

The Yellowstone to Uintas Connection. An important analysis was published in 2007. It considered lynx habitat needs and accounted for human infrastructure such as road density in developing a map of core and corridor areas connecting them. In this analysis and mapping effort, areas like the Uinta Mountains that had significant lynx observations in the past are identified as core lynx habitat. The Uinta Mountains were also a focal point of lynx observations after Colorado reintroduced Canadian lynx in the early 2000’s. These introduced lynx have sustained a population in Colorado since then but monitoring of the lynx equipped with tracking collars ended ca 2010, so records of their locations were no longer obtained. This map of core and corridor habitats follows what is known as the Least Cost Path that could, if managed as such, provide for lynx in both the Southern and Northern Rockies and the critical link in between, the GYA and Yellowstone to Uintas Connection (Y2UConn).

Conclusion

The Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service have never monitored the outcome of their Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction and have never shown that the reason for listing lynx as threatened, that of inadequate regulation, has been corrected. Our analysis shows that regulatory protections for lynx habitat remain weak, inconsistently applied and unenforced. This is particularly true in unoccupied or linkage habitats. Habitat fragmentation is underestimated. Timber harvest, fuel treatments, road density, mining, livestock grazing, and expanding motorized recreation continue to fragment and degrade lynx habitat. Linkage areas essential for genetic exchange and dispersal receive minimal to no protection under current policy. Motorized recreation has intensified beyond original assumptions. Since the publication of foundational scientific documents such as Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States (Ruggiero et al. 2000), snowmobile and off-road vehicle use has expanded dramatically. Earlier conclusions minimizing road and recreation impacts are no longer valid under present-day use levels.

Agency reliance on lack of definitive evidence to dismiss impacts (e.g., snow-compacted trails, road densities, mineral development, etc.) contradicts the precautionary framework recommended in earlier science reports, which advised that uncertainty should favor conservation. Required monitoring of lynx populations, snowshoe hare abundance, habitat conditions, and effectiveness of conservation measures is minimal or absent across much of the region. The Recovery Plan relies on opinion, rather than data, to gage its outcome.

Our conclusion is that despite formal amendments to forest plans and conservation agreements, habitat degradation and fragmentation continue across the Northern Rockies, particularly within the GYA and Y2UConn corridor. Current management direction does not ensure functional connectivity, habitat integrity, or long-term persistence of lynx populations in the southern portion of the species’ U.S. range. Climate change compounds these risks but does not replace the need to address ongoing anthropogenic fragmentation and disturbance.

There must be stronger, enforceable regulatory standards for both occupied and unoccupied habitats with defined protected corridors connecting these. Comprehensive mapping and quantitative analysis of habitat structure, connectivity, and fragmentation needs to happen. Updated recreation management standards reflecting modern motorized use intensity are needed. Enhanced monitoring of lynx and snowshoe hare populations is critical along with reassessment of southern population viability and corridor functionality. Finally, the application of precautionary conservation principles consistent with the best available science must be incorporated into the process.

The post Canada Lynx: Denial and Loss appeared first on CounterPunch.org.