Laserfiche WebLink
<br />11/0411"93 )4:48 <br /> <br />7H8735126 <br /> <br />U S FOREST !NDUSTRIE <br /> <br />PAGE 03 <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />000296 <br /> <br />Washington comments included: <br />"We encourage che Service, if the species is listed, Co develop <br />regional recovery teams (Rocky Mountains/Cascades, Great Lakes, <br /> <br />Northeast). <br /> <br />The three regions are geographically disjunct, <br /> <br />ecologically distinct and bear different recovery issues. Separate <br /> <br /> <br />recovery efforts would allow regional recovety objectives to be set <br /> <br /> <br />and local limiting factors to be addressed. If the species is listed <br /> <br /> <br />and the Service prepares co id"mtify recovery areas for Washington, <br /> <br />we encourage adoption of our Lynx Managemenr Zones. " <br /> <br />I would add, Colorado does not fit into any of the three zones Washington <br />describes. <br />Vermont's comments included the following. <br />"Although it is possible rhat a reprodUcing lynx populacion existed <br /> <br /> <br />ac one time in Vermont, we believe there was probably significant <br /> <br /> <br />dependence on immigration from lynx populations in Canada. it <br /> <br /> <br />seems arbitrary to use the International Boundary to define a <br /> <br />distinct ''New England" popularion. " <br /> <br />In addition. regarding logging, Vermont stated: <br />''We do not belIeve that potential lynx habitat in the State is <br />threatened by the present levels of logging activity, " <br />Vermont also expressed concerns regarding the Federal Register which were <br />expr'essed by other states: <br />"First of all, we believe rhe errors In factual representation within <br />the Federal Register, as noted above, are serious and warrant <br /> <br />c:orrection. 11 <br /> <br />Page 2 <br />