[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 101 (Tuesday, May 27, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28653-28657]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-13808]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
for a Petition To List the Contiguous United States Population of the
Canada Lynx
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announces a 12-month
finding for a petition to list the contiguous United States population
of the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended. After review of all available scientific and
commercial information, the Service finds that listing this population
is warranted but precluded by other higher priority actions to amend
the List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife and Plants.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on May 21, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Information, comments, or questions concerning this petition
should be submitted to the Field Supervisor, Montana Field Office, Fish
[[Page 28654]]
and Wildlife Service, 100 N. Park Avenue, Suite 320, Helena, Montana
59601. The petition finding, supporting data, and comments are
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business
hours at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kemper McMaster, Field Supervisor, at
the above address, telephone (406) 449-5225.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)(Act), requires that, for any petition
to revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants
that contains substantial scientific and commercial information, the
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) make a finding within 12 months of
the date of the receipt of the petition on whether the petitioned
action is (a) not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted but
precluded from immediate proposal by other pending proposals of higher
priority. Section 4(b)(3)(C) requires that petitions for which the
requested action is found to be warranted but precluded should be
treated as though resubmitted on the date of such finding, i.e.,
requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12 months.
On April 27, 1994, the Service received a petition from the
Biodiversity Legal Foundation, Evan Frost, Mark Skatrud, Craig Coonrad,
and Michael J. Polly to list the conterminous United States population
of North American lynx (Felis lynx canadensis) as threatened or
endangered. On August 26, 1994, the Service published a notice (59 FR
44123) of a 90-day finding that there was substantial information to
indicate that listing this population may be warranted. On December 27,
1994, the Service published a notice (59 FR 66507) indicating that the
Service's 12-month finding was that listing the Canada lynx in the
contiguous United States was not warranted. On March 27, 1997, a
resulting Court order remanded the 1994 Canada lynx 12-month finding
back to the Service for reconsideration. The information in this notice
is a summary of the information from the Service's reassessed and
updated 12-month finding on a petition to list the contiguous United
States population of Canada lynx, as required by the U.S. District
Court.
The Service has reexamined the information in the 1994
administrative record and new information made available since the 1994
finding, and has consulted experts knowledgeable about Canada lynx. On
the basis of the best scientific and commercial information available,
the Service has determined that Canada lynx in the contiguous United
States constitutes a distinct population segment under the Act. The
Service finds that listing the Canada lynx population in the contiguous
United States is warranted but precluded by work on other species
having higher priority for listing.
The Canada lynx is a medium-sized cat with long legs; large, well-
furred paws; long tufts on the ears; and a short, black-tipped tail
(McCord and Cardoza 1982). The lynx's long legs and large feet make it
highly adapted to hunting in deep snow.
The historical and present North American range of the Canada lynx
includes Alaska and that part of Canada that extends from the Yukon and
Northwest Territories south across the United States border, and east
to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. In the contiguous United States, the
lynx historically occurred in the Cascade Range of Washington and
Oregon, south in the Rocky Mountains to Utah and Colorado and east
along the Canadian border to the Great Lakes States and Northeast
region (McCord and Cardoza 1982; Quinn and Parker 1987). Barriers of
unsuitable habitat occur along the southeastern Great Lakes, the Great
Plains, and Wyoming's Red Desert.
Canada lynx are specialized predators that are highly dependent on
the snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) for food. Snowshoe hare prefer
diverse, early successional forests with stands of conifers for cover
and shrubby understories (Monthey 1986; Koehler and Aubry 1994). Canada
lynx usually concentrate their foraging in areas where hare numbers are
high, but they also require late successional forests with downed logs
and windfalls to provide cover for denning sites, escape, and
protection from severe weather (McCord and Cardoza 1982).
Based on expert opinion, information received during and since the
original status review, and Service expertise, the Service has
determined that resident, viable Canada lynx populations existed in the
subalpine/coniferous forests of the Western United States and in the
ecotone between boreal and northern hardwood forests in the Eastern
United States.
The Service used the new vertebrate population policy published
February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722), to determine whether the Canada lynx in
the contiguous United States constitutes a distinct population segment.
The contiguous United States population of the lynx is discrete based
on the international boundary between Canada and the contiguous United
States and differences in status and habitat management of Canada lynx
between the United States and Canada. In Canada, management of forest
lands and conservation of wildlife habitat varies depending on
Provincial regulations. There is no overarching forest practices
legislation in Canada, such as the United States' National Forest
Management Act, governing management of national lands and/or providing
for consideration of wildlife habitat requirements. Additionally,
Canada lynx harvest regulations vary, being regulated by individual
Province or, in some cases, individual trapping district. Recent
declining lynx numbers in southern Canada exacerbated by loss of lynx
habitat along the United States/Canadian border severely restricts the
ability for lynx numbers in the contiguous United States to improve (M.
DonCarlos, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, in litt. 1994; W.
Krohn, in litt. 1994; R. Lafond, Quebec Department of Recreation, Fish,
and Game, pers. comm. 1994; J. Lanier, pers. comm. 1994; J. Litvaitis,
University of New Hampshire, pers. comm. 1994; C. Pils, in litt. 1994).
Dispersal of Canada lynx into the contiguous United States is now
necessary to replenish lynx numbers because lynx throughout much of
their contiguous United States range are rare to extirpated. If the
Canada lynx populations in southern Canada rebound, they should be able
to help replenish lynx numbers in the United States. If the lynx
populations in southern Canada are unable to rebound, then it appears
natural recovery of Canada lynx in some portions of the contiguous
United States is unlikely.
In a general sense, Canada lynx in the contiguous United States
might be considered biologically and/or ecologically significant simply
because they represent the southern extent of the species' overall
range. There are climatic and vegetational differences between Canada
lynx habitat in the contiguous United States and that in northern
latitudes in Canada (Kuchler 1965). In the contiguous United States,
Canada lynx inhabit transition zones that are a mosaic between boreal/
coniferous forest and northern hardwoods, whereas in more northern
latitudes, Canada lynx habitat is the boreal forest ecosystem (Barbour
et al. 1980; McCord and Cardoza 1982; Koehler and Aubry 1994; M.
Hunter, University of Maine, pers. comm. 1994). Canada lynx and
snowshoe hare population dynamics in the contiguous
[[Page 28655]]
United States are different from those in northern Canada (Koehler and
Aubry 1994, Washington Department of Natural Resources 1996).
Historically, Canada lynx and snowshoe hare populations have been less
cyclic in the contiguous United States, not exhibiting the extreme
cyclic population fluctuations of the northern latitudes for which
Canada lynx are noted (Wolff 1980, Brittell et al. 1989, Koehler and
Aubry 1994, Washington Department of Natural Resources 1996). The less
cyclic nature of this population has been attributed to the lower
quality and quantity of habitat available in southern latitudes and/or
the presence of additional snowshoe hare predators (Wolff et al. 1982,
Koehler and Aubry 1994). The Service determines that the contiguous
United States population of the Canada lynx is significant under the
Service's Distinct Vertebrate Population Policy. Thus, the Canada lynx
in the contiguous United States qualifies as a distinct population
segment to be considered for listing under the Act.
Canada lynx have been observed in 22 of the contiguous United
States. Historical lynx observations in several States (North Dakota,
South Dakota, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, and Virginia) may have been a result
of transients dispersing during periods of high lynx population density
elsewhere. However, the Service believes that historical lynx
observations, trapping records, and other evidence documented in Maine,
New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania,
Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana,
Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado confirms the Canada lynx as a viable
species in the contiguous 48 States. Presently, the Service is able to
confirm the presence of Canada lynx in only the States of Montana,
Washington, Wyoming, and Maine. The Service believes the States of
Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Utah, and Colorado probably have
lynx, but they are extremely rare. Lynx are likely extirpated
throughout the remainder of their historical range (New York,
Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Oregon).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
The following information is a summary and discussion of the five
factors or listing criteria as set forth in section 4(a)(1) of the Act
and regulations (50 CFR part 424) promulgated to implement the listing
provisions of the Act and their applicability to the current status of
the contiguous United States population of the Canada lynx.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range.
Human alteration of the abundance, species composition,
successional stages, and fragmentation of forests, and the resulting
changes in the forest's capacity to sustain lynx populations, affect
lynx habitat. Timber harvest and its related activities influence
Canada lynx habitat in the contiguous United States. Intensive tree
harvesting (i.e., clearcutting and thinning) can eliminate the mosaic
of habitats necessary for Canada lynx survival, including late
successional denning and early successional prey habitat. Specifically,
these activities can result in reduced cover, unusable forest openings,
and monotypic stands with a sparse understory that has been determined
to be unfavorable for Canada lynx (Brittell et al. 1989; de Vos and
Matel 1952; Harger 1965; Hatler 1988; Koehler 1990; K. Gustafson, pers.
comm. 1994; J. Lanier, pers. comm. 1994).
Over a relatively short period of time at the turn of the century
in the Great Lakes and Northeast Regions, timber extraction resulted in
the replacement of mature conifer forest with extensive tracts of very
early successional habitat and eliminated cover for lynx and hare
(Jackson 1961; Barbour et al. 1980; Belcher 1980; Irland 1982).
Coniferous forests also were cleared for agriculture during this
period. This sudden alteration of habitat likely resulted in sharp
declines in snowshoe hare numbers over large areas, subsequently
reducing Canada lynx numbers (Jackson 1961; Keener 1971; K. Gustafson,
pers. comm. 1994; J. Lanier, pers. comm. 1994). The impacts of logging
conducted in the Northeast Region during the late 1800's continue to
affect Canada lynx habitat (D. Degraff, pers. comm. 1994; J. Lanier,
pers. comm. 1994).
Lynx populations have not increased in the Northeast Region despite
some apparent improvements in habitat. Forested habitat in the
Northeast has increased because of land-use changes during the past
century (Irland 1982; Litvaitis 1993), and in some areas there may be a
gradual upward trend in the coniferous component as spruce (Picea spp.)
and fir (Abies spp.) regenerate beneath hardwood species (D. Degraff,
pers. comm. 1994), but fragmentation of habitat apparently remains a
factor in the continued absence of lynx populations in the Northeast
Region (Litvaitis et al. 1991; W. Krohn, University of Maine, in litt.
1994; R. La Fond, Quebec Department of Recreation, Fish, and Game,
pers. comm. 1994).
Historically, Canada lynx populations in the Northeast were
periodically supplemented with transient or dispersing individuals from
the north (Litvaitis et al. 1991; J. Lanier, pers. comm. 1994).
However, over the past several decades, Canada lynx numbers also
declined along southern portions of its range in Canada in response to
overexploitation and clearing of forested habitat for agriculture,
timber, and human settlement (Mills 1990; McAlpine and Heward 1993;
Quebec Department of Recreation, Fish, and Game, in litt. 1993). Today,
diminished numbers of Canada lynx in southern Canada and the lack of
functional dispersal routes from Canadian lynx populations to the
Northeast Region have substantially restricted the opportunity for
Canada lynx to recolonize any available habitat in the Northeast
(Litvaitis et al. 1991; W. Krohn, University of Maine, in litt. 1994;
R. La Fond, Quebec Department of Recreation, Fish, and Game, pers.
comm. 1994; J. Lanier, pers. comm. 1994).
In the Northern and Southern Rocky Mountain Regions, the majority
of Canada lynx habitat occurs on public lands. Currently, there are few
activities on national forest lands generating the early successional
timber stands important to snowshoe hares and Canada lynx (S. Blair,
U.S. Forest Service, pers. comm. 1994). In areas of Washington, timber
harvest on national forest and State lands is likely to exceed the
recommended rate of harvest described in Canada lynx habitat management
guidelines developed for the region (Washington Department of Wildlife
1993).
Forest fires naturally maintained mosaics of early successional
forest stands forming ideal snowshoe hare and Canada lynx habitat (Todd
1985; Fischer and Bradley 1987; Quinn and Parker 1987). Suppression of
forest fires in the West has allowed forests to mature, thereby
reducing habitat suitability for snowshoe hares and Canada lynx
(Brittell et al. 1989; Fox 1978; Koehler 1990; Washington Department of
Wildlife 1993; T. Bailey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in litt.
1994; H. Golden, pers. comm. 1994).
In the Great Lakes Region, Northeast, and Colorado, clearing of
forests for urbanization, ski areas, and agriculture has degraded or
reduced the available suitable lynx habitat, reduced the prey base, and
increased human disturbance and the likelihood of accidental trapping,
shooting, or highway mortality (de Vos and Matel 1952; Harger 1965;
Belcher 1980; Thiel and Hallowell 1988; Todd 1985; Thompson 1987;
Harper et
[[Page 28656]]
al. 1990; Brocke et al. 1991; Thompson and Halfpenny 1991). In some
areas, the rapid pace of subdivision for recreational home sites has
been identified as a serious concern to maintaining the integrity of
Northeastern forests (Harper et al. 1990).
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The Service believes that an overharvest of Canada lynx during the
1970's and 1980's has reduced the potential for recovery of lynx
populations in the contiguous United States and has reduced
repopulation of areas of suitable habitat. Historically, lynx trapping
provided a significant economic return in the fur trading industry
(Quinn and Parker 1987; Hatler 1988). This economic incentive increases
the threat of overexploitation of Canada lynx populations. Where
exploitation is intense and recruitment is low, trapping can
significantly depress lynx populations (Koehler and Aubry 1994).
Overutilization of Canada lynx was clearly documented when lynx were
substantially overharvested in response to unprecedented high pelt
prices during the 1970's and 1980's, the effect of which is still
evident today in the extremely low numbers of lynx in the contiguous
United States and southern Canada (Bailey et al. 1986; B. Berg,
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, pers. comm. 1994; D. Mech,
pers. comm. 1994; M. Novak, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,
pers. comm. 1994; A. Todd, Alberta Department of Forestry, Lands, and
Wildlife, pers. comm. 1994).
Ward and Krebs (1985) concluded that human-induced mortality is the
most important mortality factor for Canada lynx populations. Trapping
mortality has been shown to be entirely additive (i.e., in addition to
natural mortality) rather than compensatory (taking the place of
natural mortality) (Brand and Keith 1979). In Minnesota, trapping was
estimated to account for 81 percent of known lynx mortality during
cyclic lows and 58 percent of mortality during cyclic highs (Henderson
1978).
Additive trapping mortality of Canada lynx during the 1970's and
1980's represented an overexploitation that depleted the breeding stock
of lynx populations in the United States and southern Canada, limiting
the ability of lynx populations to subsequently increase and to
repopulate areas of suitable habitat. Lynx populations may have become
so severely depleted that they cannot reach their former densities
during the periods of abundant prey and maximum reproductive success
(Quinn and Parker 1987; Hatler 1988).
In response to concerns about substantially declining harvests
during the 1970's and 1980's (indicating that lynx populations were
being overexploited), Washington, Montana, Minnesota, Alberta, British
Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and Alaska severely restricted or
closed their lynx harvest seasons (Bailey et al. 1986; Hatler 1988;
Hash 1990; Washington Department of Wildlife 1993; S. Conn, in litt.
1990; M. DonCarlos, in litt. 1994; B. Giddings, in litt. 1994; R.
McFetridge, Alberta Environmental Protection, in litt. 1994; I. McKay,
in litt. 1994; M. Novak, pers. comm. 1994). Because of continued
concern for lynx populations, neither Washington, Montana, nor
Minnesota have relaxed their restrictions, and many Canadian provinces
still maintain careful control of lynx harvest (Alberta Environmental
Protection 1993; Washington Department of Wildlife 1993; M. DonCarlos,
in litt. 1994; B. Giddings, in litt. 1994; R. McFetridge, in litt.
1994).
Where Canada lynx populations have been substantially reduced or
extirpated in the contiguous United States, natural recolonization of
suitable habitat will require migrating lynx from Canadian populations.
The lynx population in portions of Quebec apparently has not yet fully
recovered despite adequate, increasing hare populations (Quebec
Department of Recreation, Fish, and Game, in litt. 1993). Because of
concern over a potentially declining lynx population, the British
Columbia government has closed the season on Canada lynx for 3 years
(A. Fontana, British Columbia Department of Wildlife, pers. comm.
1994).
Although overutilization is no longer an immediate concern, the
adverse impacts of past overharvest continue to threaten Canada lynx
survival and recovery in the contiguous United States.
C. Disease or Predation
Disease and predation are not known to be factors threatening
Canada lynx.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Although States provide the Canada lynx with protection from
hunting and trapping, currently there are no regulatory mechanisms to
protect lynx habitat from further deterioration.
Canada lynx are classified as endangered by Vermont (1972), New
Hampshire (1980), Wisconsin (1972), Michigan (1987, as threatened in
1983), and Colorado (1975). Lynx are classified as threatened by
Washington (1993). Utah has classified the lynx as a sensitive species.
Two States officially classify them as extirpated (Pennsylvania (J.
Belfonti, in litt. 1994) and Massachusetts (J. Cardoza, in litt.
1994)). Despite being classified as small game or furbearers, Canada
lynx are fully protected from harvest by Maine (1967), New York (1967),
Minnesota (1984), Wyoming (1973), and Oregon (E. Gaines, pers. comm.
1997). Canada lynx trapping seasons still occur in Montana and Idaho,
but legal harvest is severely restricted. Idaho has a harvest quota of
three lynx annually, while Montana currently has a statewide harvest
quota of two.
On February 4, 1977, the Canada lynx was included in Appendix II of
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Flora and Fauna (CITES). CITES is an international treaty established
to prevent international trade that may be detrimental to the survival
of plants and animals. However, CITES does not itself regulate take or
domestic trade.
Habitat regulatory mechanisms specific to Canada lynx are limited.
Although the U.S. Forest Service classifies lynx as a sensitive species
within the contiguous United States, few national forests have
developed population viability objectives or management guidelines
required by the National Forest Management Act because of limited
information about Canada lynx requirements.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Elevated levels of human access into forests are a significant
threat to Canada lynx because they increase the likelihood of lynx
encountering people, which may result in more lynx deaths by
intentional and unintentional shooting, trapping, and being hit by
automobiles (Hatler 1988; Thiel and Hallowell 1988; Brittell et al.
1989; Koehler and Brittell 1990; Brocke et al. 1991; Andrew 1992;
Washington Department of Wildlife 1993; Brocke et al. 1993; M. Hunter,
University of Maine, pers. comm. 1994). Human access into Canada lynx
habitat in many areas has increased over the last several decades
because of increased construction of roads and trails and the growing
popularity of snowmobiles and other off-road vehicles. Poaching and the
increased legal harvest of Canada lynx that occurs with greater access
has been a concern in nearly every State and in many Canadian
Provinces.
Human access is a particularly important factor during periods when
Canada lynx populations are low and concentrated in localized refugia.
If
[[Page 28657]]
such refugia were accessible, local lynx populations could be easily
extirpated by trapping, particularly if there are incentives such as
high pelt prices (Carbyn and Patriquin 1983; Ward and Krebs 1985;
Bailey et al. 1986; J. Weaver, pers. comm. 1994; Koehler and Aubry
1994).
Traffic on highways has been shown to pose a considerable mortality
risk to Canada lynx (Brocke et al. 1991; B. Ruediger, U.S. Forest
Service, pers. comm. 1997). Dispersing or transient lynx are more
vulnerable to traffic deaths than residents, because their movement
over large areas increases their contact with roads.
Canada lynx may be displaced or eliminated when competitors (e.g.,
bobcat (Lynx rufus) or coyote (Canis latrans)) expand into its range
(de Vos and Matel 1952; Parker et al. 1983; Quinn and Parker 1987; M.
DonCarlos, pers. comm. 1994; D. Major, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
pers. comm. 1994; J. Weaver, pers. comm. 1994). The Canada lynx is at a
competitive disadvantage against these other species because it is a
specialized predator, whereas the bobcat and coyote are generalists
able to feed on a wide variety of prey. Some biologists believe
competition has played a significant role in the decline of Canada lynx
(Brocke 1982; Parker et al. 1983; E. Bangs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, pers. comm. 1994).
Competition between Canada lynx and other species may be
facilitated through alteration of forests by timber harvest or other
human activities. Modified habitat may be more suitable to Canada lynx
competitors or may facilitate the establishment of a competitor after
local extirpation of the lynx (McCord and Cardoza 1982; Quinn and
Parker 1987).
The threats to resident lynx from legal trapping for other species
are reduced in many regions because there is probably limited overlap
in the ranges of bobcats or coyotes with the range of lynx (M.
DonCarlos, pers. comm. 1994; K. Elowe, Maine Department of Inland
Fisheries and Wildlife, pers. comm. 1994; J. Lanier, pers. comm. 1994;
D. Mech, pers. comm. 1994; Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and
Wildlife, in litt. 1997). Hunting seasons for bobcats may be a
potential threat because of hunters' difficulty in distinguishing
between bobcat and lynx.
Finding
Section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act states that the Service may make
warranted but precluded findings if it can demonstrate that an
immediate proposed rule is precluded by other pending proposals and
that expeditious progress is being made on other listing actions.
According to Service policy, such species are assigned candidate status
and given a listing priority number. Guidelines for assigning listing
priorities were published in the Federal Register on September 21, 1983
(48 FR 43098). The guidelines describe a system for considering three
factors in assigning a species a numerical listing priority on a scale
of 1 to 12. The three factors are magnitude of threat (high or moderate
to low), immediacy of threat (imminent or nonimminent), and taxonomic
distinctiveness (monotypic genus, species, or subspecies/population).
For a population, such as the Canada lynx, listing priority numbers of
3, 6, 9, or 12 are possible.
The Service believes that several limiting factors pose threats to
the continued existence of Canada lynx in the contiguous United States,
including: (1) Habitat loss and/or modification (due to human
alteration primarily through timber harvest, road construction, and
fire suppression); (2) overutilization from past commercial harvest
(trapping) that has resulted in extremely low populations that remain
subject to incidental capture from legal trapping of other furbearers;
(3) inadequate regulatory mechanisms to protect the remaining lynx
habitat; and, (4) other factors such as increased human access into
suitable habitat (refugia) and human-induced changes in interspecific
competition. The Service has determined that the overall magnitude of
all threats to the small population of Canada lynx in the contiguous
United States is high and the threats are ongoing, thus they are
imminent. A listing priority of 3 consequently has been assigned for
the Canada lynx population in the contiguous United States.
Region 6 has determined that listing of the Canada lynx is
warranted, but development of a proposed rule at this time is precluded
by work on other higher priority species. The Service will reevaluate
this warranted but precluded finding within 12 months of the date of
publication of this notice of finding. The Service also may reevaluate
the finding immediately if significant new information becomes
available in the next 12 months.
Before making a warranted but precluded finding, the Service must
show that it is making expeditious progress on listing species. A
congressionally imposed moratorium on listing species was lifted on
April 26, 1996. Since that date the Service has completed 131 final
determinations, including publication of final rules for endangered and
threatened species and withdrawals of proposed rules. The Service
believes these numbers show that expeditious progress is being made to
list species within the resources available.
This warranted but precluded finding automatically elevates the
Canada lynx to candidate species status. The Service will reevaluate
this warranted but precluded finding 1 year from the date of the
finding. If sufficient new data or information become available in the
future regarding threats, status of the lynx, etc., the Service will
reassess the status of the species.
The Service's 12-month finding contains more detailed information
regarding the above decisions. A copy may be obtained from the Montana
Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available upon request from
the Montana Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Authors: The primary authors of this document are Lori Nordstrom,
Anne Vandehey and Kevin Shelley (Montana Field Office); Jeri Wood
(Boise Field Office); Chris Warren (Spokane Field Office); and Ted
Thomas (Olympia Field Office).
Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered
Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
Dated: May 21, 1997.
J. L. Gerst,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 97-13808 Filed 5-21-97; 2:46 pm]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-U
