[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