[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6734-6754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2529]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R9-IA-2008-0123; MO 92210-1113FWDB B6]
RIN 1018-AI83
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassifying the
Wood Bison (Bison bison athabascae) Under the Endangered Species Act as
Threatened Throughout Its Range
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
reclassify the wood bison (Bison bison athabascae) from endangered to
threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
This proposed action is amended based on a review of the best available
scientific and commercial data, which indicate that the endangered
designation no longer correctly reflects the status of the wood bison.
This proposal also constitutes our 12-month finding on the petition to
reclassify this subspecies. We are seeking data and comments from the
public on this proposed rule.
DATES: We must receive your written comments on this proposed rule by
April 11, 2011 in order to consider them. We must receive your written
request for a public hearing by March 25, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments and other information by
either of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: FWS-R9-IA-2008-0123; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Myers at U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Fisheries and Ecological Services, 1011 E. Tudor
Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99503, or telephone 907-786-3559 or by
facsimile at (907) 786-3848. If you use a telecommunications device for
the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from the public, other concerned governmental
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested
party concerning this proposed rule to reclassify the wood bison as
threatened. The comments that will be most useful and likely to
influence our decisions are those that are supported by data or peer-
reviewed studies and those that include citations to, and analyses of,
applicable laws and regulations. Please make your comments as specific
as possible and explain the basis for them. In addition, please include
sufficient information with your comments (such as scientific journal
articles or other publications) to allow us to authenticate any
scientific or commercial information you include. We particularly seek
comments concerning:
(1) Information on taxonomy, distribution, habitat selection and
use, food habits, population density and trends, habitat trends,
disease, and effects of management on wood bison;
(2) Information on captive herds, including efficacy of breeding
and reintroduction programs, origin of parental stock, stock
supplementation for genetic purposes, growth rates, birth and mortality
rates in captivity, location of captive herds in comparison to wild
populations, effects of captive breeding on the species, and any other
factors from captive breeding that might affect wild populations or
natural habitat;
(3) Information on the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms;
trends in domestic and international trade of live specimens, sport-
hunted trophies, or other parts and products; poaching of wild wood
bison; illegal trade and enforcement efforts and solutions; and
[[Page 6735]]
oversight of reintroduction or introduction programs;
(4) Information on the effects of other potential threat factors,
including contaminants, changes of the distribution and abundance of
wild populations, disease episodes within wild and captive populations,
large mortality events, the effects of climate change, or negative
effects resulting from the presence of invasive species;
(5) Information on management programs for wood bison conservation
in the wild, including private, tribal, or governmental conservation
programs that benefit wood bison; and
(6) Current or planned activities within the geographic range of
the wood bison that may impact or benefit the species including any
planned developments, roads, or expansion of agricultural enterprises.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or
opposition to the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species
Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) directs that a determination as to whether
any species is a threatened or endangered species must be made ``solely
on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
Prior to issuing a final rule on this proposed action, we will take
into consideration all comments and any additional information we
receive. Such information may lead to a final rule that differs from
this proposal. All comments and recommendations, including names and
addresses, will become part of the administrative record.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not
accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in
the ADDRESSES section.
We will post your entire comments--including your personal
identifying information--on http://www.regulations.gov. If your written
comments provide personal identifying information, you may request at
the top of your documents that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Anchorage Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act provides for one or more public
hearings on this proposal, if requested. We must receive requests for
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by the date shown in DATES. We will schedule public
hearings on this proposal, if any are requested, and announce the
dates, times, and places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain
reasonable accommodations, in the Federal Register at least 15 days
before the first hearing.
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires the Service to make a
finding known as a ``90-day finding,'' on whether a petition to add,
remove, or reclassify a species from the list of endangered or
threatened species has presented substantial information indicating
that the requested action may be warranted. To the maximum extent
practicable, the finding shall be made within 90 days following receipt
of the petition and published promptly in the Federal Register. If the
Service finds that the petition has presented substantial information
indicating that the requested action may be warranted (referred to as a
positive finding), section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires the Service
to commence a status review of the species if one has not already been
initiated under the Service's internal candidate assessment process. In
addition, section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires the Service to make a
finding within 12 months following receipt of the petition on whether
the requested action is warranted, not warranted, or warranted but
precluded by higher-priority listing actions (this finding is referred
to as the ``12-month finding''). Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires
that a finding of warranted but precluded for petitioned species should
be treated as having been resubmitted on the date of the warranted but
precluded finding, and is, therefore, subject to a new finding within 1
year and subsequently thereafter until we take action on a proposal to
list or withdraw our original finding. The Service publishes an annual
notice of resubmitted petition findings (annual notice) for all foreign
species for which listings were previously found to be warranted but
precluded.
In this notice, we announce a warranted 12-month finding and
proposed rule to reclassify the wood bison from an endangered species
to a threatened species under the Act.
Previous Federal Actions
The listing history is reconstructed here based on Federal Register
documents and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Wood bison became
listed in the United States under the 1969 Endangered Species
Conservation Act when it was included on the first List of Endangered
Foreign Fish and Wildlife, which was published in the Federal Register
on June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8491). A column labeled ``where found''
indicated ``Canada,'' but the introduction to the list stated that
``[t]he `Where Found' column is a general guide to the native countries
or regions where the named animals are found. It is not intended to be
definitive.''
In 1974, the first list under the 1973 Endangered Species Act
appeared in the CFR. Because the wood bison was listed under the 1969
Endangered Species Conservation Act, there is not a separate Federal
Register notice that defined the population(s) and analyzed threats to
the species. Like the 1970 list, the list for foreign species at 50 CFR
17.11 listed the wood bison, with a ``where found'' column indicating
``Canada.'' Section 17.11 further specified that ``[t]he `where found'
column is provided for the convenience of the public, is not
exhaustive, is not required to be given by law, and has no legal
significance.''
Population-based listings, the precursor to the current Distinct
Population Segments (DPS) approach first appeared with the 1975 list.
In the 1975 CFR, wood bison appeared listed with ``N/A'' (not
applicable) under ``Population.'' Section 17.11(b) stated that the
``Population'' column, along with the scientific and common names,
``define[s] the `species' of wildlife within the meaning of the Act.''
This section for the first time also indicated that ``[t]he
prohibitions in the Act and in this Part 17 apply to all specimens of
the `species' listed, wherever they are found, and to their progeny.''
The ``Known Distribution'' column for wood bison again indicated
``Canada.'' Paragraph (d) of Sec. 17.11 reiterated that the ``known
distribution'' column was ``[f]or information purposes only'' and also
advised that the column ``does not imply any limitation on the
application of the prohibitions in the Act and in this Part 17. Such
prohibitions apply to all specimens of the species, wherever found.''
Wood bison remained listed in this manner until 1979.
In 1979, the Service published a notification in the Federal
Register that questioned the listing status of the wood bison along
with six other species. The
[[Page 6736]]
notification advised that the Service had failed to follow a procedural
requirement of the 1969 Act for these species (consulting with the
governor of any state in which the species is found), and thus
concluded that the U.S. populations of these species were not covered
by the listing, although the foreign populations would continue to be
covered. The notice was also clear that the Service had always intended
for all populations--foreign and domestic--of all seven species to be
covered by the listing. The Service followed up on the notification on
July 25, 1980, with a rule for five of the species in which it proposed
to include the U.S. populations in the listing to correct the
procedural error (45 FR 49844). The 1980 proposed rule did not include
the wood bison. The Service indicated that the procedural error did not
apply to wood bison because no non-hybridized wood bison were found in
the United States. If no pure wood bison occurred in the United States
as of the subspecies' listing under the 1969 Act, there would have been
no States to consult with and, therefore, no procedural listing error.
Although the Service had found no error with the original listing
of the entire wood bison subspecies, the 1980 CFR for the first time
mistakenly indicated that the listed entity for wood bison was a DPS.
The CFR indicated ``Canada'' in the ``Vertebrate population where
endangered or threatened'' column. The listing has remained in this
form through the current CFR. Despite this 1980 designation, it is
clear that the wood bison is listed at the subspecies level. The CFR
through 1980 indicates the Service's intent of the original listing,
and we have conducted no rulemaking since that time to change the scope
of the listed entity. The entire ``population'' of wood bison in Canada
is the full extent of the subspecies' current range and no individuals
occur in the wild outside this population. Therefore, the wood bison in
Canada would not qualify for a population-based listing (i.e., a DPS).
On May 14, 1998, the Service received a petition from a private
individual requesting that the Service remove the wood bison from the
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, primarily because it had
been downlisted under CITES. In a 90-day finding published on November
25, 1998 (63 FR 65164), we found that the petitioner did not provide
substantial information to indicate that the delisting may be
warranted.
On November 26, 2007, we received a petition from the co-chairs of
Canada's National Wood Bison Recovery Team requesting that we
reclassify the wood bison from endangered to threatened. The petition
contained information about recovery efforts in Canada and referred to
information provided to the Service. On February 3, 2009, we published
a 90-day finding (74 FR 5908) acknowledging that the petition provided
sufficient information to indicate that reclassification may be
warranted and that we would initiate a status review. This document
represents both our 12-month finding for wood bison and a proposed rule
to downlist the species.
Species Information
Taxonomy and Species Description
Wood bison (Bison bison athabascae) belongs to the family Bovidae,
which also includes cattle, sheep and goats. Debate over the generic
name Bison continues with some authorities using Bos and others using
Bison depending on the methodology used to determine relationships
among members of the tribe Bovini (Asian water buffalo, African
buffalo, cattle and their wild relatives, and bison) (Boyd et al. 2010,
pp. 13-15.). In this discussion, we will use Bison, which is consistent
with ``Wild Mammals of North America'' (Reynolds et al. 2003, p. 1010),
``Mammal Species of the World'' (Wilson and Reeder 2005, p. 689), and
the Wood Bison Recovery Team (Gates et al. 2001, p. 25). Wood bison was
first described as a subspecies in 1897 (Rhoads 1897, pp. 498-500). One
other extant bison subspecies, the plains bison (B. b. bison), occurs
in the United States and Canada. Based on the historical physical
separation, and quantifiable behavioral, morphological, and
phenological (appearance) differences between the two subspecies, the
scientific evidence indicates that subspecific designation is
appropriate (van Zyll de Jong et al. 1995, p. 403; FEAP 1990, p. 24;
Reynolds et al. 2003, p. 1010; Gates et al. 2010, pp. 15-17).
Wood bison is the largest native extant terrestrial mammal in North
America (Reynolds et al. 2003, p. 1015). Average weight of mature males
(age 8) is 910 kilograms (kg) (2,006 pounds (lb)) and the average
weight of mature females (age 13) is 440 kg (970 lb) (Reynolds et al.
2003, p. 1015). They have a large triangular head, a thin beard and
rudimentary throat mane, and a poorly demarcated cape (Boyd et al.
2010, p. 16). In addition, the highest point of their hump is forward
of their front legs; they have reduced chaps on their front legs; and
their horns usually extend above the hair on their head (Boyd et al.
2010, p. 16). These physical characteristics distinguish them from the
plains bison (Reynolds et al. 2003, p. 1015; Boyd et al. 2010, p. 16).
Distribution
The exact extent of the original range of wood bison cannot be
determined with certainty based on available information, but was
limited to North America (Gates et al. 2001, p. 11). However,
historically, the range of the wood bison was generally north of that
occupied by the plains bison and included most boreal regions of
northern Alberta; northeastern British Columbia east of Cordillera; a
small portion of northwestern Saskatchewan; the western Northwest
Territories south and west of Great Slave Lake; the Mackenzie River
Valley; most of The Yukon Territory; and much of interior Alaska
(Reynolds et al. 2003, pp. 1011-1012). Skinner and Kaisen (1947, pp.
158, 164) suggested that the prehistorical U.S. range extended from
Alaska to Colorado, and Stephenson et al. (2001, p. 140) concluded that
wood bison were present within the boundaries of what is now defined as
Alaska until their disappearance during the last few hundred years.
Currently, there is neither a wild population in Alaska nor the
continental United States (Harper and Gates 2000, p. 917; Stephenson et
al. 2001, p. 140).
During the early 1800s, wood bison numbers were estimated at
168,000, but by the late 1800s, the subspecies was nearly eliminated
with only a few hundred remaining (Gates et al. 2001, p. 11). In the
words of Soper (1941, p. 362), wood ``bison appear to have been
practically exterminated,'' and based on the fate of plains bison, in
which 40 to 60 million animals were reduced to just over 1,000 animals
in less than 100 years (Hornaday 1889; Wilson and Strobeck 1998, p.
180), overharvest may have been the cause for the decline (Harper and
Gates 2000, p. 915). The fact that populations began to rebound once
protection was in place and enforced supports this idea (Soper 1941,
pp. 362-363). In 1922, Wood Buffalo National Park (WBNP) was set aside
for the protection of the last remnant population of wood bison. Since
that time several additional herds have been established (Table 1).
[[Page 6737]]
Table 1--Sizes of Wood Bison Herds in Canada From 1978 to 2008 (Data Provided by Canadian Wildlife Service)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Herd category and name 1978 1988 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free-ranging, disease-free herds:
Mackenzie.................................... 300 1718 1908 2000 2000 ~2000 1600
Nahanni...................................... ....... 30 160 170 399 400 400
Aishihik..................................... ....... ....... 500 530 550 700 1100
Hay-Zama..................................... ....... ....... 130 234 350 600 750
Nordquist.................................... ....... ....... 50 60 112 140 140
Etthithun.................................... ....... ....... ....... 43 70 124 124
Chitek Lake.................................. ....... ....... 70 100 150 225 300
Free-ranging, diseased herds:
Wood Buffalo \1\ National Park............... ....... ....... 2178 4050 \2\ \3\ \4\
4947 5641 4639
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excluding adjacent diseased Wentzel, Wabasca, and Slave River Lowlands herds.
\2\ Population estimate for year 2003.
\3\ Population estimate for year 2005.
\4\ Population estimate for year 2007.
Another factor that is thought to have played a role in the decline
in wood bison is a gradual loss of meadow habitat through forest
encroachment (Stephenson et al. 2001, p. 143; Quinlan et al. 2003, p.
343; Strong and Gates 2009, p. 439). Although not quantified, it is
likely that because of fire suppression, and subsequent forest
encroachment on meadows, there was a net loss of suitable open meadow
habitat for wood bison throughout their range through about 1990. More
intensive fire management began in Canada in the early 1900s with the
philosophy that fire was destructive and should be eliminated to
protect property and permit proper forest management (Stocks et al.
2003, p. 2). However, wildfire is an integral component of boreal
forest ecology (Weber and Flannigan 1997, p. 146; Rupp et al. 2004, p.
213; Soja et al. 2007, p. 277). Without fire, trees encroach on meadows
and eventually the meadow habitat is lost and replaced by forest.
Habitat
The foraging habitats most favored by wood bison are grass and
sedge meadows occurring on alkaline soils. These meadows are typically
interspersed among tracts of coniferous forest, stands of poplar or
aspen, bogs, fens, and shrublands. Meadows typically represent 5 to 20
percent of the landscape occupied by wood bison (Larter and Gates
1991a, p. 2682; Gates et al. 2001, p. 23). Wet meadows are rarely used
in the summer, probably because of the energy required to maneuver
through the mud, but they are used in late summer when they become
drier, and in the winter when they freeze (Larter and Gates 1991b, pp.
133, 135; Strong and Gates 2009, p. 438). In the summer, when daily
access to surface water is required for hydration, availability of
water is also important (Fortin et al. 2003, pp. 223, 225).
Biology
Characteristic of other grazing ruminants, bison have a four-
chambered stomach that efficiently processes and digests a diet of
grasses high in roughage (Reynolds et al. 2003, p. 1019). Because they
can thrive on coarse grasses and sedges, they occupy a niche within the
boreal forest that is not utilized by other northern herbivores such as
moose or caribou (Gates et al. 2001, p. 25). Several studies indicate
that wood bison prefer sedges (Carex spp.), which can comprise up to 98
percent of the winter diet (Reynolds et al. 1978, p. 586; Smith 1990,
p. 88; Larter and Gates 1991a, p. 2679; Fortin et al. 2003, pp. 224-
225). Seasonally, other important diet items include grasses, willow,
and lichen (Reynolds et al. 1978, p. 586; Smith 1990, p. 88; Larter and
Gates 1991a, pp. 2680-2681; Fortin et al. 2003, pp. 224-225).
Wood bison are gregarious, with cows, calves, and yearlings found
in matriarchal groups ranging up to a few dozen animals (Stephenson et
al. 2001, p. 125; Strong and Gates 2009, p. 438). Mature bulls seldom
form groups of more than a few animals, and solitary bulls are common
(Fuller 1960, p. 11). Wood bison home range size varies with age, sex,
and availability of forage (Larter and Gates 1994, p. 147). Home ranges
of females are larger than those of males (Larter and Gates 1994, p.
147). For wood bison in the Mackenzie Bison Sanctuary, mean area of
home range for females was 897 square kilometers (km\2\) (346 square
miles (mi\2\) and for males 433 km\2\ (167 mi\2\) (Larter and Gates
1994, p. 146). Most likely females need larger areas because they occur
in larger groups than the males (Larter and Gates 1994, p. 142). The
large home ranges of both sexes may be a response to limited forage
availability and widely spaced meadows (Strong and Gates 2009, p. 438).
Free-ranging wood bison roam extensively with annual maximum
traveling distance from each individual's center-of-activity averaging
from 45 to 50 km (28 to 31 mi) (Chen and Morley 2005, p. 430). However,
some captive animals released into the wild have traveled over 250 km
(155 mi) (Gates et al. 1992, pp. 151-152). Herds are fluid and
individuals interchange freely (Fuller 1960, p. 15; Wilson et al. 2002,
p. 1545). Wood bison travel between favored foraging habitats along
direct routes including established trails, roads, river corridors, and
transmission lines (Reynolds et al. 1978, p. 587; Mitchell 2002, p.
50). Bison are also powerful swimmers and will cross even large rivers
such as the Peace, Slave, Liard, and Nahanni to reach forage, provided
that there are low banks for entry and exit (Fuller 1960, p. 5;
Mitchell 2002, pp. 32, 50; Larter et al. 2003, pp. 408-412).
The wood bison's breeding season is from July to October. The age
of first reproduction depends on nutritional condition and disease
status and is, therefore, variable (Gates et al. 2010, p. 49). Females
typically produce their first calf when they are 3 years old and may be
reproductively successful up to age 20 (Wilson et al. 2002, p. 1545).
Although capable of reproduction at age 2, males typically do not
participate in the rut until they are 5 or 6, and reproductive success
is at its maximum between ages 7 and 14 (Wilson et al. 2002, pp. 1538,
1544). Bison have a polygynous mating system, in which one male mates
with several females (Wilson et al. 2002, p. 1538). When habitat is
adequate and there are no other limiting factors such as disease and
predation, wood bison populations have expanded exponentially (FEAP
[[Page 6738]]
1990, pp. 34-35; Gates and Larter 1990, p. 233). Consequently, newly
introduced populations have the capacity to grow quickly, as
demonstrated by the Mackenzie herd (Gates and Larter 1990, p. 235).
Wood bison are susceptible to a variety of diseases that may affect
their population dynamics. The most important are anthrax, bovine
brucellosis, and bovine tuberculosis, none of which are endemic to wood
bison (Gates et al. 2010, pp. 28-32). Anthrax is an infectious
bacterial disease that is transmitted through the inhalation or
ingestion of endospores (Gates et al. 2010, p. 28). The disease is
rapidly fatal with death usually occurring within several days once the
clinical signs appear (Dragon et al. 1999, p. 209). Between 1962 and
1993, nine outbreaks were recorded in northern Canada, killing at least
1,309 bison (Dragon et al. 1999, p. 209). Additional outbreaks
continued to occur through at least 2007 (GNT 2009, p. 13). Factors
associated with outbreaks are high ambient temperatures, high densities
of insects, and high densities of bison as they congregate in areas of
diminishing forage and water (Dragon et al. 1999, p. 212). Sexually
mature males are more susceptible than cows, juveniles, or calves,
perhaps because of elevated levels of testosterone (Dragon et al. 1999,
p. 211). Anthrax is not treatable in free-ranging wildlife, but captive
bison can be vaccinated effectively and treated with antibiotics (Gates
et al. 2001, p. 22).
Bovine brucellosis is caused by the bacterium Brucella abortus
(Tessaro 1989, p. 416). Although the primary hosts are bovids, other
ungulates such as elk can be infected. The disease is primarily
transmitted through oral contact with aborted fetuses, contaminated
placentas, and uterine discharges. Greater than 90 percent of infected
female bison abort during their first pregnancy (Gates et al. 2010, p.
30). Naturally acquired immunity reduces the abortion rate with
subsequent pregnancies (Aune and Gates 2010, p. 30). Male bison
experience inflammation of their reproductive organs and in advanced
cases, sterility. Both sexes are susceptible to bursitis and arthritis
caused by concentrations of the bacterium in the joints, which may make
them more susceptible to predation (Joly 2001, pp. 97-98). Two
vaccines, S19 and SR B51, have been developed in an attempt to prevent
bovine brucellosis (Aune and Gates 2010, pp. 30-31). S19 induces
abortion in cows and is only about 39 percent effective in preventing
infection (Davis et al. 1991, p. 262). SR B51 also induces abortion in
pregnant cows, but calfhood vaccination appears to be an effective tool
in preventing transmission of the disease (Palmer et al. 1996, p. 1607;
Olsen et al. 2003, p. 22). Brucellosis is extremely difficult to
eradicate in ungulates; the combined use of quarantine protocols, serum
testing, slaughter, and vaccination is being explored as a means of
controlling the disease (Nishi et al. 2002, pp. 230-233; Bienen and
Tabor 2006, pp. 324-325; Aune and Gates 2010, p. 31).
Bovine tuberculosis is a chronic infectious disease caused by the
bacterium Mycobacterium bovis (Tessaro 1989, p. 417). Historical
evidence indicates that bovine tuberculosis did not occur in bison
prior to contact with infected domestic cattle (Tessaro 1989, p. 416).
Wood bison were infected in the 1920s when plains bison were introduced
into the range of wood bison (Tessaro 1989, p. 417). Currently, the
disease is concentrated in bison in and near (Wabasca, Wentzel, and
Slave River Lowlands herds) WBNP. The disease is primarily transmitted
by inhalation and ingestion of the bacterium, but may also pass to
offspring through the placenta or contaminated milk (FEAP 1990, p. 11).
Bovine tuberculosis is a chronic disease that progressively becomes
debilitating; advanced cases are fatal. There is not an effective
vaccine for immunization against tuberculosis (FEAP 1990, p. 2).
Wood bison herds in and around WBNP, Alberta and the Northwest
Territories, Canada, are infected with brucellosis and bovine
tuberculosis. These diseased herds account for about half of the free-
ranging wood bison and are the only known reservoirs of tuberculosis
and brucellosis among the herds (Gates et al. 2010, pp. 4, 35).
Approximately 30 percent of the animals in these herds test positive
for brucellosis and 21 to 49 percent test positive for tuberculosis.
The combined prevalence of the two diseases is 42 percent (Tessaro et
al. 1990, p. 174; Gates et al. 2010, p. 35). Wood bison cows infected
with both tuberculosis and brucellosis are less likely to be pregnant,
and infected herds are more likely to have their populations regulated
by wolf predation (Tessaro et al. 1990, p. 179; Joly and Messier 2004,
p. 1173; Joly and Messier 2005, p. 549). Unlike anthrax which occurs in
outbreaks in which many animals die at one time, brucellosis and
tuberculosis are chronic diseases that weaken animals over time.
Conservation Status
In Canada, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
Canada (COSEWIC) was established in 1977, to assess species' status and
evaluate their risk of extinction. In 1978, the COSEWIC designated wood
bison as endangered based primarily on the fact that there were only
about 400 disease-free wood bison; 100 in a captive herd and 300 in a
free-ranging herd. In 1988, wood bison was downlisted to threatened in
Canada because of data presented in a status report prepared by the
National Wood Bison Recovery Team which documented progress towards
recovery (Gates et al. 2001, p. 28; Gates et al. 2010, p. 65). A review
by the COSEWIC in 2000 confirmed that ``threatened'' was the
appropriate designation at that time (Gates et al. 2010, p. 65).
The wood bison was placed in Appendix I of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES) on July 1, 1975, when the treaty first went into effect. On
September 28, 1997, it was downlisted to Appendix II based on a
proposal from Canada that described progress in implementation of the
Canadian recovery plan (Government of Canada 1997, entire). CITES
Appendix-II species are not necessarily considered to be threatened
with extinction now but may become so unless trade in the species is
regulated. The United States voted in support of the downlisting.
Recovery Actions
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and
threatened species, unless the Director determines that such a plan
will not promote the conservation of the species. The Service has not
developed a recovery plan for wood bison, because no wild populations
of wood bison currently exist in the United States. In Canada, the
National Wood Bison Recovery Team published a national recovery plan in
2001 (Gates et al. 2001) and is currently preparing a revision to the
plan. The purpose of the recovery plan is to advance the recovery of
the wood bison; specific criteria for delisting under SARA were not
specified. Management plans for the provinces support the goals and
objectives of the National Recovery Plan (e.g., Harper and Gates 2000,
p. 917; GNT 2009, p. 4). Four goals were established to advance the
recovery of wood bison (Gates et al. 2001):
(1) To reestablish at least four discrete, free-ranging, disease-
free, and viable populations of 400 or more wood bison in Canada,
emphasizing recovery in their original range, thereby
[[Page 6739]]
enhancing the prospects for survival of the subspecies and contributing
to the maintenance of ecological processes and biological diversity.
(2) To foster the restoration of wood bison in other parts of their
original range and in suitable habitat elsewhere, thereby ensuring
their long-term survival.
(3) To ensure that the genetic integrity of wood bison is
maintained without further loss as a consequence of human intervention.
(4) To restore disease-free wood bison herds, thereby contributing
to the aesthetic, cultural, economic, and social well-being of local
communities and society in general.
Revisions to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
(adding, removing, or reclassifying a species) must reflect
determinations made in accordance with sections 4(a)(1) and 4(b) of the
Act. Section 4(a)(1) requires that the Secretary determine whether a
species is endangered or threatened, as defined by the Act, because of
one or more of the five factors outlined in section 4(a)(1). In other
words, an analysis of the five factors under 4(a)(1) can result in a
determination that a species is no longer endangered or threatened.
Section 4(b) requires the determination made under section 4(a)(1) be
based on the best scientific and commercial data available and after
taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any State or
foreign nation to protect such species. In the absence of a recovery
plan for wood bison in the United States, we rely on the five-factor
analysis and progress towards meeting the recovery goals outlined in
the Canadian recovery plan in this proposed rule to determine if it is
appropriate to reclassify wood bison. We also take into consideration
the conservation actions that have occurred, are ongoing, and are
planned.
In 1978, there was one free-ranging, disease-free herd with 300
individuals, the MacKenzie herd (Table 1). By 2000, when the last
Canadian status review was conducted, the number of disease-free herds
had grown to 6, with a total of approximately 2,800 individuals (Table
1). Since 2000, an additional herd has been established bringing the
total number to 7, and the number of disease-free, free-ranging bison
has increased to approximately 4,400 (Table 1). Four of the herds have
a population of 400 or more, meeting recovery goal number 1 (Table 1).
The free-ranging, disease-free herds are discussed in detail below.
Free-ranging Herds, Disease-free Herds
The Mackenzie bison herd was established in 1963 with the
translocation of 18 wood bison that were originally captured in an
isolated area of WBNP. This herd is currently the largest free-ranging,
disease-free herd of wood bison, with approximately 1,600 to 2,000
animals (Reynolds et al. 2004, p. 7). The Mackenzie Bison Sanctuary was
established in 1979 and encompasses an area of 6,300 km\2\ (2,432
mi\2\) northwest of Great Slave Lake. The current range of the
Mackenzie bison herd (12,000 km\2\ (4,633 mi\2\)) extends well beyond
the boundaries of the sanctuary. Habitat protection within the range of
the Mackenzie bison herd is facilitated through the SARA, Canada's
equivalent to the Act, and the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act
of 1998. Although the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act does not
specifically provide protection to wood bison, it did create a Land and
Water Board (LWB), which is given the power to regulate the use of land
and water, including the issuance of land use permits and water
licenses. Under current management, an annual harvest is allowed
(described in Factor B below), and the Mackenzie herd size has been
greater than the recovery target of 400 since 1987, with approximately
1,600 to 2,000 animals (Gates and Larter 1999, p. 233; Table 1). Thus,
the Mackenzie herd contributes to recovery goals 1 and 4.
Five releases of wood bison totaling 170 animals from 1988 to 1991
established the Aishihik herd in southwestern Yukon, in a remote area
west of Whitehorse, Canada. Herd size has totaled over 400 since 1999
(Gates et al. 2001, p. 14; Table 1). With a current population of
approximately 1,000 animals, it is the second-largest herd. The herd
inhabits approximately 9,000 km\2\ (3,475 mi\2\) of largely undeveloped
habitat near the community of Haines Junction, adjacent to Kluane
National Park. Less than 5 percent of the range of the Aishihik herd is
on private lands (First Nation Settlement Lands), and these landowners
participate in a management planning team specifically for this herd.
The remainder of the herd's range is owned by the Government of Canada,
and there are no threats to habitat in this area (Reynolds et al. 2004,
p. 9). The herd has room to expand or shift its range, because there
are no large-scale developments east, west, or north of the present
range for several hundred kilometers. Small-scale agricultural
development to the south of the present range, however, could restrict
range expansion in that direction (Reynolds et al. 2004, p. 9).
Regulated hunting occurs on this herd (described in Factor B below).
Other than regulated harvest, no other limiting factors have been
identified (Reynolds et al. 2004, p. 17). The Aishihik herd contributes
to recovery goals 1, 2, and 4.
The Hay-Zama herd was established in 1984, when 29 wood bison were
transferred from Elk Island National Park to the holding corral site
near Hay-Zama Lakes, Alberta (Gates et al. 2001, p. 17). A herd of 48
wood bison became free-ranging when portions of the corral they were
being held in collapsed in 1993 (Gates et al. 2001, p. 17). Since then,
the free-ranging herd has grown to approximately 750 animals (Table 1),
thus contributing to recovery goals 1, 2, and 4. In 1995, the
Government of Alberta established a 36,000 km\2\ (13,900 mi\2\) Bison
Management Area around the Hay-Zama herd in the northwestern corner of
the province. In this area, all wood bison are legally protected from
hunting under Alberta's Wildlife Act; outside of the area they are not
protected. Collisions with vehicles are the largest source of known
mortality for individuals in this herd (Mitchell and Gates 2002, p. 9).
The Nahanni herd, established in 1980 with the release of 28 wood
bison, occurs primarily in southeast Yukon and northeast British
Columbia. Population size has been approximately 400 animals or more
since 2004 (Table 1). Availability of suitable habitat may limit this
herd's size (Gates et al. 2001, p. 17). The Nordquist herd was
established in 1995, near the Laird River in northeastern British
Columbia (Table 1). Because the majority of the herd occupies habitat
near the Alaska Highway, vehicle collisions are the primary source of
mortality (Reynolds et al. 2009, p. 6). It is anticipated that the
Nordquist and Nahanni herds will eventually coalesce into one herd
because of their close proximity and the presence of river corridors
that provide travel corridors (Gates et al. 2001, p. 18). Although it
has not yet occurred, combination of the two herds would create a herd
with numbers that exceed the recovery criterion of 400 (Table 1).
The Etthithun herd was established in 2002, near Etthithun Lake,
British Columbia. Factors limiting the size of this herd include the
amount and location of suitable habitat, conflicts with humans and
industrial development, and potential contact with commercial plains
bison (BC MOE, pers. comm., 2010). Current population size is
approximately 124 (Table 1);
[[Page 6740]]
consequently, this herd does not currently meet the recovery criterion
of 400 individuals. However, it does contribute to recovery goals 2 and
4.
The Chitek Lake herd was established in 1991, in Manitoba, Canada.
The Chitek Lake Wood Bison Management Committee plans to maintain the
herd at approximately 300 animals to keep the herd within carrying
capacity of the habitat. The 100,300 hectare (ha) (25,452 acre (ac))
Chitek Lake Park Reserve provides habitat protection for the core range
of the herd. Limiting factors for the herd include accidental mortality
from drowning, starvation in bad winters, and predation from wolves
(Manitoba Conservation, pers. comm., 2010). Although outside of the
historic range of wood bison, Chitek Lake herd plays an important role
in wood bison conservation because it is an isolated disease-free herd
and, consequently, provides security to the species through population
redundancy, thus contributing to recovery goal 2.
Captive Disease-free Herds
In addition to the free-ranging wood bison herds discussed above,
four captive herds have been established, although only three are
currently viable. The Elk Island National Park herd in Alberta, Canada,
was established in 1965 from wood bison transferred from an isolated
portion of WBNP. It is the national conservation herd and has provided
disease-free stock for six of the free-ranging populations and several
captive breeding herds in zoos and private commercial ranches (Gates et
al. 1992, p. 153). Carrying capacity at Elk Island National Park is
approximately 350 animals; animals above this number are regarded as
surplus and are removed to establish and supplement free-roaming
populations in former areas of their historic range (Parks Canada
2009a, unpaginated). Although the herd is fenced, the animals are semi-
wild and spend the majority of their time roaming the 65 km\2\ (25
mi\2\) enclosure, interacting with the environment in a largely natural
manner (Gates et al. 2001, p. 18). The herd is rounded up annually to
test for disease and to vaccinate for common cattle diseases. The age,
sex, and condition of all the individuals are determined to inform
management decisions. Using this information, individuals are selected
for sale, donation, or the establishment of new herds, which also
controls the population size of the herd (Parks Canada 2009b,
unpaginated). This conservation herd contributes to recovery goals 2,
3, and 4.
The Hook Lake Wood Bison Recovery Project was initiated to
establish a captive, disease-free herd from a wild herd infected with
brucellosis and tuberculosis. The overall objective of the project was
to determine the feasibility of genetic salvage from a diseased herd
(Nishi et al. 2002, p. 230). Specific objectives of the project were to
conserve the genetic integrity of the wild herd by capturing an
adequate number of calves; provide intensive veterinary and
preventative drug treatment to eliminate disease from the calves; and
raise a disease-free herd from the salvaged calves (Nishi et al. 2002,
p. 229). From 1996 to 1998, 62 calves were captured. The disease
eradication protocol included orphaning new-born wild-caught calves to
minimize their exposure to B. abortus and M. bovis, testing calves for
antibodies to brucellosis prior to inclusion in the new herd, treatment
with antimycobacterial and anti-Brucella drugs, and intensive whole-
herd testing for both diseases (Nishi et al. 2002, p. 229). By 2002,
the herd size was 122. In 2006, after 9 years of intensive management,
the herd was destroyed because bovine tuberculosis was discovered in
2005 in 2 founding animals and 10 captive-born animals, even though all
animals initially tested disease-free. The herd provided valuable
information on genetic salvage, genetic management, captive breeding
for conservation, disease testing, and the difficulties involved in
eradicating disease (Wilson et al. 2003, pp. 24-35). The Hook Lake Herd
contributed to recovery goal 3.
In April 2006, 30 wood bison calves were transferred from Elk
Island National Park to Lenski Stolby Nature Park near Yakutsk, Sahka
Republic (Yakutia), Russia. An additional 30 head are to be transferred
in 2011. Although outside the historical range, this was an opportunity
to create another geographically separate population which provides
added security to the species through population redundancy, thereby
contributing to recovery goal 2. Transfer of wood bison to Russia was
specifically mentioned in the recovery plan because it would contribute
to the global security of the species (Gates et al., 2001, p. 14).
In June 2008, 53 disease-free wood bison were transferred from Elk
Island National Park to the Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center in
Portage, Alaska. Consequently, this captive herd currently contributes
to recovery goal number 2 through population redundancy. Ultimately,
the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) plans to restore wood
bison populations in one to three areas in interior Alaska, with
potential herd size of 500 to 2,000 or more depending on the location
(ADF&G 2007, p. 79). Environmental analysis of the project is currently
under review. The National Wood Bison Recovery Team in Canada
recommended establishing one or more populations in Alaska in areas
that can support 400 or more animals (Gates et al. 2001, p. 31).
Establishment of one or more herds in Alaska would be a significant
contribution to increasing the number of secure, disease-free, free-
roaming herds.
Summary of Progress Toward Recovery
In summary, since 1978, the number of free-ranging, disease-free
herds has increased from 1 to 7, and the number of wood bison has
increased from approximately 400 to over 4,000. The first recovery goal
of establishing 4 free-ranging, disease-free herds with 400 or more
animals has been met, and planning is underway to create one or more
herds in Alaska. Although the number of herds needed to meet recovery
goal 2 was not specified, progress has been made on the second goal
with the establishment of disease-free herds in Russia; Manitoba,
Canada; and Alaska. The Hook Lake Bison Recovery Project was a well-
planned, science-based attempt to conserve the genetic diversity of a
diseased herd and would have contributed greatly to recovery goal 3.
Although ultimately the project was unsuccessful, a great deal of
knowledge was gained (Wilson et al. 2003, pp. 62-67). The wood bison
recovery team is very aware of the need to maintain genetic diversity
in the herds and establishes new herds with the goal of maintaining
genetic diversity through multiple introductions (i.e., the Aishihik
herd and Hook Lake herd). The establishment of six additional herds on
the landscape since 1978 contributes to recovery goal 4. In addition,
the captive population at Elk Island National Park has provided
disease-free stock for those six additional herds and two captive
herds. It is clear that there is active management of the herds, and
multiple avenues of research are being funded and pursued regarding the
biology and management of wood bison. Progress towards the recovery
goals outlined in the national recovery plan, published by the National
Wood Bison Recovery Team, is moving forward steadily.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Subspecies
Section 4 of the Act and implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424)
set forth procedures for adding species to, removing species from, or
reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened
[[Page 6741]]
Wildlife and Plants. Changes in the List can be initiated by the
Service or through the public petition process. Under section 4(a)(1)
of the Act, a species may be determined to be endangered or threatened
based on any of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
We must consider these same factors in downlisting a species. In
making this 12-month finding on the petition, we evaluate whether the
species must be listed as endangered or threatened because of one or
more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. For
species that are already listed as endangered or threatened, we
evaluate both the threats currently facing the species and the threats
that are reasonably likely to affect the species in the foreseeable
future following the delisting or downlisting and the removal or
reduction of the Act's protections.
Under section 3 of the Act, a species is ``endangered'' if it is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range and is ``threatened'' if it is likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. ``Foreseeable future'' is determined by the
Service on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration a variety of
species-specific factors such as lifespan, genetics, breeding behavior,
demography, threat projections timeframes, and environmental
variability. The word ``range'' in the phrase ``significant portion of
its range'' (SPR) refers to the range in which the species currently
exists, and the word ``significant'' refers to the value of that
portion of the range being considered to the conservation of the
species.
For the purposes of this analysis, we will evaluate all five
factors currently affecting, or that are likely to affect, the wood
bison to determine whether the currently listed species is threatened
or endangered.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of its Habitat or Range
Loss of Foraging Habitat
Fire Suppression
Wood bison depend on a landscape that includes sufficient
grasslands and meadows for foraging habitat (Larter and Gates 1991b, p.
133). It appears that primarily through fire suppression, there was an
overall loss of meadow habitat in Canada through the 1900s. More
intensive fire management began in Canada in the early 1900s with the
philosophy that fire was destructive and should be eliminated to
protect property and permit proper forest management (Stocks et al.
2003, p. 2). However, wildfire is an integral component of boreal
forest ecology (Weber and Flannigan 1997, p. 146; Rupp et al. 2004, p.
213; Soja et al. 2007, p. 277). Without fire, trees encroach on meadows
and eventually the meadow habitat is lost and replaced by forest.
Fire alone, or in combination with grazing, can facilitate the
conversion and maintenance of grasslands (Lewis 1982, p. 24; Chowns et
al. 1997, p. 205; Schwarz and Wein 1997, p. 1369). Burning by Native
groups within the range of wood bison was apparently a common practice
through the 1940s outside WBNP but ended within the park when it was
established in 1922 (Lewis 1982, pp. 22-31; Schwarz and Wein 1997, p.
1369). An examination of aerial photographs taken at WBNP over time
showed that a semi-open grassland that covered about 85 ha (210 ac) in
1928 supported a grassland of only 3 ha (7.4 ac) in 1982 (Schwarz and
Wein 1997, p. 1369). In addition, a number of sites previously
identified as prairie are now dominated by trembling aspen (Schwarz and
Wein 1997, p. 1369). Although not quantified, it is likely that because
of fire suppression and forest encroachment on meadows, there was a net
loss of suitable open meadow habitat for wood bison throughout their
range through about 1990. More recently, several factors may be
counteracting the loss of open meadow habitat including controlled
burns, timber harvest, oil and gas development, and the effects of
climate change, as discussed below.
Controlled Burns
Controlled burns have been implemented since 1992 in wood bison
habitat in the Northwest Territories to increase meadow habitat (Chowns
et al. 1997, p. 206). Approximately 4,400 to 26,900 ha (10,873 to
66,471 ac) were burned from 1992 to 1997 with some sites being burned
up to three times (Chowns et al. 1997, pp. 206-207). In addition,
lightning fires burned 300,000 ha (741,316 ac), or almost 20 percent of
the wood bison range in this area, from 1994 to 1996 (Chowns et al.
1997, p. 209). Plants favored by bison were more abundant in unburned
areas and in meadows that had burned only once (Quinlan et al. 2003, p.
348), indicating that prescribed burns must be used judiciously to be
effective in creating foraging habitat for wood bison. A study of
vegetation recovery and plains bison use after a wildfire near
Farewell, Alaska (Campbell and Hinkes 1983, p. 18) showed that grass
and sedge-dominated communities increased from 38 percent to
approximately 97 percent of the study area. Plains bison use also
increased in subsequent years after the fire, and winter distribution
of the Farewell herd expanded due to fire-related habitat changes
(Campbell and Hinkes 1983, pp. 18-19). Because sedges are important
winter forage for wood bison, the amount of such habitat has a major
influence on herd size. Newly created habitats will be used by wood
bison when these habitats are contiguous with existing summer or winter
ranges (Campbell and Hinkes 1983, p. 20).
In summary, studies that have looked at the exclusion of fire or
the effect of wildfire on wood bison habitat have concluded that fire
is a necessary component of the landscape to maintain clearings and
create conditions that favor forage preferred by wood bison. Controlled
burns can have the same effect as wildfire by creating openings in the
forest. However, repeated burns in the same location can be detrimental
to creating suitable forage.
Timber Harvest
The volume of timber logged in Canada rose 50 percent from 1970 to
1997; in Alberta, the logging rate increased 423 percent from 3.4 to
17.8 million m\3\ (120 to 628 million feet (ft)\3\) per year during the
same time (Timoney and Lee 2001, p. 394). These values are conservative
because forests logged on private land and those harvested on
government land after fire, insect outbreaks, or disease may go
unrecorded (Timoney and Lee 2001, p. 395). The primary method of
harvest is clearcutting (Timoney and Lee 2001, p. 394). Compared to a
closed canopy forest, clearcuts improve the amount of suitable habitat
available to wood bison because they create openings and increase the
amount of summer forage available. However, the quantity and quality of
forage is less than what is found in preferred wood bison foraging
[[Page 6742]]
habitats, and the increased productivity seen after a clearcut is not
maintained, as woody vegetation becomes more dominant over time
(Redburn et al. 2008, p. 2233). In addition, clearcuts do not provide
adequate winter forage because wood bison's preferred food, sedges,
typically do not colonize these areas. Clearcutting is not being used
as a management tool to increase wood bison habitat currently, and
whatever gains in habitat that have occurred from clearcutting are most
likely low.
In summary, although timber harvest occurs throughout the range of
wood bison, it is unclear to what extent it is creating suitable
habitat. Clear cuts can increase summer forage, but they need to be in
proximity to sedge meadows (wintering habitat) to increase the annual
carrying capacity for wood bison, and the openings created by the clear
cuts must be maintained over time. Although timber harvest has the
potential to increase the amount of suitable habitat for wood bison,
the amount that may have been created is most likely low and is
undocumented.
Oil and Gas Development
Oil and gas exploration and production in Canada has increased in
the last 20 years (Timoney and Lee 2001, pp. 397-398). Seismic mapping
to determine the oil and gas reserves below the surface involves
cutting paths 5 to 8 meters (m) (16.4 to 26 ft) wide across the
landscape. The seismic lines become persistent features in the forested
boreal landscape (Lee and Boutin 2006, p. 249). Approximately 70
percent of landscape disturbance for non-renewable resource extraction
in Alberta is due to seismic lines (Timoney and Lee 2001, p. 397).
There are an estimated 1.5 to 1.8 million km (932,000 to 1,100,000 mi)
of seismic lines in Alberta (Timoney and Lee 2001, p. 397). Lee and
Boutin (2006, p. 244) found that only 8.2 percent of seismic lines in
Alberta's northeastern forested stands recovered to greater than 50
percent woody vegetative cover after 35 years, and 64 percent of these
seismic lines maintained a cover of grasses and herbs. In terms of
creating forest openings, more suitable foraging habitat, and linear
paths, seismic lines may be beneficial for wood bison. However, because
vehicular routes were established in 20 percent of the seismic lines,
they also become corridors for off-road vehicles, recreationalists, and
poachers (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, pp. 19-20; Timoney and Lee 2001,
p. 400; Lee and Boutin 2006, p. 244). Although wood bison are known to
occupy linear clearings such as roads, and seismic lines have increased
dramatically within their range, potentially creating suitable habitat,
we do not have documentation of wood bison use of this type of habitat.
Agricultural Development
The popularity of bison as an alternative to beef in human diets
has led to a growth of commercial bison ranches in Canada and the
United States (Gates et al. 1992, p. 155). Exports of bison meat from
Canada doubled to over 2 million kilograms (2.3 tons) from 2001 to 2006
(Statistics Canada 2009a, unpaginated). Plains bison dominate
agricultural production in Canada because commercial production of this
subspecies has been in place much longer than it has been for wood
bison (Gates et al. 1992, p. 156; Harper and Gates 2000, p. 919). Bison
production in Canada is concentrated in the western provinces, within
the historical range of wood bison. In 2006, there were 195,728 plains
bison on 1,898 farms reporting in the Canadian National Census; an
increase of 35 percent from 2001 (Statistics Canada 2009b,
unpaginated). Thus, plains bison represented approximately 95 percent
of the total bison on the landscape in Canada in 2006. Existence and
expansion of commercial plains bison production reduces the amount of
land available for wild wood bison populations and increases the risk
of hybridization when plains bison escape captivity (Harper and Gates
2000, p. 919; Gates et al. 2001, pp. 24, 29). Demand currently exceeds
supply; therefore, expansion of commercial plains and wood bison
operations is expected to continue (Gates et al. 2001, p. 24)
Escape of plains bison from fenced enclosures within the range of
the wood bison in Canada poses a threat to the genetic integrity of
wood bison (Gates et al. 1992, p. 156; Gates et al. 2001, p. 24).
Because of their size, strength, and undomesticated nature, typical
fences are insufficient to restrain bison (FEAP 1990, p. 29; Harper and
Gates 2000, p. 919). Maintenance of fences can be a challenge in harsh
environments where tree-fall, snow, ice, and frost heave can impair the
integrity of the fence and necessitate frequent repairs. The import of
plains bison to a private ranch near Pink Mountain, British Columbia,
led to the establishment of a free-ranging herd of plains bison after
they escaped their enclosure (Gates et al. 1992, p. 156).
In addition to commercial production, free-ranging, publicly
managed plains bison herds have been established outside their
historical range and within the historical range of wood bison in
Alaska and Canada (Gates et al. 2010, p. 56). Because of the potential
for hybridization, these herds limit where wood bison can be
reintroduced. Five plains bison herds occur in Alaska and one occurs in
British Columbia, Canada (Gates et al. 2010, p. 56). None of these
plains bison herds occur in close proximity to free-ranging wood bison
herds with the exception of one herd--the Pink Mountain herd, British
Columbia, which also occupies habitat that could have been used for
wood bison (Harper et al. 2000, p. 11). Preventing interbreeding
between free-ranging plains bison and wood bison is a management
objective in British Columbia and is accomplished by maintaining a
large physical separation between the herds and having a management
zone around the plains bison herd that allows harvest of plains bison
within this zone (Harper et al. 2000, p. 23).
Agricultural development, including plains bison ranching, is the
least compatible land use for wood bison recovery (Harper and Gates
2000, p. 921). Loss of habitat for agricultural production is a threat
to wood bison because of the large areas involved. Agricultural
development near Fort St. John and Fort Nelson, British Columbia, has
reduced habitat for wood bison, and continuing expansion of agriculture
in the north will further limit the ability to meet population recovery
objectives (Harper and Gates 2000, p. 921). Based on a conservative
estimate of historical habitat only in Canada, Gates et al. (1992, p.
154) estimated that human activities and development exclude wood bison
from approximately 34 percent of their historic range. When an updated
Canadian historical range (Stephenson et al. 2001, p. 136) and the
Alaskan historical range are included in the calculation, the amount of
compromised habitat drops to approximately 16.5 percent if only Canada
is considered, and 13 percent if the historical habitat in Canada and
Alaska are combined (Stephenson 2010, pers. comm.). Sanderson et al.
(2002, pp. 894-896; 2008, p. 257) found that the level of human
influence in the range occupied by wood bison to be extremely low (less
than 10 percent). Although human development and influence is very low
over the majority of range occupied by wood bison, we assume that
because of human population growth, increased commercial production of
plains bison, and increased agricultural production, there will be
continued loss of suitable wood bison habitat into the foreseeable
future.
[[Page 6743]]
Climate Change
Climate change models project that the largest temperature
increases will occur in the upper latitudes of the northern hemisphere,
and that there will be an increase in extreme climate events in these
areas (IPCC 2007, 11.5.3.1). This area includes the boreal forest of
Canada and Alaska in the range of wood bison. Some of the predicted
outcomes of climate change are: an increase in temperature; an increase
in insect outbreaks; an increase in wildfire severity, area burned, and
fire season length with potential landscape scale ecotype effects; and
a shift northward of boreal forest (Hamann and Wang 2006, pp. 2780-
2782; Soja et al. 2007, p. 277). These aspects of climate change have
the potential to increase the amount of habitat suitable for wood bison
over the next 100 years.
The mean annual temperature of interior Alaska and northern Canada
has increased by 2 degrees Celsius ([deg]C) (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit
([deg]F)) in the last four decades (Serreze et al. 2000, p. 163).
Warming has triggered bark beetle outbreaks in western North America,
including south-central Alaska and British Columbia. In British
Columbia, by the end of 2006, 130,000 km\2\ (50,193 mi\2\) of forested
lands were affected (Kurz et al. 2008, p. 987). The outbreak in British
Columbia was an order of magnitude greater in area and severity than
all previous recorded outbreaks (Kurz et al. 2008, p. 987). In the
boreal regions of Alaska, the cumulative insect damage from 1993 to
1998 was 1.6 to 2.4 million ha (3.9 to 5.9 million ac) (Matthews 1997,
p. 4; Malstr[ouml]m and Raffa 2000, p. 36) with 90 percent of the
spruce on the Kenai Peninsula being affected (Soja et al. 2007, p.
282).
The warmer minimum winter temperatures increased survival of
beetles during the winter, while increased summer temperatures and
reduced summer precipitation stressed the trees and contributed to the
intensity of the bark beetle infestation (Kurz et al. 2008, p. 987). In
addition, the warmer temperatures quickened the maturation rate of the
beetles from 2 years to 1 year, hastening population growth (Berg et
al. 2006, p. 219; Werner et al. 2006, p. 195). The effect of insect
outbreaks on wood bison habitat includes a potential increase in
suitable wood bison habitat, and an increase in susceptibility to fire.
In insect-infested plots studied on the Kenai Peninsula, cover of
bluejoint grass (Calamagrostis canadensis), a summer forage species,
increased to more than 50 percent compared to uninfested forest stands
(Werner et al. 2006, p. 198). These results indicate forests affected
by beetle kill may become more suitable to wood bison by creating
openings and changing the vegetative composition. This would be
particularly true in areas where, because of climate change, there was
a permanent change in landscape cover from forest to grassland (Rizzo
and Wiken 1992, p. 53; Flannigan et al. 2000, pp. 226-227). Werber and
Flannigan (1997, p. 157), and Malmstr[ouml]m and Raffa (2000, p. 36),
indicate that insect outbreaks increase an area's susceptibility to
fire ignition and spread.
Since the mid-1980s, wildfire frequency in western forests has
nearly quadrupled compared to the average frequency during the period
1970-1986. The total area burned is more than six and a half times the
previous level (Westerling et al. 2006, p. 941). In addition, the
average length of the fire season during 1987-2003 was 78 days longer
compared to that during 1970-1986, and the average time between fire
discovery and control was 29.6 days longer (Westerling et al. 2006, p.
941). In Alaska, the largest fire on record was in 2004, and the third
largest was in 2003 (Soja et al. 2007, p. 281).
The area burned by forest fires in Canada has increased over the
past 4 decades (Stocks et al. 2003, p. 2; Gillett et al. 2004, p. 4;
Soja et al., 2007, p. 281). In Canada, weather/climate is the most
important natural factor influencing forest fires (Gillett et al. 2004,
p. 2; Flannigan et al. 2005, p. 1). Projections based on the Canadian
and Hadley General Circulation Models, which predict future carbon
dioxide and temperature increases, indicate that the area burned in
boreal forests of Canada will double by the end of the century
(Flannigan et al. 2005, pp. 11-12), the area exhibiting high to extreme
fire danger will increase substantially, and the length of the fire
season will increase (Stocks et al. 1998, pp. 5-11).
In the absence of fire, vegetation changes would occur relatively
slowly in response to relatively slow changes in the climate. Because
of its immediate and large-scale effect, fire is seen as an agent of
change that will hasten the modification of the landscape to a new
equilibrium with climate. Area burned may overshadow the direct effects
of climate change on plant species distribution and migration (Werber
and Flannigan 1997, p. 157). The new fire regime is expected to affect
the age class distribution, species composition, landscape mosaics, and
boundaries, including a retraction of the southern boreal forest
(Werber and Flannigan 1997, pp. 157, 160).
The increase in temperature, predicted by the Canadian and Hadley
General Circulation Models described above, is expected to cause major
shifts in ecosystems (Rizzo and Wiken 1992, p. 37; Hogg and Schwarz
1997, p. 527). The amount of grassland in Canada may increase by about
7 percent and shift northward (Rizzo and Wiken 1992, p. 52). Several
modeling efforts suggest that boreal forests will shift northward into
the area now characterized as subarctic (Rizzo and Wiken 1992, pp. 48-
50; Rupp et al. 2002, p. 214). These changes may favor the expansion of
suitable habitat for wood bison over the next century. Because one of
the anticipated outcomes under climate change and the new fire regime
is a retraction of the southern boreal forest and expansion of
grasslands, we anticipate that habitat for wood bison, which require
meadows intermixed with forest, will increase over the next century.
Summary of Factor A
Our analysis of habitat threats to wood bison under Factor A
includes management actions that are being taken (controlled burns,
timber harvest, oil and gas development), anticipated changes to the
landscape based on climate change (increased insect outbreaks,
increased fire, ecotype transition), and agricultural development. In
summary, most likely there was loss of suitable meadow foraging habitat
for wood bison from fire suppression in the 20th century. Several
factors including fire, timber harvest, oil and gas exploration, and
insect infestations could create more forest openings and grassland
habitat. However, neither the loss, nor potential gain in habitat from
these sources has been quantified, and the suitability of habitat for
wood bison created as a by-product of resource development is largely
unknown. The primary loss of habitat for wood bison has occurred from
agricultural development (including commercial production of plains
bison). Although the current level of human influence in the range of
wood bison is low, we anticipate human population growth will continue,
and loss of suitable habitat from agricultural development is expected
in the foreseeable future. In the short term, habitat loss is expected
to outstrip gain because of the increasing demand and production of
commercial bison. Based on model projections of the effects of climate
change, it is anticipated that there will be increased insect
infestations, increased fire frequency and area burned, and warmer
temperatures, leading to shifts in
[[Page 6744]]
ecosystems. In the long term, these changes will likely create more
forest openings and landscapes in early successional stages and may
increase the amount of suitable habitat available to wood bison.
Whether the potential gain in habitat will offset the loss from
development in the long term is unknown. Consequently, based on the
best scientific and commercial data available, we conclude that loss of
habitat remains as a significant threat to wood bison in the
foreseeable future.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Overharvesting for the fur trade and westward expansion by
Europeans resulted in near extinction of wood bison by the late 1800s
(Gates et al. 1992, pp. 143-145). Currently, the utilization of free-
ranging, disease-free wood bison populations is closely regulated and
managed for sustainability. Under the Species at Risk Act (SARA), a
species listed as threatened may not be killed on Federal lands such as
National Parks or National Wildlife Areas, except where permitted under
a national recovery strategy (GNT 2009, p. 15). Harvest is used as a
recovery management tool to regulate herd size when other limiting
factors, such as predation or disease, do not. Without harvest, herd
size can expand beyond the carrying capacity of the landscape, may grow
to the point where overlap with either plains bison or diseased herds
is more likely, or may expand into areas such as highway right-of ways.
Regulated harvest is allowed from the disease-free Mackenzie herd,
Nahanni herd (quota of two bison annually), the Aishihik herd, and the
Hay-Zama herds under permit systems controlled by the respective
territorial wildlife agencies, and is managed on a conservative
sustained-yield basis. The regulated harvests for the Mackenzie,
Aishihik, and Hay-Zama herds are described below.
Hunting of the Mackenzie wood bison herd is regulated under a quota
system based on population size, and through consideration of Native
community interests in subsistence hunting, through a co-management
process with the Fort Providence Resource Management Board. Regulated
hunting was initiated in 1987. Non-resident hunting licenses were first
issued for the winter hunt in 1992/1993. The quota for resident and
non-residents has been adjusted over time based on herd size and
community input. The allowable quota for harvest has never been taken
and has ranged from 20 to 93.6 percent of the quota (Reynolds et al.
2004, p. 39). The current annual allowable harvest is 47 bison, which
is 2.5 percent of the population estimate (Reynolds et al. 2004, pp.
15, 39).
Sport hunting is the primary method of regulating the growth of the
Aishihik herd, because natural predation on the herd is low. The Yukon
Wood Bison Technical Team provides advice on wood bison management that
is sensitive to local conditions (i.e., to remove wood bison from
highway right-of-ways, competition of bison with other native
ungulates), and consistent with the National Wood Bison Recovery Plan
(Yukon Environment 2009, p. 1). The annual allowable harvest is
determined each year based on population size and calf recruitment
rate. Harvest from 1999 to 2007/2008 winter season ranged from 65 to 75
animals. In the 2008/2009 winter season, the allowable harvest
increased to 200 because the population continued to grow under the old
quota. Increased harvest is expected to restrict the movement of wood
bison away from their traditional range, address highway safety
concerns, and achieve bison management objectives (Government of Yukon
2009, p. 1). Resident, non-resident, and First Nations hunters are
required to have a permit to hunt wood bison. Harvest regulations are
strictly enforced by Yukon Department of Environment conservation
officers, often in collaboration with local First Nations Game
Guardians.
Hunting in the Hay-Zama herd began in 2008 for the first time.
Hunting was initiated to regulate the population size, reduce wood
bison conflicts with humans in the communities of Zama City and Chatey,
reduce wood bison-vehicle collisions on two highways, and limit wood
bison distribution eastward, preventing potential contact with diseased
bison from WBNP (Government of Alberta 2010a, unpaginated). Harvest
removed 128 and 155 animals in the 2008/09 and 2009/10 seasons,
respectively (Government of Alberta 2010b, unpaginated). Three hundred
licenses were issued each year, 200 to Aboriginal hunters and 100 to
recreational hunters. Because the objectives of reducing herd size and
human conflicts have been met, the total number of licenses has been
reduced in the 2010/11 season to 105 (Government of Canada 2010b,
unpaginated). Based on the success rate of the past two seasons,
approximately 50 animals will likely be harvested. It is estimated that
a population objective of 400-600 wood bison can be sustained by
harvesting approximately 60 to 70 animals per season (Government of
Canada 2010b, unpaginated).
In addition to regulating herd size, harvest is also used to
prevent the spread of bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis infection in
wood bison. Under the Northwest Territories Big-Game Hunting
Regulations, hunters may shoot any bison sighted within the Bison
Control Area (BCA), an area located between the WBNP diseased herd and
the Mackenzie and Nahanni disease-free herds. The goal is to reduce the
risk of bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis infection of the Mackenzie
and Nahanni herds by removing infected animals dispersing from WBNP
(see discussion under Factor C). Thirteen bison were removed from the
BCA in the mid-1990s (Nishi 2002, pp. 12-13). There is currently no
authorized harvest of wood bison in British Columbia.
Under Canada's SARA, all collection of listed species such as wood
bison for scientific purposes is closely regulated. Scientific research
on disease, genetics, diet, and other aspects of wood bison life
history can and has been done using animals that have been legally
taken by hunters, animals that died through natural factors, or road
kill (e.g., Tessaro et al. 1990, p. 175). Scientific research must
relate to the conservation of the species and be conducted by qualified
persons; the activity must benefit the species or enhance its chance of
survival in the wild. In addition, activities affecting the species
must be incidental to carrying out an otherwise lawful activity.
Researchers must demonstrate awareness of the provisions of SARA, that
measures are being taken to minimize harm to listed species, and that
the most effective measures for minimizing harm are adopted.
Harvest of wood bison does not occur and only a small number of
wood bison have been sporadically taken from disease-free herds for
display in zoos or wildlife parks. This occurs only when surplus
animals are available and these surplus animals have typically come
from Elk Island National Park (Gates et al. 2010, p. 81).
The wood bison was placed in Appendix I of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES) on July 1, 1975, when the treaty first went into effect. CITES
is an international agreement between governments to ensure that the
international trade of CITES-listed plant and animal species does not
threaten species' survival in the wild. There are currently 175 CITES
Parties (member countries or signatories to the Convention). Under this
treaty, CITES Parties regulate the import, export, and reexport of
CITES-protected plants and
[[Page 6745]]
animal species (also see Factor D). Trade must be authorized through a
system of permits and certificates that are provided by the designated
CITES Scientific and Management Authorities of each CITES Party (CITES
2010, unpaginated). Species included in CITES Appendix I are considered
threatened with extinction, and international trade is permitted only
under exceptional circumstances, which generally precludes commercial
trade.
Beginning in 1993, the European Economic Community CITES Working
Group authorized the import of wood bison trophies from the Mackenzie
population, one of the disease-free herds with regulated harvest. On
September 28, 1997, the wood bison was downlisted to Appendix II based
on a proposal from Canada, which described progress made in recovery
plan implementation (Government of Canada 1997, entire). The United
States voted in support of the downlisting. Appendix II allows for
regulated trade, including commercial trade, as long as the exporting
country issues a CITES permit based on findings that the specimen was
legally acquired and the export will not be detrimental to the survival
of the species.
Between the time the wood bison was first listed in CITES in 1975
and 2009, 169 CITES-permitted shipments have been reported to the
United Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring
Center (UNEP-WCMC). Of these, 132 shipments have occurred since 1997,
when the wood bison was downlisted to Appendix II. Of these 132
shipments, 49 (37 percent) were reportedly imported into the United
States and six (four percent) were shipments permitted for export from
the United States (UNEP-WCMC 2010, unpaginated). With the information
given in the UNEP-WCMC database, of the 132 shipments recorded between
1997 and 2009, approximately 17 shipments consisted of live wood bison:
13 shipments (165 individuals) of captive-born/captive-bred wood bison
were traded for commercial, zoological, or captive-breeding purposes;
two shipments of ranched wood bison (13 individuals) were traded for
commercial purposes; and two shipments of wild wood bison (18
individuals) were traded for commercial and captive-breeding purposes.
There has been no trade in live, wild wood bison reported since 2002.
The other 115 shipments since 1997 involved trade in parts and products
(15 trophies, 1,628 kg (3,589 lb) of meat, 9 carvings, 8 skulls and
horns, 304 teeth, 17 skins, 629 scientific specimens, and 6 garments,
leather products, and hair) of wild, captive-born/captive-bred, pre-
Convention, and confiscated wood bison.
As a species listed in Appendix II of CITES, commercial trade of
wood bison is allowed. However, CITES requires that before an export
can occur, a determination must be made that the specimens were legally
obtained (in accordance with national laws) and that the export will
not be detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild. Because
CITES requires that all international shipments of wood bison must be
legally obtained and not detrimental to the survival of the species, we
believe that international trade controlled via valid CITES permits is
not a threat to the species. Furthermore, we have no information
indicating that illegal trade is a threat to this species.
Summary of Factor B
It is possible that, with the ongoing recovery actions, a status
review of wood bison in Canada could lead to delisting under SARA
within the next 10 years. If this were to happen, we expect that
regulations for recreational hunting, import of wood bison trophies,
and permitting would change. Our ability to predict how these changes
would affect the status of the species is limited; consequently we can
only reliably project for a short time into the future.
Because harvest rates of free-ranging wood bison are based on
sustainability, harvest is closely monitored and regulated, scientific
collecting is tightly controlled, commercial harvest does not occur in
wild populations, and import and export are controlled via CITES
permits, we have determined that overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is not a threat to
wood bison now or in the foreseeable future.
C. Disease or Predation
Disease
A decision in the early 1920s led to the transfer of 6,673 plains
bison into WBNP, Alberta, Canada, where approximately 1,500 disease-
free wood bison resided (FEAP 1990, p. 6; Gates et al. 1992, pp. 146-
147). Although initially separated by fairly large distances, the
plains bison eventually co-occurred and interbred with the wood bison
and also transmitted bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis to them (FEAP
1990, p. 6; Gates et al. 1992, pp. 146-147). By the late 1940s and
early 1950s, the population of wood bison in WBNP increased to between
12,500 and 15,000 animals (Fuller, 1950, p. 450). From that level, wood
bison numbers began to decline from 11,000 in 1971 to approximately
2,300 by 1998 (Carbyn et al. 1998, p. 464). The reasons for the
population decline are not known with certainty, but disease, predation
by wolves, and habitat condition may all have played a role (Carbyn et
al. 1998, pp. 467-468; Joly and Messier 2004, pp. 1165-1166).
Population numbers at WBNP have stabilized at about 4,000 to 5,000
since 2002 (Table 1).
Bovine tuberculosis and bovine brucellosis receive special
attention because they cause production losses in domestic animals,
they can potentially infect humans, and they are required to be
reported under the Canadian Food and Inspection Agency's (CFIA) Health
of Animals Act and Regulations (FEAP 1990, p. 7). Although wildlife is
not under their jurisdiction, the CFIA recognizes the threat of
reportable diseases to the commercial livestock industry and
international trade. The CFIA follows a strict testing and eradication
program for bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis in domestic animals,
requiring that all infected animals and all exposed susceptible animals
be destroyed (Canadian Food Inspection Agency 2002, unpaginated).
Consequently, there is great concern from the Canadian cattle industry,
which is currently recognized as disease-free, that disease will spread
from the wood bison to domestic cattle (GNT 2009, p. 13). The goal of
the CFIA's National Bovine Tuberculosis/Brucellosis Eradication Program
is to detect and eradicate tuberculosis and brucellosis in farmed
animals in Canada in order to protect the health of food-producing and
companion animals, safeguard human health, and safeguard the health of
free-roaming wildlife. Canada recognizes an obligation to detect,
identify, report, and contain important diseases in wildlife,
especially those with the potential to impact biodiversity, human and
livestock health, the environment, and the economy within and beyond
their borders.
The wood bison in and around WBNP are a reservoir for bovine
brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis. Because there is a risk that these
diseases could spread to uninfected free-ranging bison herds or to
commercial cattle and bison operations, limits are placed on herd
expansion to minimize the chance that the diseased animals come into
contact with either free-ranging, disease-free herds, or domestic
cattle or bison operations. In addition, the diseased herds occupy
suitable habitat that could be used for the establishment of disease-
free herds of wood bison. Therefore, the existence of diseased bison
herds in and
[[Page 6746]]
around WBNP compromises further recovery of wood bison in northern
Alberta, the Northwest Territories, and British Columbia (Gates et al.
2001, p. 29). The total area compromised by diseased herds is
approximately 218,516 km\2\ (84,369 mi\2\) or about 12 percent of the
original range of the wood bison in Canada (Gates et al. 2001, p. 24).
As mentioned earlier there are no effective vaccines for the treatment
of animals in free-ranging populations.
The disease-free herds most at risk from infection from animals at
WBNP are the Mackenzie, Hay-Zama, and Nahanni. Regulated harvest is
allowed from the Mackenzie herd, Nahanni herd, and the Hay-Zama herds
under permit systems (as described under Factor B), in part to prevent
overlap with the diseased herd. In addition, the Governments of the
Northwest Territories, Alberta, and British Columbia have designated
management zones to reduce the risk of dispersing animals transmitting
disease to disease-free herds in their provinces. In 1987, the
Government of the Northwest Territories implemented a program to reduce
the risk of contact between infected bison in and around WBNP and
disease-free bison in the Mackenzie and Nahanni herds by establishing a
Bison Free Management Area (BFMA) (Nishi 2002, pp. 5-6). The BFMA
(39,000 km\2\ (15,058 mi\2\) encompasses the area between the Alberta-
Northwest Territories border and southern shoreline of the Mackenzie
River. In 1992, the Government of the Northwest Territories established
the Nuisance Bison Control Regulations under the Northwest Territories
Wildlife Regulations Act, permitting eligible hunters to legally shoot
any bison sighted in the BFMA. All bison within this area are presumed
disease carriers. The objectives of the program are to detect and
remove any bison, and to prevent establishment of herds in the
management area (Nishi 2002, p. 6). No bison were observed in the area
during annual aerial surveys in the period 1988-2006, but 13 bison were
killed in the mid-1990s (Nishi 2002, pp. 12-13; Hartop et al. 2009, p.
41). Aerial surveillance occurs annually.
In 1995, the Government of Alberta established a 36,000 km\2\
(13,900 mi\2\) bison management area around the Hay-Zama herd to
protect all bison from hunting. Within this area, all wood bison are
legally protected under Alberta's Wildlife Act; outside of the area
they are not protected and can be hunted. The area outside of the
protected management area creates a large buffer zone between the
disease-free Hay-Zama herd and the diseased herds within WBNP (Gates et
al. 2001, p. 38).
Control areas and buffer zones between diseased and non-diseased
populations may not prevent disease transmission (Canadian Food
Inspection Agency 2002, unpaginated) because they are sporadically
patrolled and imperfectly enforced. As discussed earlier, fences are an
ineffective method to contain herds long term, especially those in
large areas (FEAP 1990, p. 29). Consequently, a long-term, more
sustainable solution is needed to address this problem.
A Federal Environmental Assessment Panel (FEAP) was assembled to
evaluate four courses of action to address the diseased herds at WBNP.
These actions were initially proposed by the Bison Disease Task Force:
(1) Do nothing; (2) fence WBNP to contain the diseased bison and
prevent the spread of disease; (3) use a combination of strategically
placed fences, buffer zones exterior to the Park from which all bison
would be eliminated, and institute land-use restrictions on cattle
grazing; and (4) phased elimination of the diseased herd and
replacement with disease-free wood bison (FEAP 1990, p. 15). After
public hearings, and consultation with technical experts, the panel
recommended eradication of the existing diseased bison population to
eliminate the risk of transmission of disease from bison in and around
WBNP to domestic cattle, wood bison, and humans (FEAP 1990, p. 2).
Public response to this recommendation was largely negative (Carbyn et
al. 1998, p. 464). The recommendation was not implemented;
consequently, control of disease spread currently depends on the buffer
zones.
Annual examinations and serological studies of bison harvested from
the Mackenzie herd indicate that the herd continues to be disease free
(Nishi 2002, p. 23). Over 220 samples from the Hay-Zama herd were
received as a result of the hunts that could be tested for disease. All
samples tested negative (Government of Canada 2010a, unpaginated).
There is also no evidence of bovine brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis
in reintroduced herds in the Yukon Territory, British Columbia, western
Alberta, or Manitoba. Free-ranging, disease-free herds currently
include approximately 4,414 wood bison (Table 1). Because of their
distance from WBNP, the Aishihik and Chitek Lake herds are the most
secure from disease.
Recovery and conservation efforts for wood bison emphasize the
importance of preventing the spread of tuberculosis and brucellosis to
disease-free populations, and eliminating diseases in infected
populations (Gates et al. 2001, p. 30). The focus on disease prevention
and control is consistent with the recovery goals of increasing the
number of disease-free populations. Parks Canada, through Elk Island
National Park, has worked with the recovery team and others to develop
and maintain a disease-free captive-breeding herd, which has provided
healthy stock for several restoration projects (Gates et al. 2001, p.
18).
Because the northern latitudes are experiencing the greatest
changes in climate, this area may also be at the greatest risk for the
emergence of diseases and parasites that may threaten the stability of
wildlife populations (Kutz et al. 2004, pp. 109, 114). Warming may be
of particular concern for wildlife in northern regions because the
life-history patterns of most hosts and parasites are currently
constrained by climatic conditions (Kutz et al. 2004, p. 114).
Researchers have hypothesized that climate change will accelerate
pathogen development rates, lead to greater overwinter survival of
pathogens, and modify host susceptibility to infection in such a way
that the effects of disease will increase (Ytrehus et al. 2008, p.
214). Wood bison are susceptible to many diseases and parasites
(Reynolds et al. 2003, pp. 1030-1032). How climate change may affect
the number of animals infected, the pathogen virulence, and,
consequently, wood bison viability is unknown.
One potential effect of climate change may be an increase in
anthrax outbreaks because of increased summer air temperatures. Between
1962 and 1993, nine anthrax outbreaks were recorded in northern Canada,
killing at least 1,309 wood bison (Dragon et al. 1999, p. 209).
Additional outbreaks continued to occur through at least 2007 (GNT
2009, p. 13). Wood bison appear most susceptible to outbreaks when they
are stressed, including heat stress and high densities of biting
insects (Dragon et al. 1999, p. 212; Gates et al. 2010, p. 28). In
addition, if climate change leads to widespread or intense drought,
there could be changes in the quality and availability of forage that
may cause animals to concentrate around available food and water. These
factors could contribute to stress levels and increase susceptibility
to anthrax (Dragon et al. 1999, p. 212; Gates et al. 2010, p. 28).
Although isolated anthrax outbreaks occur currently, it is possible
that outbreaks may become more frequent, widespread, or affect a
greater number of animals in the future. Thus far, anthrax outbreaks
have occurred
[[Page 6747]]
sporadically when the necessary factors have come together to affect
portions of one herd at a time. Anthrax is not currently having a
population-level effect, and we do not have enough information to
predict with confidence if anthrax will have a population-level effect
on wood bison in the future as a result of climate change.
Predation
Wolf predation can be a significant limiting factor for diseased
populations of wood bison (Reynolds et al. 1978, p. 581; Van Camp 1987,
p. 25). Wood bison were the principle food of two wolf packs from 1975
to 1977 in the Slave River lowlands (Van Camp 1987, pp. 29, 32). Of the
adult and subadult wood bison that died in 1976-1977, wolves killed 31
percent; however, hunters killed 39.3 percent (Van Camp 1987, p. 33).
Joly and Messier (2004, p. 1173) found that productivity of the
diseased WBNP herd was insufficient to offset losses to both predation
and disease, but that in the absence of either factor, positive
population growth was possible. Presence of disease likely increased
the killing success of wolves through bison debilitation (Joly and
Messier 2004, p. 1174). Wood bison evolved with wolves and we have no
data showing that predation by wolves is limiting the recovery of any
of the disease-free herds or would cause the extirpation of a herd
(ADF&G 2007, p. 98).
Summary of Factor C
The presence of disease and diseased herds is recognized as a
factor limiting recovery (Mitchell and Gates 2002, p. 12). The
effectiveness of current management actions such as maintaining spatial
separation between diseased and disease-free herds by limiting herd
size is yet to be determined over long timeframes. Research is
continuing on creation of disease-free herds. No effective vaccines
exist for brucellosis, tuberculosis, or anthrax for free-ranging
populations. In addition, although recommendations for the management
of the diseased herds in and around WBNP have been suggested (FEAP
1990, p. 2) they have not yet been implemented, it is unknown if they
will be implemented, or how implementation of the recommendations would
affect the status of the subspecies.
Predation by wolves is a natural threat that will persist
indefinitely into the future. Although diseased herds may be more
susceptible to predation, healthy herds, which now represent
approximately half of the free-ranging wood bison, are not. As long as
wolves are present on the landscape, they will present an ongoing, low
level of threat, especially to diseased herds.
The presence of disease in the largest potential donor population
of wood bison (WBNP herd) has limited the number of animals available
for establishing or augmenting herds throughout the wood bison's
historical range and has removed otherwise optimal habitat from
consideration for expansion of wild populations. The presence of
reportable diseases will continue to lead to actions that impact
conservation, in particular restriction of herd expansion and the
reintroduction of herds in particular areas. Although brucellosis and
tuberculosis may limit wood bison population growth and productivity in
some herds, they are unlikely to cause extirpation of any population
(Bradley and Wilmshurst 2005, p. 1204; Gates et al. 2010, p. 60), but
when combined with predation herd size can be limited. Anthrax
outbreaks occur sporadically when critical factors come together.
Climate change could affect the frequency of outbreaks if increased
temperatures or drought caused increased levels of stress in the
animals, especially during the rut. Because disease constrains and
inhibits full recovery of the species, until a solution for the
diseased animals at WBNP is found, or effective vaccines are discovered
and utilized, disease will continue to be a threat to wood bison now
and in the foreseeable future.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The first protective legislation for wood bison, making it illegal
for anyone to molest the species, was passed by the Canadian Government
in 1877, but not until the law was enforced beginning in 1897 did the
population increase (Soper 1941, pp. 362-363; Gates et al. 2001, p.
12).
As previously mentioned, the wood bison was recognized by the
COSEWIC as an endangered subspecies of Canadian wildlife in 1978. It
was reclassified to threatened in June 1988, based on a status report
prepared by the National Wood Bison Recovery Team.
The Species at Risk Act (SARA), enacted on December 12, 2002,
became fully effective on June 1, 2004, and is the Canadian counterpart
to the U.S. Endangered Species Act. The purpose of SARA is to prevent
listed wildlife species from becoming extinct or lost from the wild
(extirpated); to help in the recovery of extirpated, endangered, or
threatened species; and to ensure that species of special concern do
not become endangered or threatened. SARA also requires the development
of recovery strategies and action plans for covered species. In the
SARA, the COSEWIC was established as the scientific body that
identifies and assesses a species' status; however, the government
makes the final decision on whether to list a species.
Species such as wood bison that were designated as threatened or
endangered by the COSEWIC before SARA had to be reassessed before being
included on the official list of wildlife species under SARA. The wood
bison is currently listed as a threatened species under Schedule 1 of
SARA. The National Recovery Plan for wood bison was published in 2001
(Gates et al. 2001) and is currently under revision. As discussed in
the Recovery section above, many recovery actions have been implemented
and more are in progress. As discussed under Factor B, SARA requires
permits for all scientific collection of listed species.
The SARA covers all species on Federal lands such as national
parks, national wildlife areas, Prairie Farm Rehabilitation
Administration pastures, aboriginal reserve lands, and military
training areas. It prohibits the killing, harming, harassing, or taking
of extirpated, endangered, or threatened species, and the destruction
of their residences (e.g., nest or den) on Federal lands, except where
permitted under a national recovery strategy (GNT 2009, p. 15). Because
the recovery strategy includes managing herd size for the health of the
habitat and herds (Gates et al. 2001, pp. 35-39), bison hunting is
allowed under a quota system in the Nahanni, Mackenzie, and Aishihik
herds (described under Factor B). The Northwest Territories Big Game
Hunting Regulations consider bison in the Slave River Lowlands to be
hybrids, which General Hunting License holders may hunt without limit
or closed season. In the Yukon, the Aishihik herd size is managed
through hunting. In Alberta, Hay-Zama herd size is managed by hunting
to reduce the likelihood that the herd will come into contact with
animals from WBNP (GNT 2009, p. 15).
Habitat protection within the range of the Mackenzie bison herd is
facilitated through the SARA and the Mackenzie Valley Resource
Management Act of 1998. Although the Mackenzie Valley Resource
Management Act does not specifically provide protection to wood bison,
it did create a Land and Water Board (LWB), which is given the power to
regulate the use of land and water, including the issuance of land use
permits and water licenses. The LWB's Environmental Impact Review Board
is the main instrument in the Mackenzie Valley for the examination of
the
[[Page 6748]]
environmental impact of proposed developments. The LWB's Land Use
Planning Board is given the power to develop land use plans and to
ensure that future use of lands is carried out in conformity with those
plans.
As described below, several wood bison herds occur wholly or
partially in National Parks, ecological reserves, or Provincial Parks
(Table 2). In 1922, WBNP was established in Alberta and the Northwest
Territories for the protection of wood bison. Habitat protection of
44,807 km\2\ (17,300 mi\2\) within WBNP occurs through the Canada
National Parks Act, the purpose of which is to maintain or restore the
ecological integrity of parks, through the protection of natural
resources and natural processes. With respect to a park, ecological
integrity means a condition characteristic of its natural region,
including abiotic (nonliving) components and the composition and
abundance of native species and biological communities. Renewable
harvest activities can be regulated or prohibited, and is enforced
through this legislation (Canada National Parks Act, 2000). National
parks are protected by Federal legislation from all forms of extractive
resource use such as mining, forestry, agriculture, and sport hunting.
Only activities consistent with the protection of park resources are
allowed. Efforts are directed at maintaining the physical environment
in as natural a state as possible. Sport hunting is prohibited;
however, traditional subsistence-level harvesting by First Nations is
allowed in some areas as long as the resources are conserved (The
Canadian Encyclopedia 2010a, unpaginated).
Ecological reserves are established in part for the protection of
rare and endangered plants and animals in their natural habitat;
preservation of unique, rare, or outstanding botanical, zoological, or
geological phenomena; and perpetuation of important genetic resources.
Research and educational functions are the primary uses for ecological
reserves, but are open to the public for non-consumptive, observational
uses. Plans are developed by the Ministry of Environment to provide
protection and management to ensure long-term maintenance. Resource
use, such as tree cutting, hunting, fishing, mining, domestic grazing,
camping, lighting of fires and removal of materials, plants or animals,
and the use of motorized vehicles are prohibited (British Columbia
2010, unpaginated).
Although there are numerous parks and ecological reserves
throughout the range of the wood bison, these areas do not necessarily
encompass all of the individuals of a herd. Individuals frequently move
into and out of these areas; therefore, wood bison herds are only
afforded protection while within the boundaries of the park or
ecological reserve.
Table 2--Free-Ranging Wood Bison Herds and Land Management Units That
Provide Protection to Them
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Herd category and name Canadian province Protected area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free-ranging, disease-free
herds:
Mackenzie................. Northwest Mackenzie Bison
Territories. Sanctuary.
Aishihik.................. Yukon............ None identified, but
occupied habitat is
government-owned.
Hay-Zama.................. Alberta.......... Wildlife Management
Area.
Nordquist................. British Columbia. Portage Brule Rapids
Etthithun................. British Columbia. Ecological Reserve,
Nahanni................... British Columbia, Smith River
Chitek Lake............... Northwest Ecological Reserve,
Territories. Smith River Falls--
Manitoba......... Fort Halkett Park,
Liard River Corridor
Park, Liard River
Hotsprings Park,
Liard River West
Corridor Park, Liard
River Corridor
Protected Area,
Hyland River Park,
Muncho Lake Park,
and Milligan Hills
Park.
Chitek Lake Reserve.
Free-ranging, diseased herds:
Wood Buffalo National Park Alberta, Wood Buffalo National
Northwest Park.
Territories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process (EARP) was
introduced in Canada in 1973. In 1995, the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act replaced EARP and strengthened the Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA). The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act outlines
responsibilities and procedures for the EIA of projects for which the
Federal Government holds decisionmaking authority. The purposes of EIAs
are to minimize or avoid adverse environmental effects before they
occur and incorporate environmental factors into decisionmaking. All
projects in National Parks must have an EIA. An EIA is also required
under the law of the provinces and territories. Municipalities and
corporations are subject to the EIA requirements of their respective
provincial, territorial, or land claim jurisdictions, and are also
subject to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act if the Federal
Government holds some decisionmaking authority concerning the proposed
development or the acceptability of its impacts. This legislation
ensures that any projects conducted on Federal lands, including
National Parks, are carefully reviewed before Federal authorities take
action so that projects do not cause significant adverse environmental
effects, including areas surrounding the project. It encourages Federal
authorities to take actions that promote sustainable development
(Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 2010, unpaginated). If a
project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects
that cannot be justified in the circumstances, even after taking into
account appropriate mitigation measures the project shall not be
carried out in whole or in part (Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
(20)(b) and (37)(b)).
The wood bison is listed on Appendix II of CITES. CITES, an
international treaty among 175 nations, including Canada and the United
States, became effective in 1975. In the United States, CITES is
implemented through the U.S. Endangered Species Act. The Secretary of
the Interior has delegated the Department of the Interior's
responsibility for CITES to the Director of the Service and established
the CITES Scientific and Management Authorities to implement the
treaty.
CITES provides varying degrees of protection to more than 32,000
species of animals and plants that are traded as whole specimens,
parts, or products. Under this treaty, member countries work together
to ensure that international trade in animal and plant species is not
detrimental to the survival
[[Page 6749]]
of wild populations by regulating the import, export, and reexport of
CITES-listed animal and plant species (USFWS 2010, unpaginated). Under
CITES, a species is listed on an Appendix and receives varying levels
of regulation in international trade through permit and certification
requirements depending upon the particular Appendix in which the
species is listed (CITES 2010b, unpaginated). CITES Appendix-II species
are not necessarily considered to be threatened with extinction now but
may become so unless trade in the species is regulated. Appendix II
allows for regulated trade, including commercial trade, as long as the
exporting country issues a CITES permit based on findings that the
specimen was legally acquired and the export will not be detrimental to
the survival of the species. As discussed under Factor B, we do not
consider international trade to be a threat impacting the wood bison.
Therefore, protection under this treaty is an adequate regulatory
mechanism.
Provincial and territorial governments within Canada can use the
Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and
Interprovincial Trade Act (WAPPRIITA) to control transport of wood
bison across their borders. This law applies to wood bison because it
is on the CITES control list. The WAPPRIITA prohibits the import,
export, and interprovincial transportation of CITES-listed species or
any Canadian species whose capture, possession, and transportation are
regulated by provincial or territorial laws, unless the specimens are
accompanied by the appropriate documents (licenses, permits). In all
cases, the WAPPRIITA applies to the animal, alive or dead, as well as
to its parts and any derived products (Environment Canada 2010, p. 1).
In addition to national-level legislation that provides protection
to wood bison, there is also protection at the provincial level.
Alberta, the Northwest Territories, British Columbia, Manitoba, and the
Yukon Territory classify wood bison as wildlife, which is the property
of the provincial or territorial government. In 1995, the Government of
Alberta established a Wildlife Management Area to protect the Hay-Zama
herd and listed the wood bison as endangered within the protected area
under the Alberta Wildlife Act (Gates et al. 2010, p. 71). In this
area, all wood bison are legally protected from hunting; outside of the
area they are not protected.
The Northwest Territories Wildlife Act enables the Minister of the
Department of Resources, Wildlife, and Economic Development to prohibit
the importation of any wildlife into the Northwest Territories without
a permit. This prohibits uncontrolled importation of plains bison. In
May 1964, wood bison were declared in danger of becoming extinct under
the Northwest Territories Act and are now designated as a protected
species in the Northwest Territories. As such, sport hunting and
subsistence hunting by aboriginal people may occur, but is regulated.
Wood bison are on British Columbia's Red List of species and
subspecies that are candidates for legal designation as endangered or
threatened under the Wildlife Act (Harper 2002, p. 3). Wood bison are
an endangered species under the Yukon Act and a ``specially protected
species'' under the Wildlife Act (Yukon legislation) and are listed as
protected under Manitoba's Wildlife Act. Bison are considered domestic
when held in captivity under permit or license for game farming
purposes. If a wood bison escapes captivity, the provincial or
territorial government acquires ownership of the animal and it,
therefore, becomes protected (Harper and Gates 2000, p. 919).
In the United States, as an endangered species under the Act, pure
wood bison can be imported only by permit for scientific research or
enhancement of propagation or survival of the species. Wood/plains
bison hybrids, however, are not protected by the Act and can be
imported if the required CITES Foreign Export Permits are obtained from
Canada prior to the import. If the wood bison is reclassified to
threatened, import of trophies legally taken and properly permitted
under the Act could also occur. Because of the regulations in place in
Canada for all hunts and the permits required for import/export under
CITES, we do not anticipate that reclassification would cause any
increase in the number of animals killed or have any effect on the
herds that are hunted.
In addition to the protection of CITES and the Endangered Species
Act, the import of live wood bison and trophies is also regulated by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS), Veterinary Services for health purposes
(APHIS 2007, entire). Imported wood bison must be accompanied by a
health certificate that certifies, among other things, that the animal
is free of any evidence of communicable disease, was not in quarantine
in Canada, is from a brucellosis-free province or territory, and has
continuously resided in a tuberculosis accredited-free province.
Although there is tight control over the transmission of disease
across the Canadian border, control of disease within Canada is more
challenging. As explained above (Factor C), there is a program to
detect and eradicate tuberculosis and brucellosis in farmed animals in
Canada in order to protect the health of food-producing and companion
animals, safeguard human health, and safeguard the health of free-
roaming wildlife. In addition, buffer zones in which dispersing animals
may be harvested have been created around the diseased herds to reduce
the risk of bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis infection of the
Mackenzie and Nahanni herds, which are most at risk from infection from
animals at WBNP. In addition, the Governments of the Northwest
Territories, Alberta, and British Columbia have designated management
zones to reduce the risk of dispersing animals transmitting disease to
disease-free herds in their provinces. However, as noted above, buffer
zones are not ideal for preventing the spread of disease because they
are sporadically patrolled and imperfectly enforced. Existing
regulations and policies address the transmission of disease within
Canada, but it is impossible to regulate the movement of wild animals
across a large, mostly uninhabited landscape. Thus, we conclude that
regulatory mechanisms are in place to minimize the spread of disease
but because of the difficulty in containing herds of wild animals, the
mechanisms are inadequate to prevent the spread of disease.
Under Factor E, we conclude that loss of genetic integrity through
hybridization is a threat to wood bison. Preventing hybridization
between plains bison and free-roaming wood bison is a goal of the
recovery plan and is important to the conservation of the subspecies
(Gates et al. 2001, p. 33). There is one free-ranging plains bison herd
in Canada, in British Columbia, which was established as a result of
the plains bison escaping from their enclosure. Preventing
interbreeding between free-ranging plains bison and wood bison is a
management objective in British Columbia and is accomplished by
maintaining a large physical separation between the herds and having a
management zone around the plains bison herd that allows harvest of
plains bison within this zone (Harper et al. 2000, p. 23).
As discussed earlier under Factor A, plains bison presence on the
landscape is increasing and commercial plains bison operations in
Canada are expanding. The presence of plains bison within the
historical range of wood bison increases the probability that wood
bison will come into contact with
[[Page 6750]]
them. Ranchers are most likely highly motivated by economics to prevent
the escape of their animals and to recapture them if they do escape. It
is unlikely that additional government regulations would improve on
this basic incentive; therefore, although there may not be specific
regulations regarding how plains bison should be contained, such
regulations are not viewed as necessary or effectual. As mentioned
above, buffer zones are not ideal for preventing the movement of free-
ranging bison. Thus, although regulations are in place by which the
Pink Mountain plains bison herd (a free-ranging herd) can be managed,
and there is no indication that they have not been effective, they may
not be 100 percent effective in preventing hybridization in the future
because of the difficulty of managing wild animals over large areas of
forested landscape.
Summary of Factor D
The wood bison is currently protected through a variety of
regulatory mechanisms, and we anticipate those protections to continue.
The wood bison is protected by Canadian Federal, provincial, and
territorial law. Internationally, its trade is regulated by CITES.
International trade is limited to animals surplus to recovery needs in
Canada, as determined under guidance of the National Wood Bison
Recovery Team. In the United States, activities involving wood bison
are regulated by the Endangered Species Act, and with reclassification,
they will continue to be regulated. Federal agencies will need to
consult with the Service on activities that may affect the species, and
Federal permits will be required for scientific collection or any other
form of take.
Disease and hybridization have been identified as threats to wood
bison. Although buffer zones have been established and regulations
implemented for the management of the buffer zones to minimize the
potential of disease spread and hybridization, buffer zones have
limitations and are an imperfect means by which to prevent animal
movement. Therefore, we conclude that existing regulatory mechanisms
are inadequate to completely protect wood bison from these threats.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued Existence
Accidental Mortality
Because bison follow linear landmarks and prefer open areas,
vehicles on roads and other linear developments, such as railroad
lines, present a hazard to wood bison. Collisions with vehicles are the
largest source of known mortality for individuals in the Hay-Zama herd
(Mitchell and Gates 2002, p. 9). For the Nordquist herd, vehicle
collisions are a significant mortality factor (Wildlife Collision
Prevention Program. 2010, pp. 22-23). The herd was established in the
Nordquist Flats area, near the Liard River in northeastern British
Columbia; however, individuals, and then the majority of the herd,
moved to the Alaska Highway corridor. In January 2007, a limited aerial
survey counted 97 wood bison, all of which were on the highway right-
of-way, except for four bulls, which were observed within 500 m (1,640
ft) of the road (Reynolds et al. 2009, p. 6). Three of 15 wood bison
introduced to the Etthithun Lake area in 1996 were killed in collisions
with industrial road traffic during the first winter (Harper and Gates
2000, p. 921). The Yukon government has a ``bison-free'' policy in the
vicinity of the Alaska Highway that includes deterrence, capture, and
ultimately the destruction of problem animals (Yukon Fish and Wildlife
Co-management undated, p. 1). During the growth phase of the Aishihik
herd from 1988 to 1993, 49 wood bison were removed from the Alaska
Highway right-of-way because of vehicle collisions and problem wildlife
complaints (Boyd 2003, p. 187). Of these, 36 were captured and moved to
a game farm, 8 were killed in collisions, and 5 were intentionally
killed (Wildlife Collision Prevention Program 2010, unpaginated). From
1989 to 2007, collisions with vehicles killed from 1 to 30 wood bison
annually from three herds combined in the Northwest Territories; fewer
than 10 were killed annually in 11 of the 18 years (GNT 2009, p. 17;
Wildlife Collision Prevention Program 2010, unpaginated).
Because of continued or increased resource development, tourism,
and off-road vehicle use, it is anticipated that mortality from
collisions with vehicles will be a source of individual mortality for
several populations. Because mortality from road collisions represents
a small portion of the total subspecies population, and efforts are
made to reduce bison/highway conflicts, this source of mortality is not
expected to have a significant impact at the subspecies population
level.
Spring flooding in the Peace-Athabasca River Delta in 1958, 1961,
and 1974 killed approximately 500, 1,100, and 3,000 wood bison,
respectively (Reynolds et al. 2003, p. 1029). Autumn flooding in the
same area in 1959 killed an estimated 3,000 (Reynolds et al. 2003, p.
1029). This region is within WBNP where the diseased herds reside. Most
likely a small number of animals drown each year when caught by floods
or when they break through ice (Soper 1941, p. 403). Large drowning
events have not been documented from other rivers, and no large
mortality events have been documented in recent years. Drowning is also
recognized as a cause of mortality in the Chitek Lake herd. Because
mortality due to drowning typically affects only a portion of a herd
and herd sizes are increasing (Table 1), drowning does not appear to be
having a population-level effect on wood bison.
Although wood bison are hardy and very cold tolerant (Gates et al.
2010, p. 24), above-average snowfall, long periods of sub-zero
temperatures, and midwinter thaws followed by freezing can cause
mortality. Such severe winter conditions reduce forage availability
(Reynolds et al. 2003, p. 1030). Rain on snow events can also form an
ice layer that creates a barrier to forage for herbivores (Putkonen
2009, p. 221). Freezing rain in autumn that causes ground-fast ice to
form before snow cover accumulates, ice layering in the snow cover,
crusting of the snow, and the formation of ground-fast ice in spring
increase the energy required to obtain forage or make forage
unobtainable (Gunn and Dragon 2002, p. 58). Soper (1941, pp. 403-404)
recounts several stories in which excessive snowfall caused mass
mortalities of wood bison, and Van Camp and Calef (1987, p. 23) report
that 33 percent of the diseased wood bison herd in the Slave River
lowlands was lost during the severe winter of 1974-1975. Starvation in
bad winters is recognized as a source of mortality for wood bison in
the Chitek Lake herd. We have no information indicating that starvation
is having a population-level effect on any of the herds currently.
Rain on snow events may likely increase in the face of climate
change (Rennert et al. 2009, p. 2312). A doubling of carbon dioxide is
estimated to cause a 40 percent increase in the area impacted by rain
on snow events in the Arctic by 2080 (Rennert et al. 2009, p. 2312).
Rain on snow events may become more prevalent primarily in northwestern
Canada, Alaska, and eastern Russia (Rennert et al. 2009, p. 2312). We
have no reports that rain on snow events have led to the deaths of
bison, but they could be susceptible to starvation by such events.
Genetic Issues
Genetic diversity in wood bison has been reduced through the large
historic reduction in overall population size and the starting of new
populations with
[[Page 6751]]
very few individuals (founder effect). Genetic diversity is the primary
means by which organisms can adapt to changing environmental conditions
over time. Low levels of genetic diversity can reduce the ability of a
population to respond to environmental changes. Current wood bison
herds were established from relatively few founders (Wilson and
Strobeck 1999, pp. 484-486). For example, the Elk Island National Park
herd was started from 11 individuals, and the Mackenzie herd was
started from 16 (Gates et al. 1992, p. 150; Wilson and Strobeck 1999,
p. 494). Inbreeding, the mating of related individuals, can lead to
lower fecundity, abnormalities, reduced growth rates, and other issues.
Although inbreeding is more likely to occur in small herds or in herds
that are isolated, it has not been documented in wood bison. Starting
new populations with multiple groups of animals is one way to avoid or
minimize the founder effect as was done in the establishment of the
Aishihik herd. Moving disease-free animals from one herd to another is
another method to maintain genetic diversity. One of the wood bison
recovery goals is to ensure that the genetic integrity of wood bison is
maintained. Because no effects of inbreeding have been documented and
management actions have been shown to be effective, we conclude that
loss of genetic diversity is not a threat to wood bison now or in the
foreseeable future.
Hybridization occurs when individuals from genetically distinct
groups such as wood bison and plains bison interbreed. The introduction
of plains bison to WBNP in the 1920s put the two distinct subspecies in
contact with each other and threatened the genetic purity of wood bison
(Gates et al. 2010, p. 17). The discovery of an isolated subpopulation
of wood bison in 1957, and subsequent translocation of individuals,
created the Mackenzie and Elk Island National Park herds, which were
thought to be pure wood bison. Genetic analysis has indicated that
these bison did have limited contact with plains bison, but it was
minimal enough that the animals exhibit predominantly wood bison traits
and wood bison herds originating from these founders are genetically
more similar to one another than they are to plains bison (van Zyll de
Jong et al. 1995, pp. 401-404; Wilson and Strobeck 1999, p. 493).
Although recovery actions emphasize maintaining the genetic integrity
of wood bison (i.e., recovery goal number 3) (Gates et al. 2001, p.
33), as discussed earlier under Factor A, plains bison presence on the
landscape is increasing. Commercial plains bison operations in Canada
are expanding, and the Pink Mountain plains bison herd was established
in British Columbia as a result of plains bison escaping from an
enclosure. The commercial plains bison operations and plains bison
herds remove potential habitat for wood bison, and the presence of
plains bison within the historical range of wood bison increases the
probability that wood bison will come into contact with them. For these
reasons, loss of genetic integrity through hybridization is a threat to
wood bison and will remain so in the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor E
Accidental mortality typically occurs randomly and cannot be
predicted. We expect accidents to continue at the same rate and scale
as they have in the past, into the future, but only expect this to
effect individuals and not be significant enough to affect the species
as a whole. Relative to genetic diversity, inbreeding in wood bison has
not been documented, and management actions are in place to prevent
further loss of genetic diversity. The status of genetic issues
relating to hybridization could change relatively rapidly, especially
if plains bison were to escape from captivity in close proximity to a
wood bison herd. Currently, free-ranging wood bison and plains bison
herds are widely separated from one another, but as herd size grows,
the separation shrinks, increasing the odds that they may come into
contact with one another. Furthermore, bison are difficult animals to
contain, they can travel long distances, and the wood and plains bison
can readily interbreed.
In summary, accidental mortality will continue to occur regularly,
primarily through collisions with vehicles and drowning. In addition,
climate change may create localized weather conditions such as above-
average snowfall, long periods of sub-zero temperatures, or ground-fast
ice formation that can lead to winter mortality of portions of herds.
Given the number of herds and their wide distribution across the
landscape, we conclude that accidental mortality and starvation are not
threats to wood bison now or in the foreseeable future. It is
recognized that genetic diversity in wood bison is relatively low, and
that the herds must be managed to maintain genetic diversity. Loss of
genetic diversity is a factor that may limit the ability of wood bison
to adapt to changing conditions in the future, but the magnitude of
that limitation, if it exists, is unknown. Lack of genetic diversity is
potentially limiting over the long term depending on the magnitude of
environmental change wood bison may face. Because no effects of
inbreeding have been documented and management actions have been shown
to be effective, we conclude that loss of genetic diversity is not a
threat to wood bison now or in the foreseeable future. Hybridization
with plains bison is a threat that most likely will increase in the
future. Because of consumer demand for bison meat we expect commercial
bison production will continue to expand, removing suitable habitat for
wood bison recovery herds, and increasing the probability that escaped
plains bison will be free on the landscape. Hybridization is a threat
to wood bison now and in the foreseeable future.
Finding
As required by the Act, we considered the five factors in assessing
whether the wood bison is threatened or endangered throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. We reviewed the petition, information
available in our files, comments and information received after the
publication of our 90-day finding (74 FR 5908), and other available
published and unpublished information, and consulted with recognized
experts. We have carefully assessed the best available scientific and
commercial data regarding the past, present, and future threats faced
by wood bison. This status review found that threats to wood bison are
still present in factors A, C, D, and E. Habitat loss has occurred from
agricultural development, and we expect losses will continue in concert
with human growth and expansion of agriculture, including commercial
bison production. The presence of bovine brucellosis and bovine
tuberculosis constrains herd growth as managers attempt to maintain
physical separation between diseased and disease-free wood bison and
cattle herds, the diseased herds are occupying habitat that could be
restored with disease-free herds, and disease in the largest potential
donor population (WBNP herd) prevents those animals from being used in
reintroduction projects. Plains bison are commercially produced in
historical wood bison habitat. These operations remove potential
habitat from wood bison recovery efforts and the escape of plains bison
poses a threat to wood bison because of hybridization and the loss of
genetic integrity. Finally, we found that regulatory mechanisms are
inadequate to prevent disease transmission within Canada, and to
prevent hybridization.
In addition to the five factor analysis, we also considered the
progress towards meeting the recovery goals outlined in the Canadian
recovery plan to
[[Page 6752]]
determine if it is appropriate to reclassify the wood bison under the
Act. We took into consideration the conservation actions that have
occurred, are ongoing, and are planned. Since listing, the subspecies'
status has improved as a result of the following:
Enactment and enforcement of national and international
laws and treaties have minimized the impacts of hunting and trade.
Reintroduction of disease-free herds has increased the
number of free-ranging herds from 1 population of 300 in 1978 to 7
populations totaling 4,414 bison in 2008.
Diseased and disease-free, free-ranging populations are
stable or increasing.
In sum, the continued reintroduction of disease-free herds, the
ongoing development and updating of management plans, the active
management of herds, the ongoing research, and the protections provided
by laws and protected lands provide compelling evidence that recovery
actions have been successful at reducing the threats posed to the
species.
The primary factor that led to the listing of the wood bison was
the small number of free-ranging, disease-free animals on the
landscape. However, the trend today is towards increasing numbers of
disease-free herds and population sizes. We find that the threats
identified under factors A, C, D, and E, when combined with the
increase in number of herds and population sizes, ongoing active
management, and protections provided by laws, are not of sufficient
imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate that the wood bison is
presently in danger of extinction and is, therefore, not endangered.
However, threats to wood bison still exist and will continue into the
foreseeable future. Consequently, we have determined that wood bison
should be reclassified from endangered to threatened.
We next consider whether a distinct vertebrate population segment
(DPS) exists or whether any significant portion of the wood bison range
meets the definition of endangered.
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment
Under the Service's ``Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct
Vertebrate Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act'' (61
FR 4722, February 7, 1996), three elements are considered in the
decision concerning the establishment and classification of a possible
DPS. These elements, which are applied similarly for additions to or
removal from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife,
include:
(1) The discreteness of a population in relation to the remainder
of the species to which it belongs;
(2) The significance of the population segment to the species to
which it belongs; and
(3) The population segment's conservation status in relation to the
Act's standards for listing, delisting, or reclassification (i.e., is
the population segment endangered or threatened).
Discreteness
Under the DPS policy, a population segment of a vertebrate taxon
may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following
conditions:
(1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the same
taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or
behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological
discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation.
(2) It is delimited by international governmental boundaries within
which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
Free-ranging wood bison herds do not cross international
boundaries; no herds are discrete based on this criterion. There is
marked geographic separation of the Aishihik and Chitek Lake herds from
those centered more closely around WBNP, and there is no possibility of
gene exchange between the Aishihik and Chitek Lake herds and those near
WBNP. Because all extant wood bison herds originated from the same
founders, there is no reason to maintain genetic distinctness among the
herds. One of the recovery goals is to ``ensure that the genetic
integrity of wood bison is maintained.'' Because this goal can be
accomplished through the movement of relatively few animals among the
herds, it is reasonable to expect that this is a strategy that may be
employed in the future to maintain genetic integrity. However, to our
knowledge this strategy has not been used; therefore, because of marked
geographical separation, the Aishihik and Chitek Lake herds are
determined to be discrete.
Significance
Under our DPS Policy, in addition to our consideration that a
population segment is discrete, we consider its biological and
ecological significance to the taxon to which it belongs. This
consideration may include, but is not limited to: (1) Evidence of the
persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting
that is unique or unusual for the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the
population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of
the taxon; (3) evidence that the population segment represents the only
surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant
elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historical range; and
(4) evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from
other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics (61 FR
4721; February 7, 1996).
None of the wood bison herds occur in unique or unusual ecological
settings; they are either in typical historical habitat or have been
established in habitat that mimics historical habitat (Chitek Lake
herd). Wood bison herds are currently in a growth phase and are
beginning to fill in gaps in what was once a much more extensive range.
There are already significant gaps in its distribution compared to the
historical condition, and no one herd is more important than another in
this regard. In the unlikely event of a herd being extirpated, it could
be replaced through management actions that have been refined and
implemented over the last 20 years. Six of the seven free-ranging,
disease-free herds are within the historical range of the species. Only
the Chitek Lake population is outside of what is considered the
historical range. All of the herds, except the Mackenzie herd, were
started with animals from Elk Island National Park, and both the
Mackenzie and Elk Island National Park herds were initiated from
animals from WBNP.
Because of the founder effect (a small number of founders which
represented only a portion of the genetic variability available) and
genetic drift, there are currently distinct, but low, genetic
differences among the herds (Wilson and Strobeck 1999, p. 493). Wilson
and Strobeck (1999, p. 494) note the power of the founder effect to
lead to genetically distinct populations even when the populations were
started at about the same time with animals taken from the same locale.
The low level of genetic differences among the herds is an artifact of
management actions and the differences do not represent significant,
unique or special genetic traits. Therefore, although the Chitek and
Aishihik herds are discrete, we find that they are not significant and
no herds qualify as a DPS.
Significant Portion of the Range
Having determined that the wood bison does not meet the definition
of an
[[Page 6753]]
endangered species throughout its range, we must next consider whether
there is a significant portion of the range where the wood bison is in
danger of extinction. A portion of a species' range is significant if
it is part of the current range of the species and is important to the
conservation of the species because it contributes meaningfully to the
representation, resiliency, or redundancy of the species. The
contribution must be at a level such that its loss would result in a
decrease in the ability to conserve the species.
We evaluated the wood bison's range in the context of whether any
potential threats are concentrated in a significant portion of the
range such that if there were concentrated impacts, those wood bison
populations might be in danger of extinction.
The herds in and around WBNP, which represent approximately half of
the free-ranging wood bison, have tested positive for bovine
brucellosis and/or tuberculosis. Approximately 30 percent of the wood
bison in this area test positive for brucellosis, 21 to 49 percent test
positive for tuberculosis, with a combined prevalence of 42 percent
(Tessaro et al. 1990, p. 174; Gates et al. 2010, p. 35). It could be
argued that the threat of disease to these populations is concentrated.
However, as discussed above, these diseases are chronic and cause slow
debilitation, not acute mortality of large numbers of animals at one
time. The population at WBNP has persisted with these diseases since
the 1920s, and population numbers have been stable at 4,000 to 5,000
since 2002 (Table 1).
Research into solutions on how to manage the diseased herds in and
around WBNP continues. In 2005, a technical workshop was convened to
determine in part if it was technically possible to remove disease from
the wood bison herds in and around WBNP (Shury et al. 2006). Technical
success was defined as reestablishing a disease-free bison population
at a similar level to the current population without any loss in
genetic diversity. The team determined that:
1. Eradication of bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis through
lethal removal and reintroduction is technically feasible, and under
controlled conditions there would be a very high probability of
eradicating both diseases.
2. The eradication of these diseases would be a long-term project,
taking 15-20 years.
3. The cost was estimated to be between 62 and 78 million dollars
over 20 years with the greatest costs being incurred during the first 4
years (Shury et al. 2005, pp. 1-2).
Although the diseases affect the fitness of the herds and cause
occasional mortalities, they will not cause herd extirpation. We are
not aware of any other threat within this area that would act
synergistically with disease and heighten our level of concern for
these herds. Consequently, although we recognize that it is desirable
to eradicate these diseases, we conclude that the threat they present
is not of a magnitude that leads us to delineate the herds in and
around WBNP as being more in danger of extinction than the other herds,
and, as being a significant portion of the wood bison range.
In summary, the primary threats to the wood bison are relatively
uniform throughout the species' range. We have determined that none of
the existing or potential threats currently place wood bison in danger
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, requirements for Federal
protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition
through listing results in public awareness, and encourages and results
in conservation actions by Federal governments, private agencies and
groups, and individuals.
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, and as implemented by
regulations at 50 CFR part 402, requires Federal agencies to evaluate
their actions within the United States or on the high seas with respect
to any species that is proposed or listed as endangered or threatened,
and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is being designated.
However, given that there are no wild populations of wood bison in the
United States, critical habitat is not being designated for this
species under section 4 of the Act.
Section 8(a) of the Act authorizes limited financial assistance for
the development and management of programs that the Secretary of the
Interior determines to be necessary or useful for the conservation of
endangered and threatened species in foreign countries. Sections 8(b)
and 8(c) of the Act authorize the Secretary to encourage conservation
programs for foreign endangered species and to provide assistance for
such programs in the form of personnel and the training of personnel.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered and
threatened wildlife. As such, these prohibitions would be applicable to
the wood bison. These prohibitions, under 50 CFR 17.21 (17.31 for
threatened wildlife species), make it illegal for any person subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States to ``take'' (take includes
harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect,
or to attempt any of these) within the United States or upon the high
seas, import or export, deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in
interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity,
or to sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce, any
endangered wildlife species. It also is illegal to possess, sell,
deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been
taken in violation of the Act. Certain exceptions apply to agents of
the Service and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR
17.22 for endangered species, and at Sec. 17.32 for threatened
species. With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit must be issued
for the following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance the
propagation or survival of the species, and for incidental take in
connection with otherwise lawful activities. For threatened species, a
permit may be issued for the same activities, as well as zoological
exhibition, education, and special purposes consistent with the Act.
Effects of This Proposed Rule
If made final, this rule would revise 50 CFR 17.11(h) to reclassify
the wood bison from endangered to threatened. The prohibitions and
conservation measures provided by the Act, particularly through
sections 4(d) and 9 would still apply to this species. Because there
are no wild populations of wood bison in the United States, no critical
habitat was designated, and consequently none will be affected. We are
also correcting the 1980 listing to include Alaska in the historical
range based on the best available scientific information (Skinner and
Kaisen 1947, p. 158; Stephenson et al. 2001, p. 140; Rasic and Matheus
2007, p. 385). In addition, because the 1980 CFR indicated that the
listed entity for wood bison was a DPS, we are correcting that mistake.
Despite the 1980 designation, it is clear that the wood bison is listed
at the subspecies level. The CFR through 1980 indicated the Service's
intent of the original listing; because we have conducted no rulemaking
since that time, we are making the correction here to change the scope
of the listed entity.
[[Page 6754]]
The entire ``population'' of wood bison in Canada is the full extent of
the subspecies' current range and no individuals occur in the wild
outside this population.
Peer Review
Under our peer review policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, 1994), we will
solicit the expert opinions of three appropriate and independent
specialists regarding pertinent scientific or commercial data and
assumptions relating to the taxonomy, population models, and supportive
biological and ecological information on this proposed rule. The
purpose of such review is to ensure that we base listing decisions on
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analysis. To that end, we
will send copies of this proposed rule to these peer reviewers
immediately following publication in the Federal Register.
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that we do not need to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement, as defined under the
authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.), in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to
section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
References Cited
A complete list of the references cited may be obtained from the
Alaska Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Author
The primary author of this rule is Marilyn Myers, Ph.D., Ecological
Services, Alaska Regional Office, 1011 E. Tudor Road, Anchorage,
Alaska, 99503, (907) 786-3559.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
We propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
Part 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by revising the entry ''Bison, wood'' under
MAMMALS in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to read as
follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals.......................... .................... ................... ................... .............. ........... ........... ...........
* * * * * * *
Bison, wood...................... Bison bison Canada, Alaska..... Entire............. T 3 NA NA
athabascae.
.................... ................... ................... .............. ........... ........... ...........
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: January 28, 2011.
Larry Williams,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-2529 Filed 2-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P