[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 86 (Thursday, May 3, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26191-26212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10635]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R9-IA-2008-0123; FXES111309F2120D2-123-FF09E22000]
RIN 1018-AI83
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassifying the
Wood Bison Under the Endangered Species Act as Threatened Throughout
Its Range
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are
reclassifying the wood bison (Bison bison athabascae) from endangered
to threatened. This action is based on a review of the best available
scientific and commercial data, which indicate that the primary threat
that led to population decline, unregulated hunting, is no longer a
threat and that recovery actions have led to a substantial increase in
the number of herds that have a stable or increasing trend in
population size. Critical habitat has not been designated because free-
ranging wood bison only occur in Canada and we do not designate
critical habitat in foreign countries.
DATES: This rule becomes effective June 4, 2012.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R9-IA-2008-0123 and at http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/index.htm. Comments and materials
received, as well as supporting documentation used in the preparation
of this rule, will be available for public inspection, by appointment,
during normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska
Regional Office, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503; 907-786-
3856.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Myers at U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Fisheries and Ecological Services, 1011 E. Tudor
Road, Anchorage, AK 99503; or telephone at 907-786-3559; or 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:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. We listed the wood bison as
endangered in 1970. Since listing, the status of wood bison has
improved because enactment and enforcement of national and
international laws and treaties have minimized the impacts of hunting
and trade, and reintroduction of disease-free herds has increased the
number of free-ranging herds in Canada from 1 population of 300 in
1978, to 7 populations totaling 4,414 bison in 2008. These free-ranging
populations are stable or increasing. Therefore, we have determined
that the wood bison no longer meets the definition of endangered under
the Endangered Species Act.
This rule changes the listing of the wood bison from endangered to
threatened.
Basis for our action. While we have determined that the wood bison
no longer meets the definition of endangered under the Endangered
Species Act, some threats to wood bison remain. Habitat loss has
occurred in Canada 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
disease in Canada constrains herd growth, and regulatory mechanisms are
inadequate to prevent disease transmission within Canada. However, 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 in reducing the risk of extinction associated with the
threats identified. Therefore, we are reclassifying the wood bison from
endangered to threatened.
The majority of comments we received support this action. The
majority of comments (13 of 19) supported downlisting. A subset of
these comments (7 of the 13) asserted that the Service should delist
the species immediately. Three comments stated that wood bison should
remain listed as endangered. The peer review comments provided very
specific corrections to details about two of the wood bison herds in
Canada, and we have updated our information in this rule accordingly,
but these changes do not alter our finding.
Background
Previous Federal Actions
The listing history for wood bison is extensive and was described
in the proposed rule published on February 8, 2011 (76 FR 6734). Please
refer to that proposed rule for the complete listing history. Here we
present only the most pertinent facts.
The 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). In 1974, the first
list of federally protected species under the 1973 Endangered Species
Act (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) appeared in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), and the wood bison appeared on this list based on
its inclusion on the original 1969 list. Because the wood bison was
listed under the 1969 Endangered Species Conservation Act and
grandfathered in for protection under the Act, there is not a separate
Federal Register notice that defined the population(s) and their range
or analyzed threats to the species. The wood bison was classified as
endangered and has retained that designation since the original
listing.
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 downgraded from an Appendix I to an Appendix II species under the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES). In a 90-day finding published on November 25, 1998
(63 FR 65164), we found that the petitioner did not provide substantial
[[Page 26192]]
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. 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. On February 8, 2011, we announced the completion of our status
review of the species, which also constituted our 5-year review under
section 4(c)(2) of the Act, and issued a proposed rule to reclassify
the wood bison from an endangered species to a threatened species (76
FR 6734). This document is our final rule to reclassify the wood bison
from endangered to threatened.
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 a wild population neither in Alaska nor in 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).
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 1,718 1,908 2,000 2,000 ~ 2,000 1,600
Nahanni........................ ......... 30 160 170 399 400 400
Aishihik....................... ......... ......... 500 530 550 700 1,100
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. ......... ......... 2,178 4,050 \2\ 4,947 \3\ 5,641 \4\ 4,639
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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
[[Page 26193]]
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).
Biology
Because wood bison 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).
Free-ranging wood bison roam extensively with annual maximum
traveling distance from each individual's center-of-activity averaging
from 45 to 50 kilometers (km) (28 to 31 miles (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
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 2010 (GNT 2010, p. 9). 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); however,
brucellosis remains 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 WBNP
(Wabasca, Wentzel, and Slave River Lowlands herds). 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.
[[Page 26194]]
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 that 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 listed 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 18, 1997, it was transferred 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 supported this change.
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 Canada's Species
at Risk Act (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 2010, p. 1). 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 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 U.S. 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 that 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. Here, we rely on the five-
factor analysis 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 (see Table 1, above). 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
(see Table 1, above). 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 (see
Table 1, above). Four of the herds have a population of 400 or more,
meeting recovery goal number 1 (see Table 1, above). The free-ranging,
disease-free herds are discussed in detail below.
Free-Ranging, 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. In 2010, the Government of Northwest
Territories released the final Wood Bison Management Strategy. It
indicates that there is sufficient habitat in the Northwest Territories
to support expanding bison populations (GNWT 2010, p. 9). Habitat
protection within the range of the Mackenzie bison herd is facilitated
through the Species at Risk Act (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 under
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; see Table 1, above). Thus, the
[[Page 26195]]
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; see Table 1, above). With a current
population of approximately 1,100 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 under
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 the Northwest Territories and extends into
southeast Yukon and northeast British Columbia. The population was
bolstered by two supplemental releases in 1989 and 1998, of 12 and 59
animals, respectively (Larter and Allaire 2007, p. 3). Population size
has been approximately 400 animals or more since 2006, and, based on
surveys, was estimated at 413 in 2010 (Larter, GNWT, 2010, pers.
comm.). There is currently sufficient habitat to support the expanding
population (GNT 2010, p. 9).
The Nordquist herd was established in 1995, near the Laird River in
northeastern British Columbia (see Table 1, above). Because the
majority of the herd occupies habitat near the Alaska Highway, vehicle
collisions are a 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 (see Table 1, above).
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 (see Table 1, above); 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 newborn, 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; treating
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
[[Page 26196]]
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 were transferred in
2011. Although outside the historical range, this was an opportunity to
create another geographically separate population that 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, Nahanni, and Hook Lake herds). 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 Comments and Recommendations
In the proposed rule published on February 8, 2011 (76 FR 6734), we
requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the
proposal by April 11, 2011. We also contacted appropriate Federal and
State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. We did
not receive any requests for a public hearing.
During the comment period for the proposed rule, we received 19
comment letters directly addressing the proposed listing of wood bison
with threatened status. All substantive information provided during the
comment period has either been incorporated directly into this final
determination or addressed below. Several of the comments included
opinions or information not directly related to the proposed rule, such
as views relating to the reintroduction of wood bison into Alaska. We
do not address those comments as they do not have bearing on the
reclassification of wood bison.
Peer Review
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from three knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with
wood bison and its habitat, biological needs, recovery efforts, and
threats. We received a response from one of the peer reviewers.
We reviewed all comments received for substantive issues and new
information regarding the listing of wood bison. The majority of
comments (13 of 19) supported downlisting. A subset of these commenters
(7 of the 13) thought the Service should delist the species
immediately. Three commenters felt that wood bison should remain listed
as endangered. The peer reviewer comments are addressed in the
following summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
Peer Reviewer Comments
(1) Comment: The peer reviewer provided very specific corrections
to details about two of the wood bison herds in Canada, the Nahanni and
Mackenzie.
Our Response: As the reviewer noted, and we agree, the changes do
not alter our finding. We have incorporated the details and updates for
the Canadian herds provided by the reviewer into this final rule.
Comments From State of Alaska
Comments received from the State of Alaska regarding the proposal
to reclassify the wood bison are addressed below.
(2) Comment: The State agrees that ``endangered'' is not the
appropriate designation for wood bison but states that the species
should be removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
(delisted), not reclassified as threatened. Several other commenters
came to the same conclusion. They argue that recovery efforts in Canada
have been successful enough that delisting is warranted.
Our Response: We agree that conservation efforts in Canada have led
to significant increases in the number of herds and herd size. However,
we also recognize that threats to the species, in particular disease,
loss of habitat, and hybridization with plains bison, persist, and
delisting is therefore not yet appropriate. We will continue to follow
the progress of conservation efforts, and we will propose to delist
wood bison if and when appropriate.
(3) Comment: The State and several commenters argued that listing
under the Act provides no conservation benefits for the species in the
United States, and may in fact be impeding conservation by making it
more difficult to reintroduce wood bison into Alaska.
[[Page 26197]]
Our Response: Under section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, the Service must
base a status determination solely on the best scientific and
commercial data available. Thus, we cannot and did not base the
decision to reclassify the wood bison under the Act on the efficacy of
this action to conserve the species. Nevertheless, we disagree that
listing is impeding conservation by making it more difficult to
reintroduce the species to Alaska. Under the provisions of the Act's
section 10(j), wood bison could be reintroduced into Alaska as an
experimental, nonessential population. We have been working with the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game on such a proposal, and both
agencies agree that this approach may be a viable method for the
reintroduction. Designating wood bison as an experimental, nonessential
population would not only provide the means for reintroducing the
animals, it would also provide assurances that conflicts with potential
development would be minimal. Critical habitat is not designated for
experimental, nonessential populations.
(4) Comment: The State commented that the only real impact from
listing was to deny sportsmen the opportunity to import legally
harvested wood bison trophies from Canada.
Our Response: We recognize that regulated hunting is an important
component of Canada's recovery plan for the species; however, as
explained above, listing determinations are based on evaluation of the
factors affecting the species under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, using
the best scientific and commercial information available. It is
important to note that, under section 9(c)(2) of the Act, when the wood
bison is reclassified to threatened status (see DATES, above),
importation into the United States of sport-hunted trophies taken from
Canada would not require a permit under 50 CFR 17.32, provided that a
CITES Appendix-II export permit issued by the Canadian government
accompanies the trophy when it arrives into the United States.
Federal Agency (Canada) Comments
(5) Comment: We received two responses from the Northwest
Territories. Both included specific minor corrections regarding herds,
and both supported downlisting.
Our Response: The commenters stated, and we agree, that none of the
corrections were significant in terms of the finding. We have
incorporated the details and updates for the Canadian herds provided by
the reviewers in this final rule.
Public Comments
(6) Comment: A few commenters argued that wood bison should remain
listed as endangered. In summary, the reasoning presented was that the
populations were too small, there is not enough habitat available, and
hunting should not be allowed because of the small population sizes.
Our Response: The Canada's National Wood Bison Recovery Team and
recovery plan set forth the reasoning for maintaining a minimum
population (herd) size of 400 (Gates et al. 2001, p. 32). At this
point, there are more than 4,000 disease-free wood bison in 7 herds and
an additional 4,000 animals in WBNP that are subject to disease but
have a stable population. Four separate disease-free populations have
400 or more animals (see Table 1, above). In addition, it has been
demonstrated that wood bison, like plains bison and cattle, are
relatively easy to breed and their populations can be managed for
growth either in the wild (given adequate resources) or in captivity.
Although we agree that there has been a loss of suitable habitat,
there has been enough suitable and available habitat for the
reintroduction of six herds within their historical range in Canada.
All of the herds that have been established in the wild have expanded
in size and are self-sustaining (see Table 1, above). Regulations
prevent excess harvest on the free-ranging herds. Regardless of
classification type (endangered or threatened), regulation of hunting
in Canada is outside the jurisdiction of the Act. Currently, Canada
uses hunting of wood bison as a management tool for population control
and to minimize the chances that disease will spread from one
population to another. We found no evidence that hunting, as it is
currently managed, is a threat to the species. For these reasons, we
have concluded that wood bison are no longer on the brink of extinction
and are, therefore, not endangered; rather, they are progressing
steadily towards recovery.
(7) Comment: One commenter argued that wood bison should remain
listed as endangered because Alaska is a significant portion of the
wood bison's range. Because wood bison are extinct in Alaska, they
should remain endangered until they are successfully introduced back
into Alaska.
Our Response: The Service disagrees that the wood bison's
historical range, which includes Alaska, constitutes a significant
portion of the range such that the endangered classification under the
Act must be retained because of the species' extirpation in that
portion of the historical range. The text of the Act supports our
conclusion that we cannot base this determination on the status of the
species in lost historical range. As defined by the Act, a species is
endangered only if it ``is in danger of extinction'' in all or a
significant portion of its range. The phrase ``is in danger'' denotes a
present-tense condition of being at risk of a current (or future)
undesired event. Hence, to say a species ``is in danger'' in an area
where it no longer exists--i.e., in its historical range where it has
been extirpated--is inconsistent with common usage. Thus, we consider
``range'' within the definition of an ``endangered species'' to mean
current range, not historical. In addition, in determining whether a
species is an endangered species, the Act requires the Secretary to
consider ``present'' or ``threatened'' (i.e., future), rather than
past, ``destruction, modification, or curtailment'' of a species'
habitat or range (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)(A)). Furthermore, additional
support for this conclusion is found in the Act's requirement that a
summary of a proposed listing regulation be published in a newspaper
``in each area of the United States in which the species is believed to
occur'' (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(5)(D)). There is no requirement to such
notice in areas where the species no longer occurs. For these reasons,
Alaska cannot be a significant portion of the wood bison's range.
(8) Comment: One commenter felt that the proposed rule was
deficient because we did not address the status of wood bison in Alaska
and only looked at where wood bison currently exists. Thus, we should
have included Alaska in our analysis as part of wood bison's historical
range.
Our Response: As explained above in our response to Comment 7, a
species' listing determination cannot be based on the status of the
species within its lost historical range. Nevertheless, we did consider
the effect of the loss of the wood bison's historical range on the
viability of the species throughout all or a significant portion of its
current range. Although the species has been extirpated from Alaska for
quite some time and the historic population in Alaska is unknown, we
conclude that the loss of species' historic range in Alaska does not
place the species in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of the range. As detailed more fully in our final
determination, the wood bison populations in Canada have stabilized or
are increasing, and are self-sustaining in the absence of a population
in Alaska.
(9) Comment: Two commenters argued that wood bison is not a valid
[[Page 26198]]
subspecies and that they should not be listed for that reason. One
commenter stated that differences between wood and plains bison are
only phenotypic (they look different), and that all wood bison are
hybrids with plains bison. The commenter cites the work of Douglas et
al. 2011, which concludes that based on mitochondrial sequences, wood
and plains bison should not be considered separate subspecies.
Our Response: In the proposed rule (76 FR 6734), we outlined our
reasoning for concluding that wood bison are a valid subspecies. We
also acknowledged that because of the introduction of plains bison into
WBNP there had been some introgression of plains bison genetic material
into the wood bison genome. However, 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).
Douglas et al. (2011, p. 167) included mitochondrial sequences from
only two wood bison in their analysis. Considering the history of wood
and plains bison on the landscape, two animals cannot accurately
represent the range of genetic variation present between wood and
plains bison, and it is not reasonable to conclude that the two
subspecies should be considered as one, based on a sample size of two.
In addition, the authors (Douglas et al. 2011, p. 173) include the
important qualifying clause, ``with respect to their mitochondrial
genomic sequences'' B. b. bison and B. b. athabascae should not be
considered distinct subspecies. Mitochondrial DNA is maternally
inherited and therefore presents only a partial picture of an animal's
total genome. Mitochondrial DNA is used primarily to look at the more
recent divergence between species. Differences in nuclear DNA sequences
(which represent contributions from both the male and female) are used
to determine differences that originate further back in time. Unless a
peer-reviewed revision of the phylogeny of the subfamily Bovinae occurs
that indicates wood and plains bison do not vary enough genetically to
be considered distinct subspecies, and that revision is accepted by the
scientific community, we will continue to acknowledge the two
subspecies of bison.
(10) Comment: One commenter stated that we did not provide a
convincing argument that the threats to wood bison rise to the level
that the species is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable
future. The commenter states, ``[t]he Proposed Rule does not show that
these risks are both sufficiently severe and likely to justify the
``threatened'' classification.''
Our Response: In the proposed rule (76 FR 6734), we identified
threats under Factors A, C, D, and E. Although we did not identify an
individual factor that might be responsible for the extinction of wood
bison in the future, the combination of these threats are currently
acting on the populations and will continue into the foreseeable
future. The species is being actively managed in Canada to address
these threats. Of these threats, disease is the most problematic for
the species because there is not a clear path forward on how disease
will be handled. No effective vaccines exist for brucellosis,
tuberculosis, or anthrax for free-ranging populations and developing
new disease-free herds is very challenging. 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, and it is
unknown how implementation of the recommendations would affect the
status of the subspecies. It is possible many animals could be
purposefully euthanized if disease spreads to currently uninfected
herds that are in proximity to commercial cattle and bison operations,
or as a solution to the diseased herds found in and around WBNP. As
described in the proposed rule, the Hook Lake Herd, which was initiated
as a disease-free herd, was eliminated when disease was detected. We
also know that Canada has not yet made the decision to delist the
species under SARA. We will continue to evaluate the status of wood
bison and propose to delist the species when appropriate.
(11) Comment: One commenter said that the Service cannot conclude
that the wood bison remains threatened without establishing a timeframe
for the foreseeable future.
Our Response: We disagree. In some listings we have used very
specific timeframes for our threats analysis (e.g., polar bear, see 73
FR 28212, May 15, 2008), especially when we are using models that are
projecting into the future for a specific amount of time. In the case
of wood bison, we are not relying on modeling to describe or understand
the threats into the future. In analyzing how threats will affect the
status of this species, we assessed the foreseeable future for the wood
bison in terms of the threats that are currently operating on the
populations as well as those we could reliably expect to continue to
affect the populations.
(12) Comment: One commenter states that bison are inherently social
creatures and are subject to rules of group behavior. As the size of
herds changes, so too do their actions and lifestyles. There is simply
not enough data from small herds over a few decades about wood bison
sociology to make any confident predictions about the future. They
argue that there are too few wood bison to contemplate easing
protections on the species at this time.
Our Response: We agree that wood bison are social animals and that
new herds have been established for a relatively short time. However,
the growth of the herds gives ample evidence that when suitable habitat
is present the herds will grow until controlled. In reality, the
protections provided to a species listed as threatened do not differ
significantly from the protections provided to an endangered species.
Wood bison will continue to be protected under the Act as a threatened
species.
(13) Comment: One commenter argued that B. b. athabascae is present
in Yellowstone National Park (YNP) and it is endangered there.
Our Response: Peer-reviewed published papers present a compelling
opposing view to this comment. The published literature indicates that
the only place where free-ranging wood bison occur, or have occurred in
the recent past (last several hundred years), is in Canada and Alaska
(Skinner and Kaisen 1947, p. 164; Stephenson et al. 2001, pp. 137, 146;
Wilson and Strobeck 1998, p. 186). We disagree that wood bison
currently persists in YNP and that it is endangered there.
Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule
We reanalyzed the data from the United Nations Environment
Programme--World Conservation Monitoring Center CITES Trade Database
and, for clarity, reported data in specimens rather than shipments.
However, this change did not alter our finding. We have not made any
substantive changes in this final rule based on the comments we
received. Although many commenters thought that wood bison no longer
need the protections provided by the Act and should be delisted, no new
or compelling information was provided to support such a
recommendation. We recognize that conservation actions are continuing
and that the status of wood bison is improving. However, because of the
threats that are still present,
[[Page 26199]]
delisting is premature. Therefore, just as we proposed, we are changing
the listing of the wood bison from endangered to threatened.
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
Wildlife and Plants. Changes in the Lists 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. 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 endangered
or threatened.
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, agricultural
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 meters (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
[[Page 26200]]
found in preferred wood bison foraging 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 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; this
amounts to 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 reduce
the amount of land available for wild wood bison populations and
increase 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 26201]]
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, p. 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).
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 four 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 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 a 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.
[[Page 26202]]
1992, pp. 143-145). Currently, the utilization of free-ranging,
disease-free wood bison populations is closely regulated and managed
for sustainability. Under the 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 2010, p. 10). 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 rights-of-way.
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, with consideration given to 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 118 bison (http://www.justice.gov.nt.ca/PDF/REGS/WILDLIFE/Big%20Game%20Hunting.pdf,
viewed January 23, 2012).
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 rights-of-way, 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. 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 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 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 2010-2011 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, below). 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.
Commercial harvest of free-ranging 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 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 their 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-listed plant and
animal species (also see discussion under Factor D, below). 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 18, 1997, the wood bison was transferred to Appendix II of
CITES
[[Page 26203]]
based on a proposal from Canada, which described progress made in
recovery plan implementation (Government of Canada 1997, entire). The
United States supported this change. 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.
Data obtained from the United Nations Environment Programme-World
Conservation Monitoring Center (UNEP-WCMC) CITES Trade Database show
that, from July 1975, when the wood bison was listed in Appendix I,
through 2009, a total of 23,344 specimens of this subspecies were
reported to UNEP-WCMC as (gross) exports. Of those 23,344 specimens,
264 were live animals, 36 were skins, 10 were skin pieces, 5 were
bodies, 26 were shoes, 21,300 were horn products, 461 were teeth, 46
were carvings, 5 were garments, 14 were leather products, 1,074 were
scientific specimens, 31 were trophies, 59 were parts of trophies
(horns, skulls, bones, feet, tails, and hair), and 13 were unspecified
specimens. An additional 1,930 kilograms of meat were reported as
exports.
In analyzing these data, it appears that several records may be
over-counts due to slight differences in the manner in which the
importing and exporting countries reported their trade. It is likely
that the actual number of wood bison specimens in international trade
during this period was 23,210, plus 1,074 kilograms of meat. Of the
23,210 specimens, 264 were live animals, 34 were skins, 10 were skin
pieces, 5 were bodies, 26 were shoes, 21,300 were horn products, 461
were teeth, 46 were carvings, 4 were garments, 14 were leather
products, 945 were scientific specimens, 30 were trophies, 58 were
parts of trophies (horns, skulls, bones, feet, tails, and hair), and 13
were unspecified specimens.
With the information obtained from the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade
Database, 1,606 specimens and 1,910 kilograms of meat were reported in
international trade since the wood bison was transferred from Appendix
II to Appendix I in 1997. 1,398 of these specimens (87 percent) were
reported as imported into the United States and 20 (1 percent) were
reported as exported from the United States. Also, 1,900 of the total
of 1,910 kilograms of meat (99 percent) were reported as imported into
the United States. Of the 264 live wood bison reported in international
trade between 1975 and 2009, 235 were traded since the subspecies was
transferred from Appendix II to Appendix I in 1997. Of these 235 live
specimens, 174 (74 percent) were reported as captive-bred or captive
born, 13 (6 percent) were reported as ranched specimens, and 48 (20
percent) were reported as having been obtained from the wild. There has
been no trade in live, wild wood bison since 2006.
As a species listed in Appendix II of CITES, commercial trade of
wood bison is allowed. However, the Appendix-II listing 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
In the early 1920s, 6,673 plains bison were introduced 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 (see Table
1, above).
Bovine tuberculosis and bovine brucellosis receive special
attention because they cause production losses in domestic animals, can
potentially infect humans, and 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
wood bison to domestic cattle (GNT 2010, p. 8). 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.
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
[[Page 26204]]
the diseased animals come into contact with either free-ranging,
disease-free herds, or with 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 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 herd
under permit systems (as described above 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 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 were received from harvested
bison from the Hay-Zama herd 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 (see Table 1, above). 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, a pathogen's 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 2010 (GNT
2010, p. 9). 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
[[Page 26205]]
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, become more
widespread, or affect a greater number of animals in the future. Thus
far, anthrax outbreaks have occurred 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, and it is unknown 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 cause 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 used, disease will continue to be a threat to wood bison now and in
the foreseeable future.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Canada's Federal 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).
Canada's 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. The 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 endangered or
threatened by the COSEWIC before SARA was enacted 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 Actions section above, many recovery
actions have been implemented and more are in progress. As discussed
under Factor B (above), 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 2010, p. 10). 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 above 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 2010, p. 7).
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,
[[Page 26206]]
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 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).
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.
Nahanni................... Northwest None identified, but
Territories, occupied habitat is
southeast Yukon, government-owned.
northeast
British
Columbia.
Nordquist................. British Columbia. Portage Brule Rapids
Ecological Reserve,
Smith River
Ecological Reserve,
Smith River Falls-
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.
Etthithun................. British Columbia.
Chitek Lake............... Manitoba......... Chitek Lake Reserve.
Free-ranging, diseased herds:
Wood Buffalo National Park Alberta, Wood Buffalo National
Northwest Park.
Territories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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
Canadian Government holds decision-making authority. The purposes of
EIAs are to minimize or avoid adverse environmental effects before they
occur and to incorporate environmental factors into decision making.
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
Canadian Government holds some decision-making authority concerning the
proposed development or the acceptability of its impacts. This
legislation ensures that any projects conducted on Canada's government-
owned lands, including National Parks, are carefully reviewed before
Canadian authorities take action so that projects do not cause
significant adverse environmental effects, including areas surrounding
the project. It encourages Canadian 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 will not be carried out in whole or in part
(Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (20)(b) and (37)(b)).
Canada's Provincial and Territorial Regulatory Mechanisms
Provincial and territorial governments within Canada can use the
Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and
Interprovincial Trade
[[Page 26207]]
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 (CITES is discussed below, under ``International
Regulatory Mechanisms''). 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
Environment and Natural Resources 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, 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).
Other Canadian Regulatory Mechanisms
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 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.
U.S. Regulatory Mechanisms
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. When the wood bison is reclassified to
threatened (see DATES, above), import of trophies legally taken and
properly permitted can also occur. Because of the regulations in place
in Canada for all hunts and the permits required for import and export
under CITES, we do not anticipate that reclassification will cause any
increase in the number of animals killed or have any effect on the
herds that are hunted.
International Regulatory Mechanisms
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.
[[Page 26208]]
Under this treaty, member countries work together to ensure that
international trade in animal and plant species is not detrimental to
the survival 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 of 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 above 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.
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 and its habitat 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 within the
United States 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 (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 wood bison (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;
Larter et al. 2003, p. 411). 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, Mackenzie, and Nahanni herds (Larter et
al. 2003, p. 411). Because mortality due to drowning typically affects
only a portion of a herd and herd sizes are increasing (see Table 1,
above), 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 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
[[Page 26209]]
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 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, increased 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 and Nahanni herds. 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, the presence of plains bison
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
affect 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 endangered or threatened throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. We reviewed the petition, information
available in our files, comments and information we received after the
publication of our 90-day finding (74 FR 5908, February 3, 2009),
comments and information we received after the publication of our
proposed rule to reclassify wood bison (76 FR 6734, February 8, 2011),
and other available published and unpublished information. We also
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. We 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
[[Page 26210]]
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 and hybridization within
Canada.
In addition to the five-factor analysis, 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 in reducing the risk of extinction
associated with the threats identified. We anticipate that continued
growth and expansion of the herds would further reduce the risk of
extinction in the future.
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. The wood bison therefore no longer
meets the definition of endangered under the Act. However, threats to
wood bison still exist and will likely continue into the foreseeable
future. In particular, there are no easy solutions for dealing with the
diseased animals. 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, and it
is unknown how implementation of the recommendations would affect the
status of the subspecies. Therefore, we have determined that the wood
bison meets the definition of threatened under the Act. Consequently,
we are reclassifying the wood bison's listing status from endangered to
threatened with this rule.
In our February 8, 2011, proposed rule (76 FR 6734), we determined
that the Aishihik and Chitek Lake herds are discrete under our Distinct
Vertebrate Population Segment policy (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996),
but are not significant, and therefore, did not qualify as a distinct
population segment. In that proposed rule, we also considered whether
there is a significant portion of the range where the wood bison is in
danger of extinction and did not identify any area or herd whose loss
would result in a decrease in the ability to conserve the species as a
whole. Consequently, as described in the proposed rule, we are not
listing a distinct population segment of wood bison and we have not
identified a portion of the range that is so significant to the species
that threats there imperil the species as a whole.
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. The Act encourages cooperation with the States
and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed
species. The protection measures required of Federal agencies and the
prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
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.
If a species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act
requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize,
fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of the species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat.
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 are, and will continue
to be when this rule is effective (see DATES, above), applicable to the
wood bison. These prohibitions, under 50 CFR 17.21 (50 CFR 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 50 CFR 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
[[Page 26211]]
exhibition, education, and special purposes consistent with the Act.
Effects of This Rule
This final rule revises 50 CFR 17.11(h) to reclassify the wood
bison from endangered to threatened. This rule formally recognizes that
this species is no longer presently in danger of extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. However, this
reclassification does not significantly change the protection afforded
this species under the Act. The regulatory protections of section 9 and
section 7 of the Act remain in place. Anyone taking, attempting to
take, or otherwise possessing a wood bison, or parts thereof, in
violation of section 9 of the Act is still subject to a penalty under
section 11 of the Act, unless their action is covered under a special
rule under section 4(d) of the Act. We are not currently publishing a
special rule under section 4(d) of the Act for the wood bison at this
time. However, section 9(c)(2) of the ESA sets out an exemption to the
general import prohibition for threatened, Appendix-II wildlife, both
live and dead, when: (1) The taking and export meet all provisions of
CITES; (2) all other import and reporting requirements under section 9
of the ESA are met; and (3) the import is not made in the course of a
commercial activity. Since the wood bison is currently listed in
Appendix II of CITES, upon the effective date of this publication, and
the reclassification of the wood bison from endangered to threatened,
this ESA exemption is generally applicable. Because a sport-hunted
trophy is not a specimen obtained or imported in the course of a
commercial activity, the section 9(c)(2) ESA exemption would typically
apply to the import of sport-hunted trophies, provided that all other
requirements of section 9(c)(2) of the ESA are met.
Under section 7 of the Act, Federal agencies must ensure that any
actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of the wood bison. Because no free-ranging
herds of wood bison occur in Alaska or any other State, we do not
anticipate that there will be an additional regulatory responsibility
because of this rule.
Required Determinations
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain any new information collections or
recordkeeping requirements for which Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) approval is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). We may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
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 is available at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R9-IA-2008-0123 or upon request
from the Alaska Regional Office (see ADDRESSES).
Author
The primary author of this rule is Marilyn Myers, Ph.D., Fisheries
and Ecological Services, Alaska Regional Office, 1011 E. Tudor Road,
Anchorage, AK 99503; 907-786-3559.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
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.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by revising the entry for ``Bison, wood'' under
MAMMALS in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to read as
follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
[[Page 26212]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 3,803 NA NA
athabascae.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: April 24, 2012.
Daniel M. Ashe,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-10635 Filed 5-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P