[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 13 (Friday, January 18, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4108-4119]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00692]
[[Page 4108]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2012-0033; 70120-1113-0000-C3]
RIN 1018-AW57
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed
Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Wood Bison
in Alaska
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of draft environmental assessment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), in
cooperation with the State of Alaska, propose to establish a
nonessential experimental population of wood bison in central Alaska,
in accordance with section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended. This proposal, if made final, would also establish
provisions under which wood bison in Alaska would be managed. We are
seeking comments on this proposal and on our draft environmental
assessment, prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969, as amended, which analyzes the potential environmental impacts
associated with the proposed reintroduction.
DATES: To ensure that we are able to consider your comments on this
proposed rule, they must be received or postmarked on or before March
19, 2013. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at
the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by
March 4, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Comments: You may submit written comments and other
information on this proposed rule or on the draft Environmental
Assessment (EA) by either one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for
docket FWS-R7-ES-2012-0033 and then follow the instructions for
submitting comments. We request that comments be submitted though
http://www.regulations.gov whenever possible.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-
R7-ES-2012-0033; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM;
Arlington, VA 22203. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section
below for more information).
Copies of Documents: This proposed rule and the draft EA are
available at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2012-
0033. In addition, the supporting file for this proposed rule will be
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business
hours, at the Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office, Fisheries and
Ecological Services, at 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503.
Additional background and supporting information is provided in the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) Environmental Review of Wood
Bison Restoration in Alaska (ADF&G 2007), which can be accessed online
at: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=woodbison.management.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sonja Jahrsdoerfer, 1011 East Tudor
Road, Anchorage, AK 99503, (907) 786-3323, or email woodbison-AK@fws.gov. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD),
you may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-
8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Under the Endangered Species Act, the Service may establish an
experimental population, allowing for the reintroduction of a species
to its former range with special rules that allow for some of the
management requirements of the ESA to be relaxed to facilitate
acceptance by local landowners and managers. The Alaska Department of
Fish and Game (ADF&G) proposes to reintroduce wood bison (Bison bison
athabascae) into one or more of three areas within their historical
range in central Alaska (Yukon Flats, Minto Flats, and the lower
Innoko/Yukon River area). If this proposed rule is adopted, the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) would have primary management
responsibility for leading and implementing the wood bison restoration
effort, in cooperation with the Service. ADF&G would serve as the lead
agency in the reintroduction and subsequent management of wood bison in
Alaska; however, ADF&G would continue to coordinate with the Service on
these restoration efforts. Management of populations in the NEP area
would be guided by provisions in: (1) The associated special rule; (2)
the EA for this action and ADF&G's environmental review; and (3)
management plans developed for each area by ADF&G with involvement of
landowners and other stakeholders. The rule would also allow for future
regulated hunting based on sustained yield principles, once the herds
are deemed sufficiently resilient to support such.
Public Comments
To ensure that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be as effective as possible and that the final EA on the proposed
action will evaluate all potential issues associated with this action,
we invite the public, including Tribal and other government agencies,
the scientific community, industry, and other interested parties, to
submit relevant information for our consideration. Comments on the
proposed rule and the draft EA that will be most useful are those that
are supported by data or peer-reviewed studies and those that include
citations to, and analyses of, applicable laws and regulations. Please
include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to
authenticate any scientific or commercial data you reference or
provide. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of
wood bison;
(2) Current or planned activities in the proposed nonessential
experimental population (NEP) area;
(3) Current or planned management of the NEP population; and
(4) Any information concerning the boundaries of the proposed NEP
area.
We will take into consideration all comments and additional
information we receive in order to determine whether to issue a final
rule to implement this proposed action and whether to prepare a finding
of no significant impact or an environmental impact statement. Comments
we receive may lead to a final rule that differs from this proposal.
You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods
listed in the ADDRESSES section. Comments submitted to http://www.regulations.gov must be received before midnight (Eastern Time) on
the date specified in the DATES section. All comments, whether
submitted in hard copy or via http://www.regulations.gov, become part
of the supporting record and will be posted on the Web site. You may
request at the top of your document that we withhold personal
identifying information from public review; however, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so. Please note that comments
submitted to http://www.regulations.gov are not immediately viewable.
The system
[[Page 4109]]
receives comments immediately, but they are not publically viewable
until we post them.
All electronic and hard copy comments and materials we receive, as
well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed
rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov and also by appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fisheries and Ecological
Services, Anchorage, AK (see ADDRESSES).
Public Hearings
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.) provides for public hearings on this proposed rule, if
requested. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at
the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by the
date shown in the DATES section.
Background
Legislative
Under Canada's Species at Risk Act (SARA) (Ministry of Justice,
Canada, http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca), the wood bison is listed as
threatened, having been reclassified from endangered to threatened
status in 1988. In the United States, the wood bison was first listed
under the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 as endangered
(see 35 FR 8491, June 2, 1970). The Canadian National Wood Bison
Recovery Team petitioned the Service to reclassify the wood bison as
threatened, and on February 8, 2011, we published in the Federal
Register (1) a 12-month finding indicating that the petitioned action
was warranted, and (2) a proposed rule to reclassify the wood bison as
a threatened species (76 FR 6734). On May 3, 2012 the status of the
wood bison was reclassified to threatened (86 FR 26191).
Under the ESA, species listed as endangered or threatened are
afforded protection largely through the prohibitions of section 9, the
requirements of section 7, and corresponding implementing regulations.
Section 9 of the ESA and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 17.21
and 17.31, in part, prohibit any person subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States to take (``take'' includes to harass, harm, pursue,
hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, or collect, or to attempt any of
these), import or export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of
commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign
commerce, any listed species. The term `harm' is further defined to
include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in
death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral
patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. It also is illegal
to knowingly possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any
wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to
agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.
Section 7 of the ESA and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR
part 402 outline the procedures for Federal interagency cooperation to
conserve federally listed species and protect designated critical
habitats. Under section 7(a)(1) of the ESA, all Federal agencies are
directed to use their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the
ESA by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered or
threatened species. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA states that Federal
agencies will, in consultation with the Service, ensure that any action
they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Section 7 of the
ESA does not affect activities undertaken on private lands unless they
are authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal agency.
Congress amended the Endangered Species Act of 1973, in 1982, with
the addition of section 10(j), which provides for the designation of
specific reintroduced populations of listed species as ``experimental
populations.'' Under section 10(j) of the ESA, the Secretary of the
Interior can designate reintroduced populations established outside the
species' current range as ``experimental.'' Section 10(j) is designed
to increase our flexibility in managing an experimental population by
allowing us to treat the population as threatened, regardless of the
species' designation elsewhere in its range. A threatened designation
allows us discretion in devising management programs and special
regulations for the population. Further, when we promulgate a section
10(j) rule for a species, the regulations at 50 CFR 17.31 that extend
most section 9 prohibitions to threatened species do not apply, as the
generic regulations are superseded by the section 10(j) rule, which
contains the specific prohibitions and exemptions necessary and
appropriate to conserve that species.
As experimental populations uniformly carry ``threatened'' status,
section 4(d) of the ESA applies. Section 4(d) of the ESA allows us to
adopt whatever regulations are necessary and advisable to provide for
the conservation of a threatened species. Although the ESA limits the
type of regulated take available for the conservation of threatened
species, the Secretary is granted broad flexibility in promulgating
``special'' regulations under section 4(d) of the ESA to protect
threatened species, and may allow for direct take, as has been done in
the past, for example, with with Gila trout (71 FR 40657, July 18,
2006).
Based on the best available information, we must determine whether
experimental populations are ``essential'' or ``nonessential'' to the
continued existence of the species. Experimental populations, whether
essential or nonessential, are treated as a threatened species.
However, for section 7 interagency cooperation purposes only, an NEP
located outside of a National Wildlife Refuge or National Park is
treated as a species proposed for listing.
When NEPs are located outside a National Wildlife Refuge or
National Park Service unit, only two provisions of section 7 of the ESA
apply: Section 7(a)(1) and section 7(a)(4). In these instances, NEPs
provide additional flexibility because Federal agencies are not
required to consult with us under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. Section
7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer (rather than consult, as
required under section 7(a)(2)) with the Service on actions that are
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed to
be listed. A conference results in conservation recommendations that
are optional as the agencies carry out, fund, or authorize activities.
However, because an NEP is by definition not essential to the continued
existence of the species, it is very unlikely that we would ever
determine jeopardy for a project impacting a species within an NEP.
Thus, regulations for NEPs may be developed to be more compatible with
routine human activities in the reintroduction area.
Animals used to establish an experimental population may be
obtained from a source or donor population provided their removal is
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species and
appropriate permits have been issued in accordance with 50 CFR 17.22.
In 2008, 53 wood bison were imported into Alaska after necessary
permits and approvals were obtained. The primary original source of
Alaska's wood bison is a captive-bred population at Elk Island National
Park (EINP), Alberta, Canada, which was propagated for the purpose of
providing disease-free stock for reestablishing
[[Page 4110]]
populations in other parts of the species' original range (Gates et al.
2001, p. 15). These animals are presently maintained at the Alaska
Wildlife Conservation Center (AWCC) in Portage, Alaska, where
additional, disease-free, wood bison (obtained as a result of an
illegal import in 2003) are also held.
Canada's ``National Recovery Plan for the Wood Bison'' includes the
specific goal of reestablishing at least four viable populations of 400
or more wood bison in Canada (Gates et al. 2001, pp. 32-33). This plan
supports fostering the ``restoration of wood bison in other parts of
their original range and in suitable habitat elsewhere'' but sets no
discrete goals for recovery in other parts of the species' range. The
Wood Bison Recovery Team places a high priority on the reintroduction
of wood bison to Alaska (Gates et al. 2001, pp. 32-33). The
reestablishment of free-ranging, disease-free wood bison in Alaska
would contribute to the overall conservation of wood bison in North
America. However, future loss of a wood bison NEP from Alaska would not
reduce the likelihood of the species' survival in its current range in
Canada, which encompasses the only populations Canada evaluates when
considering the status of the species for listing purposes under SARA.
Consequently, because their loss would not appreciably reduce the
likelihood of survival of the species in the wild, the Service finds
that any wood bison populations established in Alaska would meet the
definition of ``nonessential'' (see 50 CFR 17.80(b)). Therefore, we
propose to designate a nonessential experimental population of wood
bison in Alaska.
Biological
Members of the family Bovidae, wood bison are the largest native
terrestrial mammal in the western hemisphere, with adult bulls weighing
2,000 pounds (900 kilograms) or more (Reynolds et al. 2003, p. 1015).
Wood bison are somewhat larger than the other extant bison subspecies
in the United States, the plains bison (B. b. bison), and are
distinguished by a more pronounced hump, forward-falling display hair
on the head, reduced chaps and beard, and different variegation and
demarcation on the cape (van Zyll de Jong et al. 1995, pp. 393-396).
Specimen collections and historical accounts indicate that the
historical range of wood bison included much of Interior and
Southcentral Alaska, and the Yukon, the western Northwest Territories,
and northern Alberta and British Columbia in Canada (Stephenson et al.
2001, pp. 135-136; Reynolds et al. 2003, pp. 1012-1013). Wood bison are
predominantly grazers, foraging mainly on grasses and sedges that occur
in northern meadows (Larter and Gates 1991, p. 2679).
Wood bison were present in Alaska for most of the last 5,000 to
10,000 years (Stephenson et al. 2001, pp. 125, 145-146). Detailed
historical accounts from Athabascan elders in Alaska describe how bison
were hunted and used and indicate that bison were an important source
of food for Athabascan people before the population declined to low
levels within the last few hundred years (Stephenson et al. 2001, pp.
128-134). The most recent recorded sightings of wood bison in Alaska
were from the early 1900s, of small groups or single animals in
northeastern Alaska (Stephenson et al. 2001, pp. 129-134). Factors
leading to the extirpation of wood bison from Alaska most likely
included unregulated hunting by humans, along with the isolation of
subpopulations caused by changes in habitat distribution during the
late Holocene (Stephenson et al. 2001, pp. 146-147).
Wood bison were largely extirpated from Alaska and much of their
original range in Canada by about 1900 (Stephenson et al. 2001, p.
140). At that time, only a few hundred animals existed in northeastern
Alberta. Intensive conservation efforts in Canada beginning around 1900
are principally responsible for preventing the species' extinction
(Gates et al. 2001, pp. 11-21). However, the translocation of surplus
plains bison into Wood Buffalo National Park in the 1920s (Carbyn et
al. 1993, pp. 25-27) resulted in some genetic dilution of wood bison,
as well as the introduction of domestic cattle diseases into this
population (Gates et al. 2001, p. 35). Cattle diseases, including
bovine brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis, are still a management
concern in some herds in Canada (Gates et al. 2010, pp. 28-32; USDA
2008, p. 10). The susceptibility of wood bison and other native
ungulates to these diseases underscores the importance of rigorous
disease-testing protocols prior to releasing wood bison in Alaska
(ADF&G-ADEC 2008).
Recovery Efforts
Recovery efforts in Canada have been very successful. There are
approximately 10,000 free-ranging wood bison in Canada today, including
about 4,500 in 7 free-ranging, disease-free herds and 5,000 in 4 free-
ranging herds that are not disease-free. In 1978, there was 1 free-
ranging, disease-free herd with 300 individuals, the MacKenzie herd. 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. Since 2000, an additional herd has been established,
bringing the total number of herds to 7, and the number of disease-
free, free-ranging bison has increased to approximately 4,500. Four of
the herds have a population of 400 or more, meeting one of the primary
recovery goals. An additional 300 animals are held in a publicly owned
captive herd (Elk Island National Park herd) that is maintained for
conservation purposes (http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/ab/elkisland/natcul/natcul1/b/ii.aspx, viewed October 12, 2011). There are also 45 to 60
commercial wood bison operations in Canada, with approximately 500 to
700 animals (Canadian Wildlife Service, unpublished data 2009).
Although commercial wood bison herds are not a part of Canada's
recovery programs, their existence indicates that wood bison will
propagate readily, given sufficient space and proper nutrition.
The National Wood Bison Recovery Plan, prepared by Canada's
National Wood Bison Recovery Team, is currently being updated (Wilson,
Environment Canada, 2011, pers. comm.). In addition, the State of
Alaska has outlined plans for wood bison restoration and will complete
detailed management plans developed with public input, for each bison
release area before wood bison are reestablished. If this proposal is
adopted, any wood bison reintroduced to Alaska would be designated as
nonessential to recovery and experimental.
Role of Regulated Hunting in Recovery
Regulated hunting has been used in Canada since 1987 to manage wood
bison herds and is consistent with the recovery goals in the Canadian
wood bison recovery plan. Herds with regulated harvest have increased
in size (76 FR 6734, February 8, 2011). For example, the Mackenzie
herd, which was established in 1963, first supported harvest in 1987
and now has grown to approximately 2,000 head, supporting an annual
harvest of approximately 40 animals (http://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/_live/pages/wpPages/Mackenzie_Bison.aspx, viewed October 14, 2011).
Regulated hunting has been used to (1) maintain herd size within the
carrying capacity of the landscape; (2) reduce the potential for the
spread of disease; (3) address public safety concerns near roads; and
(4) increase community support for reestablished wood bison herds.
Where hunting is allowed, it can lead to increased revenue for
monitoring and management of the herds.
[[Page 4111]]
Sustainable levels of hunting of wood bison in Alaska would serve
some of these same purposes, particularly securing the support of
project sponsors (e.g., ADF&G, local communities, and nongovernmental
organizations involved in the project). Because reintroduction of wood
bison to Alaska depends heavily on this support, including provisions
for hunting as a future management option is an essential component of
this proposed rule. Moreover, provisions for future regulated hunting
will assure landowners and development interests that the
reintroduction of wood bison would not interfere with natural resource
development or other human activities. Without such assurances, the
reintroduction of wood bison to Alaska is unlikely to be acceptable to
the public, development interests, or the Alaska State Legislature.
Thus, we believe that the opportunity for Alaska to contribute to the
overall recovery and conservation of wood bison will be lost if
provisions for hunting are not included in this rulemaking.
Alaska Reintroduction Goals and Objectives
The proposed reintroduction of wood bison to Alaska is patterned
after the successful reintroductions made in Canada. The goal of the
Alaska wood bison restoration project is to reestablish one to three
free-ranging populations. In addition to contributing to the
conservation and recovery of wood bison in North America, objectives of
the Alaska reintroduction effort include (1) restoring a key indigenous
grazing animal to northern ecosystems; (2) restoring biological and
habitat diversity and natural processes; (3) increasing the total
number of wood bison in free-ranging, disease-free herds, thereby
enhancing the overall survival of the species in the wild; (4)
providing a basis for sustainable development, including opportunities
for local tourism, and, in the future, hunting and other guiding
businesses; and (5) reestablishing the historical cultural connection
between bison and Alaska residents (ADF&G 2007, pp. 2-3).
Although many private landowners within the proposed NEP area have
indicated support for the presence of wood bison on their lands in the
future, some major private landowners have expressed concerns about the
potential legal and regulatory burdens related to the ESA and wood
bison, including effects on other resource development activities.
Provisions of the proposed special rule would ensure that the
reintroduction of wood bison would not impede existing or potential
future resource development activities.
Wood bison would be released only after a suitable management
framework has been developed by the State in cooperation with
landowners, land managers, the Service, conservation organizations, and
Tribal and local governments. Because the reintroduction sites in
Alaska are remote and roadless and create logistical and economical
challenges for traditional management approaches (e.g., herding,
fencing), the most feasible means of population control in the future,
if it were needed, would likely be regulated hunting. Hunters in Alaska
are accustomed to accessing (e.g., bush planes, float planes) and
traveling (e.g., snow machines, off-road vehicles, hiking) in roadless
areas and represent a feasible and economical method of population
control. As mentioned above, wood bison in some herds in northern
Canada are legally harvested under Territorial or Provincial hunting
regulations, and regulated harvest is considered one of the primary
management tools in conservation of the species.
Experience with bison reintroductions elsewhere indicates that
reintroduced wood bison populations in Alaska are likely to prosper in
the areas where the State of Alaska proposes to restore the species
(ADF&G 2007, pp. 11-12). However, temporary fluctuations in numbers may
occur, which would not constitute a reason to reevaluate or change the
NEP status. We do not intend to change the NEP designation unless the
wood bison is no longer listed as endangered or threatened under the
ESA, in which case the NEP designation would be discontinued.
Source of Stock
In June 2008, under permits obtained from the Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Canadian Wildlife Service, and the State of
Alaska, 53 wood bison were translocated from the disease-free EINP herd
to a temporary holding facility at the AWCC, where they joined a small
existing herd that was confiscated in 2003 after being imported
illegally. As of October 2011, more than 100 wood bison were at AWCC.
All of these animals have been subjected to a rigorous disease-testing
protocol while preparations are made for release of free-ranging wood
bison in Alaska (ADF&G-ADEC 2008).
Reintroduction Sites
ADF&G has identified three areas that would provide suitable
habitat for wood bison. These sites were selected based on intensive
evaluations of potential habitat conducted in seven areas in Interior
Alaska between 1993 and 2006 (Berger et al. 1995, pp. 1-9; ADF&G 1994,
pp. 10-14; Gardner et al. 2007, pp. 1-24). Following the
recommendations of Canada's Wood Bison Recovery Team, suitable release
sites should: (1) Support a minimum population of 400 bison, (2) be
separate from areas inhabited by plains bison, and (3) not have
conflicting land uses such as agriculture (Gardner et al. 2007, p. 2).
Based on forage availability, three areas in Alaska--the Yukon Flats,
Minto Flats, and lower Innoko/Yukon River--were determined suitable to
support viable populations of wood bison (ADF&G 2007, p. 27). The Yukon
Flats offers the best habitat and can support in excess of 2,000 bison
(Berger et al. 1995, p. 8). Minto Flats offers abundant forage, but the
area is relatively small, and access to wet habitats may be limited
during summer. The lower Innoko/Yukon River area offers suitable
habitat that could possibly support 400 or more wood bison (Gardner et
al. 2007, p. 8). Characteristics of each selected reintroduction site
are described in more detail in the draft EA associated with this
proposed action (see ADDRESSES for information on obtaining a copy of
the draft EA).
Locations of the three potential wood bison reintroduction sites
and boundaries of the proposed NEP are shown in Figure 1 (below). The
boundaries of the proposed NEP represent our interpretation of the best
available information on the extent of the wood bison's historical
occurrence in Alaska. This historical range includes substantial areas
with little or no suitable bison habitat, interspersed with localized
areas that would provide high-quality habitat. By proposing this large
area for NEP designation, we do not imply that most or all of the area
within the NEP boundary is suitable habitat for wood bison.
Reintroduction Procedures
In conformance with recommendations of bison geneticists and
conservation biologists, about 40 captive-raised wood bison should be
released at a single site within the NEP area in the first year of the
program, and a similar number may be released at each of two additional
sites in subsequent years. Additional bison may be released in each
area if stock and funding are available. Released wood bison would be
excess to the needs of captive-breeding herds at EINP and AWCC, and
their release would not affect the genetic diversity of the captive
wood bison populations. Wood bison released in Alaska would be tagged
with
[[Page 4112]]
passive radio frequency tags, and some bison would be radio-collared.
Population monitoring would include telemetry studies and aerial
population surveys to determine and monitor population size,
productivity, and movements.
A temporary holding facility consisting of up to 5 to 10 fenced
acres (2 to 4 hectares), a small camp, and a supply of hay would be
provided at each release site. Ideally, wood bison would be transported
to the site in late winter or early spring and held for several weeks
prior to release to allow them to acclimate in their new location. A
more detailed review of reintroduction procedures is included in the
draft EA (see ADDRESSES for information on obtaining a copy of the
draft EA).
ADF&G, the Service, and reintroduction cooperators would evaluate
the success of each reintroduction effort and apply knowledge gained to
subsequent efforts, thereby increasing the efficiency and long-term
success in wood bison restoration in Alaska. ADF&G would work with
various cooperators to monitor population growth and movements, and to
conduct basic long-term environmental monitoring.
Legal Status of Reintroduced Populations
Based on the current legal and biological status of the species and
the need for management flexibility, and in accordance with section
10(j) of the ESA, the Service proposes to designate all wood bison
released in Alaska as members of the NEP. Such designation allows us to
establish a special rule for management of wood bison in Alaska, thus
avoiding the general section 9 prohibitions that would otherwise limit
our management options. The legal and biological status of the species
and the need for management flexibility resulted in our decision to
propose the NEP designation for wood bison reintroduced into Alaska.
The proposed section 4(d) special rule associated with this
proposed NEP designation would further the conservation of wood bison
by allowing their reintroduction to a large area within their
historical range. The special rule would provide assurances to
landowners and development interests that the reintroduction of wood
bison would not interfere with natural resource development or other
human activities. Without such assurances, the reintroduction of wood
bison to Alaska would not be acceptable to the public, development
interests, or the Alaska State Legislature. Except as provided for
under section 10(e) of the ESA or as described in the proposed section
4(d) special rule associated with this proposed NEP rule, take of any
member of Alaska's wood bison NEP would be prohibited under the ESA.
Geographic Extent of the Proposed Rule
The proposed geographic extent for the Alaska wood bison NEP
includes the Yukon, Tanana, and Kuskokwim River drainages in northern
Alaska (refer to Figure 1 in the rule portion of this document).
Section 10(j) of the ESA requires that an experimental population be
geographically separate from other wild populations of the same
species. Because wild wood bison no longer exist in Alaska, the
reintroduced herd(s) would not overlap with any existing wild wood
bison population. Wood bison herds established in Alaska would be
separated from the nearest wild population in Canada (Aishihik herd in
Yukon) by at least 450 miles (725 kilometers) of mostly hilly or
mountainous terrain, which would deter long-distance movements between
herds.
All released wood bison and their offspring would likely remain in
areas adjacent to release sites and well within the boundaries of the
NEP area due to the presence of prime habitat (extensive meadow systems
that will provide an abundance of preferred forage for bison) and
surrounding geographic barriers. The geographic area being proposed for
NEP designation represents what ADF&G believes to be the maximum
geographic extent to which bison populations might expand if they are
reestablished in Alaska.
Management
(a) Authority and planning. If this proposed rule is adopted, ADF&G
would serve as the lead agency in the reintroduction and subsequent
management of wood bison in Alaska; however, ADF&G would continue to
coordinate with the Service on these restoration efforts. If this
proposed rule is adopted, the Service would delegate management
authority to ADF&G, contingent upon periodic reporting in conformity
with Federal regulations. Management of populations in the NEP area
would be guided by provisions in: (1) The associated special rule; (2)
the EA for this action and ADF&G's environmental review; and (3)
management plans developed for each area by ADF&G with involvement of
landowners and other stakeholders.
The ADF&G would use public planning processes to develop
implementation and management plans for wood bison restoration.
Planning groups would include representatives from local communities,
regional population centers, landowners, Alaska Native interests,
wildlife conservation interests, industry, and State and Federal
agencies as appropriate for each area. Draft management plans would be
circulated for public review, and final plans would be presented to the
Alaska Board of Game and Federal Subsistence Board for review and
approval. More detailed information on wood bison reintroduction and
management is provided in the EA associated with this proposed action
(see ADDRESSES for information on obtaining a copy of the draft EA).
(b) Population monitoring. Reintroduced wood bison populations
would be monitored annually and during important seasonal periods.
Biological data necessary for long-term bison management would be
obtained from annual spring population surveys, fall or winter
composition counts, and monitoring of herd movements. Bison populations
are relatively easy to monitor because of their visibility, gregarious
nature, and fidelity to seasonal ranges (ADF&G 2007, p. 12).
Through public outreach programs, ADF&G would inform the public and
other State and Federal agencies about the presence of wood bison in
the NEP area. Reports of injured or dead wood bison would be required
to be provided to ADF&G (see the draft EA for contact information) for
a determination of the cause of injury or death.
(c) Disease monitoring and prevention. Because of the extensive
disease-testing programs at EINP (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2008,
pp. 5-13) and at AWCC (ADF&G-ADEC 2008), the risk of reintroduced wood
bison being infected with serious diseases is negligible. The ADF&G
would continue to obtain samples for disease testing as opportunities
arise in connection with future wood bison radio-collaring efforts or
harvests. In the unlikely event that a disease posing a significant
threat to wood bison, other wildlife, or humans were to occur, the
situation would be addressed through appropriate management actions,
including vaccination or other veterinary treatment, culling, or
removal of an entire herd, as described in the draft EA.
(d) Genetics. Wood bison selected for reintroduction are excess to
the needs of the captive populations in Canada. The ultimate goal is to
reestablish wild wood bison populations in Alaska with founding animals
that are as genetically diverse as possible. Population objectives for
each area would be developed during public management planning efforts,
and would consider
[[Page 4113]]
conservation guidelines for population and genetic management.
(e) Mortality. Based on experience in reestablishing bison in other
northern habitats, wood bison mortality is expected to be minimal after
release (Gates and Larter 1990, p. 235). Public education, to be
conducted by ADF&G for each release, would help reduce potential
sources of human-caused mortality. Based on the results of previous
releases of disease-free wood bison, it is unlikely that predator
management would be needed to allow populations to be successfully
reestablished. A review of predator-prey interactions (ADF&G 2007, p.
43) is available online at: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/species/speciesinfo/woodbison/pdfs/er_no_appendices.pdf.
Section 10 of the ESA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to
permit ``incidental take,'' which is take that is incidental to, and
not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity,
such as recreation, livestock grazing, oil and gas or mineral
exploration and development, timber harvesting, transportation, and
other activities that are in accordance with Federal, Tribal, State,
and local laws and regulations. If this proposed rule is made final, a
person could take a wood bison within the NEP area provided that the
take is: (1) Unintentional, and (2) not due to negligent conduct. Such
incidental take would not constitute ``knowing take,'' and neither the
Service nor the State would pursue legal action. If we have evidence of
knowing (i.e., intentional) take of a wood bison that is not
authorized, we would refer matters to the appropriate authorities for
prosecution.
Highway vehicles and trains can pose a risk to bison (Rowe 2007, p.
8). In Alaska, the only area where vehicle collisions might occur is in
the vicinity of the Minto Flats, where the Parks Highway and the Alaska
Railroad border the southeastern edge, and the Elliot Highway
approaches the northern edge of the area. There are currently no roads
in the Yukon Flats or lower Innoko/Yukon River area. However, roads
could be constructed within these areas in the future to support
resource developments or for other purposes.
If this proposed rule is adopted, regulations to prohibit hunting
until it would be sustainable would be developed and enforced by the
appropriate law enforcement entity with jurisdiction for the area.
Public education and enforcement activities would reduce the risk of
illegal hunting. Based on results of similar efforts in Canada, we
expect a low rate of natural or incidental mortality (Gates et al.
2001, pp. 30-40). If significant illegal mortality does occur in any
given year, the State would develop and implement measures to reduce
the level of mortality to the extent possible.
(f) Special handling. If this proposed rule is adopted, ADF&G
biologists, Service employees, and authorized agents acting on behalf
of ADF&G or the Service may handle wood bison: (1) For scientific
purposes; (2) to relocate bison to avoid conflict with human
activities; (3) for conservation purposes; (4) to relocate wood bison
to other reintroduction sites; (5) to aid sick, injured, or orphaned
wood bison; and (6) to salvage dead wood bison. The Service would work
with ADF&G to determine appropriate procedures for handling all sick,
injured, orphaned, and dead wood bison.
(g) Potential for conflict with oil and gas development, mineral
development, recreation, and other human activities. Several natural
resource development projects that could be important to Alaska's
economy are located within or near the three potential wood bison
restoration sites. There is ongoing exploration and potential oil and
gas development in the Minto Flats and Yukon Flats areas, and potential
for a gold mine in an area about 30 to 40 miles (48 to 64 kilometers)
east of the expanse of potential wood bison habitat near the lower
Innoko/Yukon River area (Liles 2010, p. 1; U.S. Department of the
Interior 2005, pp. 1-18; Barrick/Novagold 2008). However, wood bison
are relatively tolerant of human activity and resource development
activities (ADF&G 2007, p. 47; Fortin and Andruskiw 2003, p. 811). They
are mobile and adaptable animals that can use a variety of habitats.
Their large size and social nature also make them relatively easy to
monitor (e.g., by aerial surveys) and manage.
Because wood bison will be introduced as an NEP, we expect their
establishment will not preclude or conflict with the development of
oil, gas, and mineral resources or other human activities. Minor
conflicts between livestock grazing or agriculture and wood bison
management might eventually occur in the southeast corner of the Minto
Flats, where a few small agricultural operations exist. Such conflicts
would be addressed through negotiations and cooperative habitat
management between ADF&G and landowners (DuBois and Rogers 2000, pp.
17-24). Agricultural activities on private lands within the proposed
NEP area would continue without additional restrictions during
implementation of wood bison restoration activities. We do not expect
adverse impacts to wood bison in the proposed NEP area from hunting of
other species; furbearer trapping; recreational activities, such as
boating, snow machining, off-road vehicle use, or camping; or other
resource gathering activities, such as fishing, firewood cutting, berry
picking, or logging.
(h) Protection of wood bison. ADF&G would employ accepted animal
husbandry practices to promote the welfare of wood bison during captive
holding and release (Weinhardt 2005, pp. 2-21). Releasing wood bison in
areas with little human activity and development would minimize the
potential for accidental, human-related bison mortality, such as
collisions with highway vehicles.
(i) Public awareness and cooperation. If this proposed rule is
adopted, ADF&G would work with the Service and other organizations to
continue to inform the general public about the effort to restore wood
bison to parts of their original range. Through the efforts of ADF&G
and others, there is already widespread public and agency awareness of
the program on State, national, and international levels (ADF&G 2007,
pp. 18-25 and Appendix D). Designation of the NEP in Alaska would
provide assurance of management flexibility to landowners, agencies,
and other interests in the affected areas. As described above, through
the application of management provisions set forth in the proposed
special rule, we do not expect wood bison reintroductions to impede
future human activity and development in Alaska.
Findings
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available (in
accordance with 50 CFR 17.81), the Service finds that reintroducing
wood bison to Alaska and the associated protective measures and
management practices under this proposed rulemaking would further the
conservation of the species. The nonessential experimental population
status is appropriate for wood bison taken from captive populations and
released in Alaska because loss of a wood bison NEP from Alaska would
not reduce the likelihood of the species' survival in its current range
in Canada and would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival
of the species in the wild. The Service additionally finds that the
less stringent section 7(a)(4) conference requirements associated with
the nonessential designation do not pose a threat to the recovery and
continued existence of wood bison. An NEP designation provides
important
[[Page 4114]]
assurances to stakeholders and the State in regards to regulatory
compliance requirements relating to a listed species. This conservation
effort would not occur without such assurances (Draft EA 2010, p. iii).
Hunting is an important management tool for the long-term
conservation of wood bison on the landscape because it will be the
primary means by which herd size can be maintained within the carrying
capacity of the reintroduction site(s). In addition, biologically
sustainable harvest can help build support for wood bison conservation
among constituents. Given that introduced wood bison will be determined
to be nonessential, experimental populations, hunting will be an
allowed take based on sustained yield principles established by the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game with the Service. This finding only
applies to the specific circumstances relating to establishing an NEP
of wood bison in Alaska.
Peer Review
In conformance with our policy on peer review, published on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34270), we will provide copies of this proposed rule to
three specialists to solicit comments on the scientific data and
assumptions relating to the supporting biological and ecological
information for this NEP proposed rule. The purpose of such review is
to ensure that the final NEP designation decision is based on the best
scientific information available, as well as to ensure that reviews by
appropriate experts and specialists are included in the rulemaking
review process.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is
not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent
with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever a Federal agency
publishes a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it
must prepare, and make available for public comment, a regulatory
flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small
entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small
government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis
is required if the head of an agency certifies that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require
Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for
certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. We certify that, if adopted, this
rule would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial
number of small entities. The following discussion explains our
rationale.
The area affected by this rule consists of State, Federal, and
private lands in interior and western Alaska. Reintroduction of wood
bison associated with this proposed rule would not have any significant
effect on recreational activities in the NEP area. We do not expect any
closures of roads, trails, or other recreational areas. We do not
expect wood bison reintroduction activities to affect the status of any
other species, or other resource development actions within the release
area (Fortin and Andruskiw 2003, p. 804). In addition, this proposed
rulemaking is not expected to have any significant impact on private
activities in the affected area. The designation of an NEP for wood
bison in Alaska would significantly reduce the regulatory requirements
associated with the reintroduction of wood bison, would not create
inconsistencies with other agency actions, and would not conflict with
existing or future human activities, including other resource
development, or Tribal and public use of the land. This proposed rule,
if made final, would not have significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the
ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-
based enterprises.
Lands within the NEP area that would be affected if this proposed
rule is adopted include the Yukon, Tanana, and Kuskokwim River
drainages within Alaska. Many private landowners have indicated support
for the presence of wood bison on their lands in the future. However,
some major private landowners have expressed concerns about the
potential legal and regulatory burdens related to the ESA and wood
bison, including effects on other resource development activities, such
as the possibility of natural gas extraction in an area near the
southern end of the Minto Flats State Game Refuge, the potential for
petroleum-related developments on the Yukon Flats, and mineral
development adjacent to the lower Innoko/Yukon River area. The proposed
special rule includes provisions to ensure that the reintroduction of
wood bison would not impede these or any other existing or potential
future resource development activities.
The existence of a wood bison NEP in Alaska would not interfere
with actions taken or planned by other agencies. Federal agencies most
interested in this proposed rulemaking include the Service, the Bureau
of Land Management, the National Park Service, and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs. The U.S. Forest Service has provided land to help support
bison in captivity prior to release. This proposed rulemaking is
consistent with the policies and guidelines of the other Department of
the Interior bureaus. Because of the substantial regulatory relief
provided by the NEP designation, we believe the reintroduction of wood
bison in the areas described would not conflict with existing or future
human activities on public lands administered by these agencies.
This proposed rule, if made final, would not materially affect
entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and
obligations of their recipients. This rule would not raise novel legal
or policy issues. The Service has previously designated experimental
populations of other species at numerous locations throughout the
nation.
On the basis of this information, as stated earlier, we certify
that, if adopted, this rule would not have a significant economic
effect on a substantial number of small entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), if adopted, the proposed NEP
[[Page 4115]]
designation would not place any additional requirements on any city,
village, borough, or other local municipalities. The proposed specific
sites where the NEP of wood bison would occur include predominantly
State, Federal, and private lands in interior and western Alaska. Many
landowners and agencies have expressed support for this project. The
State has expressed support for accomplishing the reintroduction
through an NEP designation. Accordingly, the NEP would not
``significantly or uniquely'' affect small governments. A Small
Government Agency Plan is not required.
The NEP designation for wood bison in Alaska would not impose any
additional management or protection requirements on the State or other
entities. ADF&G has determined that restoring wood bison to Alaska is a
high priority, and has voluntarily undertaken all efforts associated
with this proposed restoration project. Since this rulemaking does not
require that any action be taken by local or State government or
private entities, we have determined and certify pursuant to the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., that this
rulemaking would not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given
year on local or State governments or private entities (i.e., it is not
a ``significant regulatory action'' under this Act).
Takings (E.O. 12630)
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, we have determined that
the establishment of a wood bison NEP would not have significant
takings implications. Designating reintroduced populations of federally
listed species as NEPs significantly reduces the ESA's regulatory
requirements with respect to that species within the NEP. Under NEP
designations, the ESA requires a Federal agency to confer with the
Service if the agency determines its action within the NEP area is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the reintroduced
species. However, even if a proposed Federal agency action would
completely eliminate a reintroduced species from an NEP, the ESA would
not compel the agency to deny a permit or cease any activity as long as
the Service does not foresee that the activity may jeopardize the
species' continued existence throughout its range. Furthermore, the
results of a conference are advisory and do not restrict agencies from
carrying out, funding, or authorizing activities. Additionally, the
proposed section 4(d) special rule stipulates that unintentional take
(including killing or injuring) of the reintroduced wood bison would
not be a violation of the ESA, when such take is incidental to an
otherwise legal activity (e.g., oil and gas development, mineral
extraction).
Multiple-use management of lands within the NEP area by government,
industry, or recreational interests would not change as a result of the
NEP designation. Because of the substantial regulatory relief provided
by NEP designations, we do not believe the proposed reintroduction of
wood bison would conflict with existing human activities or hinder
public use of the NEP area. Private landowners and others who live in
or visit the NEP area would be able to continue to conduct their usual
resource-gathering activities. The State of Alaska, through ADF&G, is a
strong supporter of wood bison reintroduction under the NEP designation
and has led the development and implementation of the restoration
effort. A takings implication assessment is therefore not required
because this rule: (1) Would not effectively compel a property owner to
suffer a physical invasion of property, and (2) would not deny
economically beneficial or productive use of the land or aquatic
resources. This rule would substantially advance a legitimate
government interest (conservation of a listed species) and would not
present a barrier to any reasonable and expected beneficial use of
private property.
Federalism (E.O. 13132)
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, we have considered
whether this proposed rule has significant Federalism effects and have
determined that a Federalism assessment is not required. This rule
would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. In keeping with Department of the Interior policy, we
requested information from and coordinated development of this proposed
rule with the affected resource agencies in the State of Alaska. No
intrusion on State policy or administration is expected, roles or
responsibilities of Federal or State governments would not change, and
fiscal capacity would not be substantially directly affected. The
proposed special rule operates to maintain the existing relationship
between the State and the Federal Government and is being undertaken in
coordination with the State of Alaska. The State endorses the NEP
designation as the most feasible way to pursue wood bison restoration
in Alaska, and we have cooperated with ADF&G in preparing this proposed
rule. Therefore, this proposed rule does not have significant
Federalism effects or implications that would warrant the preparation
of a Federalism Assessment pursuant to the provisions of Executive
Order 13132.
Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the
Solicitor has determined that this rule would not unduly burden the
judicial system and would meet the requirements of sections (3)(a) and
(3)(b)(2) of the Order.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This proposed rule does not contain new information collection
requirements, and a submission under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
is not required. The Office of Management and Budget has approved the
reporting requirements associated with experimental populations and has
assigned OMB Control Number 1018-0095, expiring on May 31, 2014. We may
not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
In compliance with all provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), we have analyzed the
impact of this proposed rule. Based on this analysis and any new
information resulting from public comment on the proposed action, we
will determine if there are any significant impacts or effects caused
by this rule. We have prepared a draft EA on this proposed action and
have made it available for public inspection: (1) In person at the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service's Regional Office (see ADDRESSES), and (2)
online at http://www.regulations.gov. All appropriate NEPA documents
will be finalized before this rule is finalized.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes (E.O. 13175)
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department
of the Interior Manual Chapter 512 DM 2, the Service, through ADF&G,
has coordinated closely with the Tribal governments near potential
release sites throughout development of this project and rulemaking
process. The Service has extended an invitation for consultation to all
Tribes within the
[[Page 4116]]
NEP area and will fully consider information received through the
Government-to-Government consultation process, as well as all comments
submitted during the public comment period by Tribal members or Tribal
entities on the proposed NEP designation and wood bison reintroduction.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (E.O. 13211)
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. Because this proposed
rule is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies,
distribution, and use, it is not a significant energy action.
Therefore, no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections
or paragraphs that are not clearly written, which sections or sentences
are too long, and the sections where you feel lists or tables would be
useful, etc.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is
available at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Fish
and Wildlife Service's Regional Office, Fisheries and Ecological
Services (see ADDRESSES).
Author
The primary authors of this proposed rule are Judy Jacobs, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK, and Bob Stephenson, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Fairbanks, AK.
Administrative Changes to the ESA List at 50 CFR 17.11(h)
In preparing this proposed rule, we noted two errors in entries in
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11(h); both
are in the ``Special rules'' column. The entry for the special rule for
slender chub (Erimystax cahni) includes a reference to ``17.84(sr)'';
this reference should be to ``17.84(s)''. The entry for the special
rule for bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) includes a reference to
``17.84(v)''; this reference should be to ``17.84(w)''.
These entries are in no way related to this special rule concerning
wood bison. However, to correct these errors in the Code of Federal
Regulations, we must publish a rulemaking document in the Federal
Register. Therefore, we are using this rulemaking action as the vehicle
for making these corrections. Accordingly, we have proposed to revise
these entries in the rule portion of this document. These changes are
noncontroversial and purely administrative in nature.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the U.S. 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 entries for ``Bison, wood''
under ``Mammals'' and ``Chub, slender'' and ``Trout, bull'' under
``Fishes'' in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to read as
follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historical 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.
Bison, wood...................... Bison bison Canada, Alaska..... U.S.A. (Alaska).... XN ........... NA 17.84(x)
athabascae.
* * * * * * *
Fishes
* * * * * * *
Chub, slender.................... Erimystax cahni..... U.S.A. (TN, VA).... Entire, except T 28 17.95(e) 17.44(c)
where listed as an
experimental
population.
Chub, slender.................... Erimystax cahni..... U.S.A. (TN, VA).... U.S.A. (TN-- XN ........... NA 17.84(s)
specified portions
of the French
Broad and Holston
Rivers; see
17.84(s)(1)(i)).
[[Page 4117]]
* * * * * * *
Trout, bull...................... Salvelinus U.S.A. (AK, Pacific U.S.A., coterminous T 637, 639E, 17.95(e) 17.44(w),
confluentus. NW into CA, ID, (lower 48 states), 659, 670 17.44(x)
NV, MT) Canada (NW except where
Territories). listed as an
experimental
population.
Trout, bull...................... Salvelinus U.S.A. (AK, Pacific Clackamas River XN ........... NA 17.84(w)
confluentus. NW into CA, ID, subbasin and the
NV, MT) Canada (NW mainstem
Territories). Willamette River,
from Willamette
Falls to its
points of
confluence with
the Columbia
River, including
Multnomah Channel.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Amend Sec. 17.84 by adding a new paragraph (x) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.84 Special rules--vertebrates.
* * * * *
(x) Wood bison (Bison bison athabascae).
(1) Wood bison within the area identified in paragraph (x)(2)(i) of
this section are members of a nonessential experimental population
(NEP) and will be managed primarily by the State of Alaska, in
cooperation with the Service, in accordance with this rule and the
respective management plans.
(2) Where are wood bison in Alaska designated as an NEP?
(i) The boundaries of the NEP area encompass the Yukon, Tanana, and
Kuskokwim River drainages in Alaska (Figure 1). The NEP area includes
much of the wood bison's historical range in Alaska, and the release
sites are within the species' historical range. The NEP area is defined
as follows: the Yukon River drainage from the United States-Canada
border downstream to its mouth; the Tanana River drainage from the
United States-Canada border downstream to its confluence with the Yukon
River; and the Kuskokwim River drainage from its headwaters downstream
to its mouth at the Bering Sea.
[[Page 4118]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JA13.000
(ii) Any wood bison found within the Alaska wood bison NEP area,
and reintroduction sites within this area, will be considered part of
the NEP. The bison will be managed by the State of Alaska (ADF&G) to
prevent establishment of any population outside the NEP area.
(3) Under what circumstances might an Alaska wood bison NEP be
eliminated?
(i) We do not anticipate eliminating all individuals within an
Alaska wood bison NEP unless:
(A) The State deems the reintroduction efforts a failure or most
members of reintroduced populations have disappeared for any reason;
(B) Monitoring of wood bison in Alaska indicates appreciable harm
to other native wildlife, such as the introduction of disease or other
unanticipated environmental consequences associated with their
presence; or
(C) Legal or statutory changes reduce or eliminate the State's
ability to complete the restoration effort as designed and intended in
its management plans, with the management flexibility and protection of
other land uses (including other resource development) provided in this
NEP designation.
(ii) If any of the circumstances listed in paragraph (x)(3)(i) of
this section occur, some or all wood bison may be removed from the wild
in Alaska by any method deemed practicable by the State, including
lethal removal. If the reintroduction of wood bison under this
nonessential experimental designation is discontinued for any reason
and no action is taken by the Service and the State to change the
designation, all remaining wood bison in Alaska will retain their NEP
status.
(4) Which agency is the management lead for wood bison in Alaska?
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) will have primary
responsibility for leading and implementing the wood bison restoration
effort, in cooperation with the Service, and will keep the Service
apprised of the status of the effort on an ongoing basis. The Service
will retain responsibility for ensuring compliance with all provisions
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.), including compliance with section 7 for actions occurring on
National Wildlife Refuge and National Park Service lands.
(5) What take of wood bison is allowed in the NEP area? In the
following instances, wood bison may be taken in accordance with
applicable State fish and wildlife conservation laws and regulations:
[[Page 4119]]
(i) Hunting will be an allowed take based on sustained yield
principles established by the ADF&G.
(ii) A wood bison may be taken within the NEP area, provided that
such take is not willful, knowing, or due to negligence, or is
incidental to and not the purpose of the carrying out of an otherwise
lawful activity, including but not limited to recreation (e.g.,
trapping, hiking, camping, or shooting activities); forestry;
agriculture; oil and gas exploration and development and associated
activities; construction and maintenance of roads or railroads,
buildings, facilities, energy projects, pipelines, and transmission
lines of any kind; mining; mineral exploration; travel by any means,
including vehicles, watercraft, snow machines, or aircraft; tourism;
and other activities that are in accordance with Federal, State, and
local laws and regulations and specific authorizations. Such conduct is
not considered intentional or ``knowing take'' for purposes of this
regulation, and neither the Service nor the State will take legal
action for such conduct. Any cases of ``knowing take'' will be referred
to the appropriate authorities for prosecution.
(iii) Any person with a valid permit issued by the Service under 50
CFR 17.32 or by ADF&G may take wood bison for educational purposes,
scientific purposes, the enhancement of propagation or survival of the
species, zoological exhibition, and other conservation purposes
consistent with the ESA. Additionally, any employee or agent of the
Service or ADF&G designated for such purposes, acting in the course of
official duties, may take a wood bison in the wild in the NEP area if
such action is necessary:
(A) For scientific purposes;
(B) To relocate a wood bison to avoid conflict with human
activities;
(C) To relocate a wood bison if necessary to protect the wood
bison;
(D) To relocate wood bison within the NEP area to improve wood
bison survival and recovery prospects or for genetic purposes;
(E) To relocate wood bison from one population in the NEP area into
another, or into captivity;
(F) To aid or euthanize a sick, injured, or orphaned wood bison;
(G) To dispose of a dead wood bison, or salvage a dead wood bison
for scientific purposes;
(H) To relocate wood bison that have moved outside the experimental
population back into the experimental population; or
(I) To aid in law enforcement investigations involving wood bison.
(iv) Any person may take a wood bison in defense of the
individual's life or the life of another person. The Service, the
State, or our designated agent(s) may also promptly remove any wood
bison that the Service, the State, or our designated agent(s) determine
to be a threat to human life or safety. Any such taking must be
reported within 24 hours to the location identified in paragraph
(x)(5)(vi) of this section.
(v) In connection with otherwise lawful activities, including but
not limited to the use and development of land, provided at paragraph
(x)(5)(ii) of this section, the Federal Government, the State,
municipalities of the State, other local governments, Native American
Tribal Governments, and all landowners and their employees or
authorized agents, tenants, or designees may harass wood bison in the
areas defined in paragraph (x)(2)(i) of this section, provided that all
such harassment is by methods that are not lethal or physically
injurious to wood bison and is reported within 24 hours to the location
identified in paragraph (x)(5)(vi) of this section.
(vi) Any taking pursuant to paragraph (x)(5)(ii) of this section
must be reported within 14 days by contacting the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game, 1300 College Road, Fairbanks, AK 99701; (907) 459-7206.
The ADF&G will determine the most appropriate course of action
regarding any live or dead specimens.
(6) What take of wood bison is not allowed in the NEP area?
(i) Except as expressly allowed in paragraph (x)(5) of this
section, all the provisions of 50 CFR 17.31(a) and (b) apply to the
wood bison identified in paragraph (x)(1) of this section.
(ii) Any manner of take not described under paragraph (x)(5) of
this section is prohibited in the NEP area.
(iii) You may not possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, ship,
import, or export by any means whatsoever any of the identified wood
bison, or parts thereof, that are taken or possessed in a manner not
expressly allowed in paragraph (x)(5) of this section or in violation
of the applicable State or local fish and wildlife laws or regulations
or the ESA.
(iv) You may not attempt to commit, solicit another to commit, or
cause to be committed any offense except the take expressly allowed in
paragraph (x)(5) of this section.
(7) How will the effectiveness of the reestablishment be monitored?
The ADF&G will monitor the population status of reintroduced bison
herds at least annually and document productivity, survival, and
population size. The Service or other Federal agencies may also be
involved in population monitoring, particularly where National Refuge
System or Bureau of Land Management lands are involved. Tribal
governments or other organizations may also participate in population
monitoring and other management activities. Depending on available
resources, monitoring may occur more frequently, especially during the
first few years of reestablishment efforts. This monitoring will be
conducted primarily through aerial surveys and will be accomplished by
State or Service employees, through cooperative efforts with local
governments, or by contracting with other appropriate species experts.
Dated: January 2, 2013.
Michael J. Bean,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2013-00692 Filed 1-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P