[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 76 (Friday, April 19, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23533-23536]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09241]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2012-0094; FXES111309F2130-123-FF09E22000]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To Delist the Wood Bison
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to delist the wood bison (Bison bison
athabascae) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
Based on our review, we find that the petition does not present
substantial information indicating that delisting the wood bison
subspecies may be warranted. Therefore, we are not initiating a status
review in response to this petition. However, we ask the public to
submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the
status of, or threats to, the wood bison or its habitat at any time.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on April 19,
2013.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-HQ-ES-2012-0094. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Regional Office, 1011 East Tudor
Road, Anchorage, AK 99503; (907) 786-3856. Please submit any new
information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding
to the above street address.
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 by telephone at 907-786-3559; or by
facsimile at (907) 786-3848. If you use a telecommunications device for
the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires
that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or
reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We
are to base this finding on information provided in the petition,
supporting information submitted with the petition, and information
otherwise available in our files. To the maximum extent practicable, we
are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition,
and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information
within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day
petition finding is ``that amount of information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition
may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial
scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to
promptly conduct a species status review, which we subsequently
summarize in our 12-month finding.
Petition History
On April 3, 2012, we received a petition, dated April 3, 2012, from
the Western Bison Association, the Rocky Mountain Buffalo Association,
the Minnesota Buffalo Association, the Oklahoma Buffalo Association,
the North Dakota Buffalo Association, the Northwest Buffalo
Association, the Missouri Buffalo Association, the Kansas Buffalo
Association, and W. Michael Gear and Kathleen O'Neal Gear requesting
that the wood bison be removed from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife as threatened under the Act. The petition clearly
identified itself as such and included the requisite identification
information for the petitioners, as required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a
letter to the petitioners sent April 24, 2012, we stated that we
anticipated that we would review the petition and make a finding within
the coming year. This finding addresses the petition.
Previous Federal Action(s)
The listing history for wood bison is extensive and was
reconstructed in the proposed rule to reclassify wood bison from
endangered to threatened, which published February 8, 2011 (76 FR
[[Page 23534]]
6734). Please refer to that document for the complete listing history.
Here we present only the most pertinent facts.
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 under the 1973 Endangered Species Act appeared in the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR); the wood bison was listed as an endangered
species based on its inclusion on the original 1969 list. Because the
wood bison was listed under the 1969 Endangered Species Conservation
Act, there is not a separate Federal Register notice that defined the
population(s) and their range, or analyzed threats to the subspecies.
On May 14, 1998, the Service received a petition from a private
individual requesting that the Service remove the wood bison from the
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, primarily because it had
been downlisted from Appendix I to Appendix II 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
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 published a proposed rule to reclassify
wood bison (76 FR 6734), and on May 3, 2012, we published a final rule
reclassifying wood bison as threatened under the Act (77 FR 26191).
Status in Canada
In Canada, the Species at Risk Act (SARA) is the Canadian
counterpart to the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Under the SARA, the
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) was
established as the scientific body that identifies and assesses a
species' status. The wood bison was recognized by the COSEWIC as an
endangered subspecies of Canadian wildlife in 1978. Wood bison was
reclassified to threatened in June 1988, based on a status report
prepared by the National Wood Bison Recovery Team. The National Wood
Bison Recovery Team published a national recovery plan in 2001 (Gates
et al. 2001), which has guided recovery actions in Canada since that
time.
Species Information
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).
Detailed information on the biology of wood bison is provided in our
February 8, 2011, proposed rule to reclassify wood bison as threatened
(76 FR 6734) and in our May 3, 2012, final rule (77 FR 26191). Please
refer to those documents for a detailed account of the species'
biology.
Taxonomy
In the proposed and final rules (76 FR 6734, 77 FR 26191), we adopt
the widely accepted notion that wood bison is a valid subspecies, a
point which the petitioners contest. The petitioners assert that wood
bison and plains bison (Bison bison bison) are not significantly
different and that they should be considered a single species.
Therefore, we discuss taxonomic classification and our rationale for
accepting wood bison as a valid subspecies below.
Taxonomy is the theory and practice of classifying organisms.
Traditionally, physical characteristics of an organism were used to
describe a species. However, from an evolutionary perspective,
appearances can be deceptive; animals that look alike may not be
closely related and animals that appear different from one another may
actually be closely related. With the advent of sophisticated molecular
tools, taxonomists can now examine various aspects of a species genetic
code to help them determine how closely animals are related to one
another. Although molecular techniques have added another tool in the
taxonomist's toolbox, they also have limitations and do not necessarily
give an unambiguous picture of the relationship among species. Sample
size (number of animals sampled, number of genes sampled, or the number
of loci on a gene sampled), type of DNA examined (mitochondrial DNA vs.
nuclear DNA), the techniques used, and the populations selected for
sampling are among a few of the reasons that variable or ambiguous
results may arise. In addition, how a species (or subspecies) is
defined, which on its face is a simple concept, is in reality very
complex, and several definitions for ``species'' exist (Mayr and
Ashlock 1991, pp. 24-28; de Queiroz 2007, pp. 879-885). Consequently,
the intersection of incomplete knowledge of exactly how animals are
related to one another, combined with the human concept of what a
species is, often culminates in controversy over whether certain groups
of animals should be lumped together or split apart. Such is the case
for wood bison.
We recognize, as the petitioners assert, that differences in
opinion exist regarding the division of Bison into two subspecies (B.
b. athabascae and B. b. bison) (e.g., Bork et al. 1991, pp. 43, 47;
Geist 1991, p. 283). However, quantified differences in pelage (e.g.,
distribution of mane, chaps, and cape) and structure (e.g., overall
body size, location of hump, length of horns) have been described (van
Zyll de Jong et al. 1995, pp. 394-400). These differences, and the fact
that wood bison and plains bison are physically separated by a great
distance, led Boyd et al. (2010, p. 16 (American Bison Specialist
Group)) to conclude separation into two subspecies is consistent with
the subspecies concept. As noted in our final rule to downlist wood
bison (77 FR 26209), the introduction of plains bison into Wood Buffalo
National Park in Canada, the only place where wood bison remained in
the 1920s, led to some degree of hybridization. However, genetic
analysis has indicated that although the wood bison had limited contact
with plains bison, it was minimal enough that the animals exhibit
predominantly wood bison traits. Wood bison originating from founders
with minimal contact with plains bison are genetically more similar to
one another than they are to plains bison (van Zyll de Jong et al.
1995, pp. 394-404; Wilson and Strobeck 1999, p. 493). Hybridization did
not lead to a phenotypically homogenous population (one population that
looks the same) (van Zyll de Jong et al. 1995, pp. 394-404).
As described above, molecular tools can be used to evaluate the
relatedness of individuals, populations, species, and genera. The work
of Wilson (2001) and Wilson and Strobeck (1999, pp. 493-
[[Page 23535]]
494) using DNA microsatellites indicate that the genetic differences
between plains bison and wood bison are greater than those within
either of the two subspecies. These results support maintaining the
subspecific designation. Results of studies that sequence only
mitochondrial DNA are of limited value in answering questions about
subspecific designation because mitochondrial DNA is inherited only
from the maternal side (Avise 1994, pp. 62, 99). In the case of Douglas
et al. (2011), which the petitioners use as support for their argument
of lumping the subspecies together, mitochondrial DNA from only two
wood bison were sequenced, further limiting the authors' ability to
draw general conclusions about the relatedness of wood and plains
bison. As Boyd et al. (2010, p. 17) note, the inability to detect a
difference with a molecular test comparing limited sequences of genomic
material does not necessarily mean that there is no difference. It is
possible that in the future refined genetic analysis with appropriate
sample design and sample size will provide a more compelling reason to
lump the two subspecies together. Until that time, we will continue to
follow the accepted separation of North American bison into two
subspecies.
The Canadian National Recovery Plan (Gates et al. 2001, p. 28)
provides this summary about American bison subspecies:
(1) Historically, wood bison differed from other bison populations
with regard to multiple morphological and genetic characteristics.
(2) The intrusion of plains bison into the range of wood bison in
1925-1928 was entirely human-caused.
(3) The two North American bison subspecies continue to be
morphologically and genetically distinct, despite some hybridization in
the 1920s.
(4) Wood bison and their descendants continue to constitute
populations of a subspecies of bison.
In a recent evaluation of the subspecific separation of wood bison
from plains bison, Boyd et al. (2010 pp. 15-18) also conclude that
there appears to be sufficient justification for the formal recognition
of the two subspecies. In addition, they point out that regardless of
the formal designation for wood bison, all forms of geographic and
ecological variation contribute to biodiversity and that variants of a
species may have evolutionarily important ecological adaptations (Boyd
et al. 2010, p. 18). This reality is reflected in the Service's ability
to recognize and provide protection to ``distinct population segments''
at a taxonomic level below subspecies. In addition, COSEWIC also
considers and includes subspecies, varieties, or geographically or
genetically distinct populations in its definition of wildlife species
(http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct2/sct2_5_e.cfm, viewed June 26,
2012). Both the Act and SARA recognize that conservation of biological
diversity requires protection for taxonomic entities below the species
level whether at the subspecific level or less (e.g., distinct
populations). Therefore, regardless of how we name the populations we
now call wood bison, since its description in 1897 (Rhoads 1897) wood
bison in Canada have been recognized as a unique subspecies and managed
as such. Consequently, even if we were to consider wood bison and
plains bison as one species, that would not automatically lead to the
delisting of the wood bison.
The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Code) provides
guidance to zoologists worldwide regarding naming species. In the
Preface to the Code it states, ``Nomenclatural rules are tools that are
designed to provide the maximum stability compatible with taxonomic
freedom.'' A published ``revision'' or ``monograph'' is the standard
method used to examine all the species within a group and present a
unified synopsis of all of the information available (Mayr and Ashlock
1991, p. 348). Recognizing the taxonomic controversy that exists for
the subspecific designation of wood bison, a reasonable, defensible,
and conservative approach is to follow the naming conventions that are
in place. The petition does not provide compelling, convincing, or
unambiguous information that would cause the Service to consider wood
bison and plains bison as a single species, nor can we authoritatively
resolve this issue with the information available.
In summary, based on the historical physical separation, and
quantifiable behavioral, morphological, phenological (appearance), and
genetic differences between the two subspecies, the best available
scientific information indicates that subspecific designation is
appropriate (FEAP 1990, p. 24; Bork et al. 1991, p. 47; van Zyll de
Jong et al. 1995, pp. 403-404; Wilson and Strobeck 1999, pp. 492-494;
Reynolds et al. 2003, p. 1010; Boyd et al. 2010, pp. 15-18). The
established management of bison as two subspecies and the long-standing
recognition of the two subspecies by the scientific community provide
additional justification for treating wood bison and plains bison as
two distinct subspecies.
Evaluation of Information for This Finding
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 424 set forth the procedures for adding a
species to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be
an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five
factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
(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 five factors in delisting a species. We
may delist a species according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best
available scientific and commercial data indicate that the species is
neither endangered nor threatened for the following reasons:
(1) The species is extinct;
(2) The species has recovered and is no longer endangered or
threatened; or
(3) The original scientific data used at the time the species was
classified were in error.
In the case of this petition, the petitioners have not discussed
threats to the species (or subspecies) that remain or have been
eliminated. They focus instead on the success of recovery efforts for
wood bison ``ecotype,'' the increase in the number of animals, and the
establishment of new herds. We agree that significant strides have been
made towards recovery of wood bison, and we discussed the success of
recovery efforts in our proposed and final rules for the
reclassification of wood bison (76 FR 6734, 77 FR 26191). Although we
acknowledge that wood bison are no longer endangered, we conclude in
our final rule that threats to wood bison remain and that the wood
bison should be listed as threatened. In particular, we identified loss
of habitat, disease, and hybridization as ongoing threats. The
conclusions made in the May 3, 2012, final rule to reclassify the
subspecies are still valid. The petitioners have not provided, and we
have not received, any new information regarding threats to, or
recovery of, wood bison that was not considered in the final
reclassification rule.
[[Page 23536]]
Finding
The petition does not present substantial information to indicate
that delisting of wood bison is warranted. Although we recognize that
controversy exists around the subspecific designation for wood bison,
nomenclature stability, management history, and the acceptance of two
subspecies by the American Bison Specialist Group, the Canadian
National Wood Bison Recovery Team, and other zoologists lead us to the
conclusion that retaining the current nomenclature is appropriate and
defensible.
Although the petitioners argue that wood bison and plains bison
should be considered as one species, they did not indicate that all or
most threats to bison have been ameliorated. Instead, they focus on the
success of recovery efforts for wood bison. We agree that the status of
wood bison is more secure today than it once was. However, in our final
rule to reclassify wood bison as threatened, which published earlier
this year, we identified threats that remain to the species. The
petitioners did not provide any new information about the status of the
species that we were not already aware of and had evaluated in our
final rule.
On the basis of our determination under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the
Act, we conclude that the petition does not present substantial
scientific or commercial information to indicate that delisting the
wood bison under the Act may be warranted at this time. Although we
will not conduct a thorough review of the status of the species at this
time, we encourage interested parties to continue to gather data that
will assist with the conservation of the wood bison. If you wish to
provide information regarding the wood bison, you may submit your
information or materials to Marilyn Myers, Endangered Species
Biologist, Alaska Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT), at any time.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Alaska Regional
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Author
The primary author of this notice is Marilyn Myers of the Alaska
Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: November 7, 2012.
Daniel M. Ashe,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-09241 Filed 4-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P