[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6734-6754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2529]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R9-IA-2008-0123; MO 92210-1113FWDB B6]
RIN 1018-AI83


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassifying the 
Wood Bison (Bison bison athabascae) Under the Endangered Species Act as 
Threatened Throughout Its Range

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of 12-month petition finding.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
reclassify the wood bison (Bison bison athabascae) from endangered to 
threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 
This proposed action is amended based on a review of the best available 
scientific and commercial data, which indicate that the endangered 
designation no longer correctly reflects the status of the wood bison. 
This proposal also constitutes our 12-month finding on the petition to 
reclassify this subspecies. We are seeking data and comments from the 
public on this proposed rule.

DATES: We must receive your written comments on this proposed rule by 
April 11, 2011 in order to consider them. We must receive your written 
request for a public hearing by March 25, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments and other information by 
either of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: FWS-R9-IA-2008-0123; Division of Policy and Directives 
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Myers at U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Fisheries and Ecological Services, 1011 E. Tudor 
Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99503, or telephone 907-786-3559 or by 
facsimile at (907) 786-3848. If you use a telecommunications device for 
the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service 
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from the public, other concerned governmental 
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested 
party concerning this proposed rule to reclassify the wood bison as 
threatened. The comments that will be most useful and likely to 
influence our decisions are those that are supported by data or peer-
reviewed studies and those that include citations to, and analyses of, 
applicable laws and regulations. Please make your comments as specific 
as possible and explain the basis for them. In addition, please include 
sufficient information with your comments (such as scientific journal 
articles or other publications) to allow us to authenticate any 
scientific or commercial information you include. We particularly seek 
comments concerning:
    (1) Information on taxonomy, distribution, habitat selection and 
use, food habits, population density and trends, habitat trends, 
disease, and effects of management on wood bison;
    (2) Information on captive herds, including efficacy of breeding 
and reintroduction programs, origin of parental stock, stock 
supplementation for genetic purposes, growth rates, birth and mortality 
rates in captivity, location of captive herds in comparison to wild 
populations, effects of captive breeding on the species, and any other 
factors from captive breeding that might affect wild populations or 
natural habitat;
    (3) Information on the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; 
trends in domestic and international trade of live specimens, sport-
hunted trophies, or other parts and products; poaching of wild wood 
bison; illegal trade and enforcement efforts and solutions; and

[[Page 6735]]

oversight of reintroduction or introduction programs;
    (4) Information on the effects of other potential threat factors, 
including contaminants, changes of the distribution and abundance of 
wild populations, disease episodes within wild and captive populations, 
large mortality events, the effects of climate change, or negative 
effects resulting from the presence of invasive species;
    (5) Information on management programs for wood bison conservation 
in the wild, including private, tribal, or governmental conservation 
programs that benefit wood bison; and
    (6) Current or planned activities within the geographic range of 
the wood bison that may impact or benefit the species including any 
planned developments, roads, or expansion of agricultural enterprises.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for or 
opposition to the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in 
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species 
Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) directs that a determination as to whether 
any species is a threatened or endangered species must be made ``solely 
on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
    Prior to issuing a final rule on this proposed action, we will take 
into consideration all comments and any additional information we 
receive. Such information may lead to a final rule that differs from 
this proposal. All comments and recommendations, including names and 
addresses, will become part of the administrative record.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not 
accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in 
the ADDRESSES section.
    We will post your entire comments--including your personal 
identifying information--on http://www.regulations.gov. If your written 
comments provide personal identifying information, you may request at 
the top of your documents that we withhold this information from public 
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Anchorage Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Public Hearing

    Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act provides for one or more public 
hearings on this proposal, if requested. We must receive requests for 
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT by the date shown in DATES. We will schedule public 
hearings on this proposal, if any are requested, and announce the 
dates, times, and places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain 
reasonable accommodations, in the Federal Register at least 15 days 
before the first hearing.

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires the Service to make a 
finding known as a ``90-day finding,'' on whether a petition to add, 
remove, or reclassify a species from the list of endangered or 
threatened species has presented substantial information indicating 
that the requested action may be warranted. To the maximum extent 
practicable, the finding shall be made within 90 days following receipt 
of the petition and published promptly in the Federal Register. If the 
Service finds that the petition has presented substantial information 
indicating that the requested action may be warranted (referred to as a 
positive finding), section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires the Service 
to commence a status review of the species if one has not already been 
initiated under the Service's internal candidate assessment process. In 
addition, section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires the Service to make a 
finding within 12 months following receipt of the petition on whether 
the requested action is warranted, not warranted, or warranted but 
precluded by higher-priority listing actions (this finding is referred 
to as the ``12-month finding''). Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires 
that a finding of warranted but precluded for petitioned species should 
be treated as having been resubmitted on the date of the warranted but 
precluded finding, and is, therefore, subject to a new finding within 1 
year and subsequently thereafter until we take action on a proposal to 
list or withdraw our original finding. The Service publishes an annual 
notice of resubmitted petition findings (annual notice) for all foreign 
species for which listings were previously found to be warranted but 
precluded.
    In this notice, we announce a warranted 12-month finding and 
proposed rule to reclassify the wood bison from an endangered species 
to a threatened species under the Act.

Previous Federal Actions

    The listing history is reconstructed here based on Federal Register 
documents and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Wood bison became 
listed in the United States under the 1969 Endangered Species 
Conservation Act when it was included on the first List of Endangered 
Foreign Fish and Wildlife, which was published in the Federal Register 
on June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8491). A column labeled ``where found'' 
indicated ``Canada,'' but the introduction to the list stated that 
``[t]he `Where Found' column is a general guide to the native countries 
or regions where the named animals are found. It is not intended to be 
definitive.''
    In 1974, the first list under the 1973 Endangered Species Act 
appeared in the CFR. Because the wood bison was listed under the 1969 
Endangered Species Conservation Act, there is not a separate Federal 
Register notice that defined the population(s) and analyzed threats to 
the species. Like the 1970 list, the list for foreign species at 50 CFR 
17.11 listed the wood bison, with a ``where found'' column indicating 
``Canada.'' Section 17.11 further specified that ``[t]he `where found' 
column is provided for the convenience of the public, is not 
exhaustive, is not required to be given by law, and has no legal 
significance.''
    Population-based listings, the precursor to the current Distinct 
Population Segments (DPS) approach first appeared with the 1975 list. 
In the 1975 CFR, wood bison appeared listed with ``N/A'' (not 
applicable) under ``Population.'' Section 17.11(b) stated that the 
``Population'' column, along with the scientific and common names, 
``define[s] the `species' of wildlife within the meaning of the Act.'' 
This section for the first time also indicated that ``[t]he 
prohibitions in the Act and in this Part 17 apply to all specimens of 
the `species' listed, wherever they are found, and to their progeny.'' 
The ``Known Distribution'' column for wood bison again indicated 
``Canada.'' Paragraph (d) of Sec.  17.11 reiterated that the ``known 
distribution'' column was ``[f]or information purposes only'' and also 
advised that the column ``does not imply any limitation on the 
application of the prohibitions in the Act and in this Part 17. Such 
prohibitions apply to all specimens of the species, wherever found.'' 
Wood bison remained listed in this manner until 1979.
    In 1979, the Service published a notification in the Federal 
Register that questioned the listing status of the wood bison along 
with six other species. The

[[Page 6736]]

notification advised that the Service had failed to follow a procedural 
requirement of the 1969 Act for these species (consulting with the 
governor of any state in which the species is found), and thus 
concluded that the U.S. populations of these species were not covered 
by the listing, although the foreign populations would continue to be 
covered. The notice was also clear that the Service had always intended 
for all populations--foreign and domestic--of all seven species to be 
covered by the listing. The Service followed up on the notification on 
July 25, 1980, with a rule for five of the species in which it proposed 
to include the U.S. populations in the listing to correct the 
procedural error (45 FR 49844). The 1980 proposed rule did not include 
the wood bison. The Service indicated that the procedural error did not 
apply to wood bison because no non-hybridized wood bison were found in 
the United States. If no pure wood bison occurred in the United States 
as of the subspecies' listing under the 1969 Act, there would have been 
no States to consult with and, therefore, no procedural listing error.
    Although the Service had found no error with the original listing 
of the entire wood bison subspecies, the 1980 CFR for the first time 
mistakenly indicated that the listed entity for wood bison was a DPS. 
The CFR indicated ``Canada'' in the ``Vertebrate population where 
endangered or threatened'' column. The listing has remained in this 
form through the current CFR. Despite this 1980 designation, it is 
clear that the wood bison is listed at the subspecies level. The CFR 
through 1980 indicates the Service's intent of the original listing, 
and we have conducted no rulemaking since that time to change the scope 
of the listed entity. The entire ``population'' of wood bison in Canada 
is the full extent of the subspecies' current range and no individuals 
occur in the wild outside this population. Therefore, the wood bison in 
Canada would not qualify for a population-based listing (i.e., a DPS).
    On May 14, 1998, the Service received a petition from a private 
individual requesting that the Service remove the wood bison from the 
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, primarily because it had 
been downlisted under CITES. In a 90-day finding published on November 
25, 1998 (63 FR 65164), we found that the petitioner did not provide 
substantial information to indicate that the delisting may be 
warranted.
    On November 26, 2007, we received a petition from the co-chairs of 
Canada's National Wood Bison Recovery Team requesting that we 
reclassify the wood bison from endangered to threatened. The petition 
contained information about recovery efforts in Canada and referred to 
information provided to the Service. On February 3, 2009, we published 
a 90-day finding (74 FR 5908) acknowledging that the petition provided 
sufficient information to indicate that reclassification may be 
warranted and that we would initiate a status review. This document 
represents both our 12-month finding for wood bison and a proposed rule 
to downlist the species.

Species Information

Taxonomy and Species Description

    Wood bison (Bison bison athabascae) belongs to the family Bovidae, 
which also includes cattle, sheep and goats. Debate over the generic 
name Bison continues with some authorities using Bos and others using 
Bison depending on the methodology used to determine relationships 
among members of the tribe Bovini (Asian water buffalo, African 
buffalo, cattle and their wild relatives, and bison) (Boyd et al. 2010, 
pp. 13-15.). In this discussion, we will use Bison, which is consistent 
with ``Wild Mammals of North America'' (Reynolds et al. 2003, p. 1010), 
``Mammal Species of the World'' (Wilson and Reeder 2005, p. 689), and 
the Wood Bison Recovery Team (Gates et al. 2001, p. 25). Wood bison was 
first described as a subspecies in 1897 (Rhoads 1897, pp. 498-500). One 
other extant bison subspecies, the plains bison (B. b. bison), occurs 
in the United States and Canada. Based on the historical physical 
separation, and quantifiable behavioral, morphological, and 
phenological (appearance) differences between the two subspecies, the 
scientific evidence indicates that subspecific designation is 
appropriate (van Zyll de Jong et al. 1995, p. 403; FEAP 1990, p. 24; 
Reynolds et al. 2003, p. 1010; Gates et al. 2010, pp. 15-17).
    Wood bison is the largest native extant terrestrial mammal in North 
America (Reynolds et al. 2003, p. 1015). Average weight of mature males 
(age 8) is 910 kilograms (kg) (2,006 pounds (lb)) and the average 
weight of mature females (age 13) is 440 kg (970 lb) (Reynolds et al. 
2003, p. 1015). They have a large triangular head, a thin beard and 
rudimentary throat mane, and a poorly demarcated cape (Boyd et al. 
2010, p. 16). In addition, the highest point of their hump is forward 
of their front legs; they have reduced chaps on their front legs; and 
their horns usually extend above the hair on their head (Boyd et al. 
2010, p. 16). These physical characteristics distinguish them from the 
plains bison (Reynolds et al. 2003, p. 1015; Boyd et al. 2010, p. 16).

Distribution

    The exact extent of the original range of wood bison cannot be 
determined with certainty based on available information, but was 
limited to North America (Gates et al. 2001, p. 11). However, 
historically, the range of the wood bison was generally north of that 
occupied by the plains bison and included most boreal regions of 
northern Alberta; northeastern British Columbia east of Cordillera; a 
small portion of northwestern Saskatchewan; the western Northwest 
Territories south and west of Great Slave Lake; the Mackenzie River 
Valley; most of The Yukon Territory; and much of interior Alaska 
(Reynolds et al. 2003, pp. 1011-1012). Skinner and Kaisen (1947, pp. 
158, 164) suggested that the prehistorical U.S. range extended from 
Alaska to Colorado, and Stephenson et al. (2001, p. 140) concluded that 
wood bison were present within the boundaries of what is now defined as 
Alaska until their disappearance during the last few hundred years. 
Currently, there is neither a wild population in Alaska nor the 
continental United States (Harper and Gates 2000, p. 917; Stephenson et 
al. 2001, p. 140).
    During the early 1800s, wood bison numbers were estimated at 
168,000, but by the late 1800s, the subspecies was nearly eliminated 
with only a few hundred remaining (Gates et al. 2001, p. 11). In the 
words of Soper (1941, p. 362), wood ``bison appear to have been 
practically exterminated,'' and based on the fate of plains bison, in 
which 40 to 60 million animals were reduced to just over 1,000 animals 
in less than 100 years (Hornaday 1889; Wilson and Strobeck 1998, p. 
180), overharvest may have been the cause for the decline (Harper and 
Gates 2000, p. 915). The fact that populations began to rebound once 
protection was in place and enforced supports this idea (Soper 1941, 
pp. 362-363). In 1922, Wood Buffalo National Park (WBNP) was set aside 
for the protection of the last remnant population of wood bison. Since 
that time several additional herds have been established (Table 1).

[[Page 6737]]



   Table 1--Sizes of Wood Bison Herds in Canada From 1978 to 2008 (Data Provided by Canadian Wildlife Service)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Herd category and name                 1978     1988     2000     2002     2004     2006     2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free-ranging, disease-free herds:
    Mackenzie....................................      300     1718     1908     2000     2000    ~2000     1600
    Nahanni......................................  .......       30      160      170      399      400      400
    Aishihik.....................................  .......  .......      500      530      550      700     1100
    Hay-Zama.....................................  .......  .......      130      234      350      600      750
    Nordquist....................................  .......  .......       50       60      112      140      140
    Etthithun....................................  .......  .......  .......       43       70      124      124
    Chitek Lake..................................  .......  .......       70      100      150      225      300
Free-ranging, diseased herds:
    Wood Buffalo \1\ National Park...............  .......  .......     2178     4050      \2\      \3\      \4\
                                                                                          4947     5641     4639
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excluding adjacent diseased Wentzel, Wabasca, and Slave River Lowlands herds.
\2\ Population estimate for year 2003.
\3\ Population estimate for year 2005.
\4\ Population estimate for year 2007.

    Another factor that is thought to have played a role in the decline 
in wood bison is a gradual loss of meadow habitat through forest 
encroachment (Stephenson et al. 2001, p. 143; Quinlan et al. 2003, p. 
343; Strong and Gates 2009, p. 439). Although not quantified, it is 
likely that because of fire suppression, and subsequent forest 
encroachment on meadows, there was a net loss of suitable open meadow 
habitat for wood bison throughout their range through about 1990. More 
intensive fire management began in Canada in the early 1900s with the 
philosophy that fire was destructive and should be eliminated to 
protect property and permit proper forest management (Stocks et al. 
2003, p. 2). However, wildfire is an integral component of boreal 
forest ecology (Weber and Flannigan 1997, p. 146; Rupp et al. 2004, p. 
213; Soja et al. 2007, p. 277). Without fire, trees encroach on meadows 
and eventually the meadow habitat is lost and replaced by forest.

Habitat

    The foraging habitats most favored by wood bison are grass and 
sedge meadows occurring on alkaline soils. These meadows are typically 
interspersed among tracts of coniferous forest, stands of poplar or 
aspen, bogs, fens, and shrublands. Meadows typically represent 5 to 20 
percent of the landscape occupied by wood bison (Larter and Gates 
1991a, p. 2682; Gates et al. 2001, p. 23). Wet meadows are rarely used 
in the summer, probably because of the energy required to maneuver 
through the mud, but they are used in late summer when they become 
drier, and in the winter when they freeze (Larter and Gates 1991b, pp. 
133, 135; Strong and Gates 2009, p. 438). In the summer, when daily 
access to surface water is required for hydration, availability of 
water is also important (Fortin et al. 2003, pp. 223, 225).

Biology

    Characteristic of other grazing ruminants, bison have a four-
chambered stomach that efficiently processes and digests a diet of 
grasses high in roughage (Reynolds et al. 2003, p. 1019). Because they 
can thrive on coarse grasses and sedges, they occupy a niche within the 
boreal forest that is not utilized by other northern herbivores such as 
moose or caribou (Gates et al. 2001, p. 25). Several studies indicate 
that wood bison prefer sedges (Carex spp.), which can comprise up to 98 
percent of the winter diet (Reynolds et al. 1978, p. 586; Smith 1990, 
p. 88; Larter and Gates 1991a, p. 2679; Fortin et al. 2003, pp. 224-
225). Seasonally, other important diet items include grasses, willow, 
and lichen (Reynolds et al. 1978, p. 586; Smith 1990, p. 88; Larter and 
Gates 1991a, pp. 2680-2681; Fortin et al. 2003, pp. 224-225).
    Wood bison are gregarious, with cows, calves, and yearlings found 
in matriarchal groups ranging up to a few dozen animals (Stephenson et 
al. 2001, p. 125; Strong and Gates 2009, p. 438). Mature bulls seldom 
form groups of more than a few animals, and solitary bulls are common 
(Fuller 1960, p. 11). Wood bison home range size varies with age, sex, 
and availability of forage (Larter and Gates 1994, p. 147). Home ranges 
of females are larger than those of males (Larter and Gates 1994, p. 
147). For wood bison in the Mackenzie Bison Sanctuary, mean area of 
home range for females was 897 square kilometers (km\2\) (346 square 
miles (mi\2\) and for males 433 km\2\ (167 mi\2\) (Larter and Gates 
1994, p. 146). Most likely females need larger areas because they occur 
in larger groups than the males (Larter and Gates 1994, p. 142). The 
large home ranges of both sexes may be a response to limited forage 
availability and widely spaced meadows (Strong and Gates 2009, p. 438).
    Free-ranging wood bison roam extensively with annual maximum 
traveling distance from each individual's center-of-activity averaging 
from 45 to 50 km (28 to 31 mi) (Chen and Morley 2005, p. 430). However, 
some captive animals released into the wild have traveled over 250 km 
(155 mi) (Gates et al. 1992, pp. 151-152). Herds are fluid and 
individuals interchange freely (Fuller 1960, p. 15; Wilson et al. 2002, 
p. 1545). Wood bison travel between favored foraging habitats along 
direct routes including established trails, roads, river corridors, and 
transmission lines (Reynolds et al. 1978, p. 587; Mitchell 2002, p. 
50). Bison are also powerful swimmers and will cross even large rivers 
such as the Peace, Slave, Liard, and Nahanni to reach forage, provided 
that there are low banks for entry and exit (Fuller 1960, p. 5; 
Mitchell 2002, pp. 32, 50; Larter et al. 2003, pp. 408-412).
    The wood bison's breeding season is from July to October. The age 
of first reproduction depends on nutritional condition and disease 
status and is, therefore, variable (Gates et al. 2010, p. 49). Females 
typically produce their first calf when they are 3 years old and may be 
reproductively successful up to age 20 (Wilson et al. 2002, p. 1545). 
Although capable of reproduction at age 2, males typically do not 
participate in the rut until they are 5 or 6, and reproductive success 
is at its maximum between ages 7 and 14 (Wilson et al. 2002, pp. 1538, 
1544). Bison have a polygynous mating system, in which one male mates 
with several females (Wilson et al. 2002, p. 1538). When habitat is 
adequate and there are no other limiting factors such as disease and 
predation, wood bison populations have expanded exponentially (FEAP

[[Page 6738]]

1990, pp. 34-35; Gates and Larter 1990, p. 233). Consequently, newly 
introduced populations have the capacity to grow quickly, as 
demonstrated by the Mackenzie herd (Gates and Larter 1990, p. 235).
    Wood bison are susceptible to a variety of diseases that may affect 
their population dynamics. The most important are anthrax, bovine 
brucellosis, and bovine tuberculosis, none of which are endemic to wood 
bison (Gates et al. 2010, pp. 28-32). Anthrax is an infectious 
bacterial disease that is transmitted through the inhalation or 
ingestion of endospores (Gates et al. 2010, p. 28). The disease is 
rapidly fatal with death usually occurring within several days once the 
clinical signs appear (Dragon et al. 1999, p. 209). Between 1962 and 
1993, nine outbreaks were recorded in northern Canada, killing at least 
1,309 bison (Dragon et al. 1999, p. 209). Additional outbreaks 
continued to occur through at least 2007 (GNT 2009, p. 13). Factors 
associated with outbreaks are high ambient temperatures, high densities 
of insects, and high densities of bison as they congregate in areas of 
diminishing forage and water (Dragon et al. 1999, p. 212). Sexually 
mature males are more susceptible than cows, juveniles, or calves, 
perhaps because of elevated levels of testosterone (Dragon et al. 1999, 
p. 211). Anthrax is not treatable in free-ranging wildlife, but captive 
bison can be vaccinated effectively and treated with antibiotics (Gates 
et al. 2001, p. 22).
    Bovine brucellosis is caused by the bacterium Brucella abortus 
(Tessaro 1989, p. 416). Although the primary hosts are bovids, other 
ungulates such as elk can be infected. The disease is primarily 
transmitted through oral contact with aborted fetuses, contaminated 
placentas, and uterine discharges. Greater than 90 percent of infected 
female bison abort during their first pregnancy (Gates et al. 2010, p. 
30). Naturally acquired immunity reduces the abortion rate with 
subsequent pregnancies (Aune and Gates 2010, p. 30). Male bison 
experience inflammation of their reproductive organs and in advanced 
cases, sterility. Both sexes are susceptible to bursitis and arthritis 
caused by concentrations of the bacterium in the joints, which may make 
them more susceptible to predation (Joly 2001, pp. 97-98). Two 
vaccines, S19 and SR B51, have been developed in an attempt to prevent 
bovine brucellosis (Aune and Gates 2010, pp. 30-31). S19 induces 
abortion in cows and is only about 39 percent effective in preventing 
infection (Davis et al. 1991, p. 262). SR B51 also induces abortion in 
pregnant cows, but calfhood vaccination appears to be an effective tool 
in preventing transmission of the disease (Palmer et al. 1996, p. 1607; 
Olsen et al. 2003, p. 22). Brucellosis is extremely difficult to 
eradicate in ungulates; the combined use of quarantine protocols, serum 
testing, slaughter, and vaccination is being explored as a means of 
controlling the disease (Nishi et al. 2002, pp. 230-233; Bienen and 
Tabor 2006, pp. 324-325; Aune and Gates 2010, p. 31).
    Bovine tuberculosis is a chronic infectious disease caused by the 
bacterium Mycobacterium bovis (Tessaro 1989, p. 417). Historical 
evidence indicates that bovine tuberculosis did not occur in bison 
prior to contact with infected domestic cattle (Tessaro 1989, p. 416). 
Wood bison were infected in the 1920s when plains bison were introduced 
into the range of wood bison (Tessaro 1989, p. 417). Currently, the 
disease is concentrated in bison in and near (Wabasca, Wentzel, and 
Slave River Lowlands herds) WBNP. The disease is primarily transmitted 
by inhalation and ingestion of the bacterium, but may also pass to 
offspring through the placenta or contaminated milk (FEAP 1990, p. 11). 
Bovine tuberculosis is a chronic disease that progressively becomes 
debilitating; advanced cases are fatal. There is not an effective 
vaccine for immunization against tuberculosis (FEAP 1990, p. 2).
    Wood bison herds in and around WBNP, Alberta and the Northwest 
Territories, Canada, are infected with brucellosis and bovine 
tuberculosis. These diseased herds account for about half of the free-
ranging wood bison and are the only known reservoirs of tuberculosis 
and brucellosis among the herds (Gates et al. 2010, pp. 4, 35). 
Approximately 30 percent of the animals in these herds test positive 
for brucellosis and 21 to 49 percent test positive for tuberculosis. 
The combined prevalence of the two diseases is 42 percent (Tessaro et 
al. 1990, p. 174; Gates et al. 2010, p. 35). Wood bison cows infected 
with both tuberculosis and brucellosis are less likely to be pregnant, 
and infected herds are more likely to have their populations regulated 
by wolf predation (Tessaro et al. 1990, p. 179; Joly and Messier 2004, 
p. 1173; Joly and Messier 2005, p. 549). Unlike anthrax which occurs in 
outbreaks in which many animals die at one time, brucellosis and 
tuberculosis are chronic diseases that weaken animals over time.

Conservation Status

    In Canada, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in 
Canada (COSEWIC) was established in 1977, to assess species' status and 
evaluate their risk of extinction. In 1978, the COSEWIC designated wood 
bison as endangered based primarily on the fact that there were only 
about 400 disease-free wood bison; 100 in a captive herd and 300 in a 
free-ranging herd. In 1988, wood bison was downlisted to threatened in 
Canada because of data presented in a status report prepared by the 
National Wood Bison Recovery Team which documented progress towards 
recovery (Gates et al. 2001, p. 28; Gates et al. 2010, p. 65). A review 
by the COSEWIC in 2000 confirmed that ``threatened'' was the 
appropriate designation at that time (Gates et al. 2010, p. 65).
    The wood bison was placed in Appendix I of the Convention on 
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 
(CITES) on July 1, 1975, when the treaty first went into effect. On 
September 28, 1997, it was downlisted to Appendix II based on a 
proposal from Canada that described progress in implementation of the 
Canadian recovery plan (Government of Canada 1997, entire). CITES 
Appendix-II species are not necessarily considered to be threatened 
with extinction now but may become so unless trade in the species is 
regulated. The United States voted in support of the downlisting.

Recovery Actions

    Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement 
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and 
threatened species, unless the Director determines that such a plan 
will not promote the conservation of the species. The Service has not 
developed a recovery plan for wood bison, because no wild populations 
of wood bison currently exist in the United States. In Canada, the 
National Wood Bison Recovery Team published a national recovery plan in 
2001 (Gates et al. 2001) and is currently preparing a revision to the 
plan. The purpose of the recovery plan is to advance the recovery of 
the wood bison; specific criteria for delisting under SARA were not 
specified. Management plans for the provinces support the goals and 
objectives of the National Recovery Plan (e.g., Harper and Gates 2000, 
p. 917; GNT 2009, p. 4). Four goals were established to advance the 
recovery of wood bison (Gates et al. 2001):
    (1) To reestablish at least four discrete, free-ranging, disease-
free, and viable populations of 400 or more wood bison in Canada, 
emphasizing recovery in their original range, thereby

[[Page 6739]]

enhancing the prospects for survival of the subspecies and contributing 
to the maintenance of ecological processes and biological diversity.
    (2) To foster the restoration of wood bison in other parts of their 
original range and in suitable habitat elsewhere, thereby ensuring 
their long-term survival.
    (3) To ensure that the genetic integrity of wood bison is 
maintained without further loss as a consequence of human intervention.
    (4) To restore disease-free wood bison herds, thereby contributing 
to the aesthetic, cultural, economic, and social well-being of local 
communities and society in general.
    Revisions to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 
(adding, removing, or reclassifying a species) must reflect 
determinations made in accordance with sections 4(a)(1) and 4(b) of the 
Act. Section 4(a)(1) requires that the Secretary determine whether a 
species is endangered or threatened, as defined by the Act, because of 
one or more of the five factors outlined in section 4(a)(1). In other 
words, an analysis of the five factors under 4(a)(1) can result in a 
determination that a species is no longer endangered or threatened. 
Section 4(b) requires the determination made under section 4(a)(1) be 
based on the best scientific and commercial data available and after 
taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any State or 
foreign nation to protect such species. In the absence of a recovery 
plan for wood bison in the United States, we rely on the five-factor 
analysis and progress towards meeting the recovery goals outlined in 
the Canadian recovery plan in this proposed rule to determine if it is 
appropriate to reclassify wood bison. We also take into consideration 
the conservation actions that have occurred, are ongoing, and are 
planned.
    In 1978, there was one free-ranging, disease-free herd with 300 
individuals, the MacKenzie herd (Table 1). By 2000, when the last 
Canadian status review was conducted, the number of disease-free herds 
had grown to 6, with a total of approximately 2,800 individuals (Table 
1). Since 2000, an additional herd has been established bringing the 
total number to 7, and the number of disease-free, free-ranging bison 
has increased to approximately 4,400 (Table 1). Four of the herds have 
a population of 400 or more, meeting recovery goal number 1 (Table 1). 
The free-ranging, disease-free herds are discussed in detail below.

Free-ranging Herds, Disease-free Herds

    The Mackenzie bison herd was established in 1963 with the 
translocation of 18 wood bison that were originally captured in an 
isolated area of WBNP. This herd is currently the largest free-ranging, 
disease-free herd of wood bison, with approximately 1,600 to 2,000 
animals (Reynolds et al. 2004, p. 7). The Mackenzie Bison Sanctuary was 
established in 1979 and encompasses an area of 6,300 km\2\ (2,432 
mi\2\) northwest of Great Slave Lake. The current range of the 
Mackenzie bison herd (12,000 km\2\ (4,633 mi\2\)) extends well beyond 
the boundaries of the sanctuary. Habitat protection within the range of 
the Mackenzie bison herd is facilitated through the SARA, Canada's 
equivalent to the Act, and the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act 
of 1998. Although the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act does not 
specifically provide protection to wood bison, it did create a Land and 
Water Board (LWB), which is given the power to regulate the use of land 
and water, including the issuance of land use permits and water 
licenses. Under current management, an annual harvest is allowed 
(described in Factor B below), and the Mackenzie herd size has been 
greater than the recovery target of 400 since 1987, with approximately 
1,600 to 2,000 animals (Gates and Larter 1999, p. 233; Table 1). Thus, 
the Mackenzie herd contributes to recovery goals 1 and 4.
    Five releases of wood bison totaling 170 animals from 1988 to 1991 
established the Aishihik herd in southwestern Yukon, in a remote area 
west of Whitehorse, Canada. Herd size has totaled over 400 since 1999 
(Gates et al. 2001, p. 14; Table 1). With a current population of 
approximately 1,000 animals, it is the second-largest herd. The herd 
inhabits approximately 9,000 km\2\ (3,475 mi\2\) of largely undeveloped 
habitat near the community of Haines Junction, adjacent to Kluane 
National Park. Less than 5 percent of the range of the Aishihik herd is 
on private lands (First Nation Settlement Lands), and these landowners 
participate in a management planning team specifically for this herd. 
The remainder of the herd's range is owned by the Government of Canada, 
and there are no threats to habitat in this area (Reynolds et al. 2004, 
p. 9). The herd has room to expand or shift its range, because there 
are no large-scale developments east, west, or north of the present 
range for several hundred kilometers. Small-scale agricultural 
development to the south of the present range, however, could restrict 
range expansion in that direction (Reynolds et al. 2004, p. 9). 
Regulated hunting occurs on this herd (described in Factor B below). 
Other than regulated harvest, no other limiting factors have been 
identified (Reynolds et al. 2004, p. 17). The Aishihik herd contributes 
to recovery goals 1, 2, and 4.
    The Hay-Zama herd was established in 1984, when 29 wood bison were 
transferred from Elk Island National Park to the holding corral site 
near Hay-Zama Lakes, Alberta (Gates et al. 2001, p. 17). A herd of 48 
wood bison became free-ranging when portions of the corral they were 
being held in collapsed in 1993 (Gates et al. 2001, p. 17). Since then, 
the free-ranging herd has grown to approximately 750 animals (Table 1), 
thus contributing to recovery goals 1, 2, and 4. In 1995, the 
Government of Alberta established a 36,000 km\2\ (13,900 mi\2\) Bison 
Management Area around the Hay-Zama herd in the northwestern corner of 
the province. In this area, all wood bison are legally protected from 
hunting under Alberta's Wildlife Act; outside of the area they are not 
protected. Collisions with vehicles are the largest source of known 
mortality for individuals in this herd (Mitchell and Gates 2002, p. 9).
    The Nahanni herd, established in 1980 with the release of 28 wood 
bison, occurs primarily in southeast Yukon and northeast British 
Columbia. Population size has been approximately 400 animals or more 
since 2004 (Table 1). Availability of suitable habitat may limit this 
herd's size (Gates et al. 2001, p. 17). The Nordquist herd was 
established in 1995, near the Laird River in northeastern British 
Columbia (Table 1). Because the majority of the herd occupies habitat 
near the Alaska Highway, vehicle collisions are the primary source of 
mortality (Reynolds et al. 2009, p. 6). It is anticipated that the 
Nordquist and Nahanni herds will eventually coalesce into one herd 
because of their close proximity and the presence of river corridors 
that provide travel corridors (Gates et al. 2001, p. 18). Although it 
has not yet occurred, combination of the two herds would create a herd 
with numbers that exceed the recovery criterion of 400 (Table 1).
    The Etthithun herd was established in 2002, near Etthithun Lake, 
British Columbia. Factors limiting the size of this herd include the 
amount and location of suitable habitat, conflicts with humans and 
industrial development, and potential contact with commercial plains 
bison (BC MOE, pers. comm., 2010). Current population size is 
approximately 124 (Table 1);

[[Page 6740]]

consequently, this herd does not currently meet the recovery criterion 
of 400 individuals. However, it does contribute to recovery goals 2 and 
4.
    The Chitek Lake herd was established in 1991, in Manitoba, Canada. 
The Chitek Lake Wood Bison Management Committee plans to maintain the 
herd at approximately 300 animals to keep the herd within carrying 
capacity of the habitat. The 100,300 hectare (ha) (25,452 acre (ac)) 
Chitek Lake Park Reserve provides habitat protection for the core range 
of the herd. Limiting factors for the herd include accidental mortality 
from drowning, starvation in bad winters, and predation from wolves 
(Manitoba Conservation, pers. comm., 2010). Although outside of the 
historic range of wood bison, Chitek Lake herd plays an important role 
in wood bison conservation because it is an isolated disease-free herd 
and, consequently, provides security to the species through population 
redundancy, thus contributing to recovery goal 2.

Captive Disease-free Herds

    In addition to the free-ranging wood bison herds discussed above, 
four captive herds have been established, although only three are 
currently viable. The Elk Island National Park herd in Alberta, Canada, 
was established in 1965 from wood bison transferred from an isolated 
portion of WBNP. It is the national conservation herd and has provided 
disease-free stock for six of the free-ranging populations and several 
captive breeding herds in zoos and private commercial ranches (Gates et 
al. 1992, p. 153). Carrying capacity at Elk Island National Park is 
approximately 350 animals; animals above this number are regarded as 
surplus and are removed to establish and supplement free-roaming 
populations in former areas of their historic range (Parks Canada 
2009a, unpaginated). Although the herd is fenced, the animals are semi-
wild and spend the majority of their time roaming the 65 km\2\ (25 
mi\2\) enclosure, interacting with the environment in a largely natural 
manner (Gates et al. 2001, p. 18). The herd is rounded up annually to 
test for disease and to vaccinate for common cattle diseases. The age, 
sex, and condition of all the individuals are determined to inform 
management decisions. Using this information, individuals are selected 
for sale, donation, or the establishment of new herds, which also 
controls the population size of the herd (Parks Canada 2009b, 
unpaginated). This conservation herd contributes to recovery goals 2, 
3, and 4.
    The Hook Lake Wood Bison Recovery Project was initiated to 
establish a captive, disease-free herd from a wild herd infected with 
brucellosis and tuberculosis. The overall objective of the project was 
to determine the feasibility of genetic salvage from a diseased herd 
(Nishi et al. 2002, p. 230). Specific objectives of the project were to 
conserve the genetic integrity of the wild herd by capturing an 
adequate number of calves; provide intensive veterinary and 
preventative drug treatment to eliminate disease from the calves; and 
raise a disease-free herd from the salvaged calves (Nishi et al. 2002, 
p. 229). From 1996 to 1998, 62 calves were captured. The disease 
eradication protocol included orphaning new-born wild-caught calves to 
minimize their exposure to B. abortus and M. bovis, testing calves for 
antibodies to brucellosis prior to inclusion in the new herd, treatment 
with antimycobacterial and anti-Brucella drugs, and intensive whole-
herd testing for both diseases (Nishi et al. 2002, p. 229). By 2002, 
the herd size was 122. In 2006, after 9 years of intensive management, 
the herd was destroyed because bovine tuberculosis was discovered in 
2005 in 2 founding animals and 10 captive-born animals, even though all 
animals initially tested disease-free. The herd provided valuable 
information on genetic salvage, genetic management, captive breeding 
for conservation, disease testing, and the difficulties involved in 
eradicating disease (Wilson et al. 2003, pp. 24-35). The Hook Lake Herd 
contributed to recovery goal 3.
    In April 2006, 30 wood bison calves were transferred from Elk 
Island National Park to Lenski Stolby Nature Park near Yakutsk, Sahka 
Republic (Yakutia), Russia. An additional 30 head are to be transferred 
in 2011. Although outside the historical range, this was an opportunity 
to create another geographically separate population which provides 
added security to the species through population redundancy, thereby 
contributing to recovery goal 2. Transfer of wood bison to Russia was 
specifically mentioned in the recovery plan because it would contribute 
to the global security of the species (Gates et al., 2001, p. 14).
    In June 2008, 53 disease-free wood bison were transferred from Elk 
Island National Park to the Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center in 
Portage, Alaska. Consequently, this captive herd currently contributes 
to recovery goal number 2 through population redundancy. Ultimately, 
the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) plans to restore wood 
bison populations in one to three areas in interior Alaska, with 
potential herd size of 500 to 2,000 or more depending on the location 
(ADF&G 2007, p. 79). Environmental analysis of the project is currently 
under review. The National Wood Bison Recovery Team in Canada 
recommended establishing one or more populations in Alaska in areas 
that can support 400 or more animals (Gates et al. 2001, p. 31). 
Establishment of one or more herds in Alaska would be a significant 
contribution to increasing the number of secure, disease-free, free-
roaming herds.

Summary of Progress Toward Recovery

    In summary, since 1978, the number of free-ranging, disease-free 
herds has increased from 1 to 7, and the number of wood bison has 
increased from approximately 400 to over 4,000. The first recovery goal 
of establishing 4 free-ranging, disease-free herds with 400 or more 
animals has been met, and planning is underway to create one or more 
herds in Alaska. Although the number of herds needed to meet recovery 
goal 2 was not specified, progress has been made on the second goal 
with the establishment of disease-free herds in Russia; Manitoba, 
Canada; and Alaska. The Hook Lake Bison Recovery Project was a well-
planned, science-based attempt to conserve the genetic diversity of a 
diseased herd and would have contributed greatly to recovery goal 3. 
Although ultimately the project was unsuccessful, a great deal of 
knowledge was gained (Wilson et al. 2003, pp. 62-67). The wood bison 
recovery team is very aware of the need to maintain genetic diversity 
in the herds and establishes new herds with the goal of maintaining 
genetic diversity through multiple introductions (i.e., the Aishihik 
herd and Hook Lake herd). The establishment of six additional herds on 
the landscape since 1978 contributes to recovery goal 4. In addition, 
the captive population at Elk Island National Park has provided 
disease-free stock for those six additional herds and two captive 
herds. It is clear that there is active management of the herds, and 
multiple avenues of research are being funded and pursued regarding the 
biology and management of wood bison. Progress towards the recovery 
goals outlined in the national recovery plan, published by the National 
Wood Bison Recovery Team, is moving forward steadily.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Subspecies

    Section 4 of the Act and implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) 
set forth procedures for adding species to, removing species from, or 
reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened

[[Page 6741]]

Wildlife and Plants. Changes in the List can be initiated by the 
Service or through the public petition process. Under section 4(a)(1) 
of the Act, a species may be determined to be endangered or threatened 
based on any of the following five factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    We must consider these same factors in downlisting a species. In 
making this 12-month finding on the petition, we evaluate whether the 
species must be listed as endangered or threatened because of one or 
more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. For 
species that are already listed as endangered or threatened, we 
evaluate both the threats currently facing the species and the threats 
that are reasonably likely to affect the species in the foreseeable 
future following the delisting or downlisting and the removal or 
reduction of the Act's protections.
    Under section 3 of the Act, a species is ``endangered'' if it is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range and is ``threatened'' if it is likely to become an endangered 
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range. ``Foreseeable future'' is determined by the 
Service on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration a variety of 
species-specific factors such as lifespan, genetics, breeding behavior, 
demography, threat projections timeframes, and environmental 
variability. The word ``range'' in the phrase ``significant portion of 
its range'' (SPR) refers to the range in which the species currently 
exists, and the word ``significant'' refers to the value of that 
portion of the range being considered to the conservation of the 
species.
    For the purposes of this analysis, we will evaluate all five 
factors currently affecting, or that are likely to affect, the wood 
bison to determine whether the currently listed species is threatened 
or endangered.

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of its Habitat or Range

Loss of Foraging Habitat
Fire Suppression
    Wood bison depend on a landscape that includes sufficient 
grasslands and meadows for foraging habitat (Larter and Gates 1991b, p. 
133). It appears that primarily through fire suppression, there was an 
overall loss of meadow habitat in Canada through the 1900s. More 
intensive fire management began in Canada in the early 1900s with the 
philosophy that fire was destructive and should be eliminated to 
protect property and permit proper forest management (Stocks et al. 
2003, p. 2). However, wildfire is an integral component of boreal 
forest ecology (Weber and Flannigan 1997, p. 146; Rupp et al. 2004, p. 
213; Soja et al. 2007, p. 277). Without fire, trees encroach on meadows 
and eventually the meadow habitat is lost and replaced by forest.
    Fire alone, or in combination with grazing, can facilitate the 
conversion and maintenance of grasslands (Lewis 1982, p. 24; Chowns et 
al. 1997, p. 205; Schwarz and Wein 1997, p. 1369). Burning by Native 
groups within the range of wood bison was apparently a common practice 
through the 1940s outside WBNP but ended within the park when it was 
established in 1922 (Lewis 1982, pp. 22-31; Schwarz and Wein 1997, p. 
1369). An examination of aerial photographs taken at WBNP over time 
showed that a semi-open grassland that covered about 85 ha (210 ac) in 
1928 supported a grassland of only 3 ha (7.4 ac) in 1982 (Schwarz and 
Wein 1997, p. 1369). In addition, a number of sites previously 
identified as prairie are now dominated by trembling aspen (Schwarz and 
Wein 1997, p. 1369). Although not quantified, it is likely that because 
of fire suppression and forest encroachment on meadows, there was a net 
loss of suitable open meadow habitat for wood bison throughout their 
range through about 1990. More recently, several factors may be 
counteracting the loss of open meadow habitat including controlled 
burns, timber harvest, oil and gas development, and the effects of 
climate change, as discussed below.
Controlled Burns
    Controlled burns have been implemented since 1992 in wood bison 
habitat in the Northwest Territories to increase meadow habitat (Chowns 
et al. 1997, p. 206). Approximately 4,400 to 26,900 ha (10,873 to 
66,471 ac) were burned from 1992 to 1997 with some sites being burned 
up to three times (Chowns et al. 1997, pp. 206-207). In addition, 
lightning fires burned 300,000 ha (741,316 ac), or almost 20 percent of 
the wood bison range in this area, from 1994 to 1996 (Chowns et al. 
1997, p. 209). Plants favored by bison were more abundant in unburned 
areas and in meadows that had burned only once (Quinlan et al. 2003, p. 
348), indicating that prescribed burns must be used judiciously to be 
effective in creating foraging habitat for wood bison. A study of 
vegetation recovery and plains bison use after a wildfire near 
Farewell, Alaska (Campbell and Hinkes 1983, p. 18) showed that grass 
and sedge-dominated communities increased from 38 percent to 
approximately 97 percent of the study area. Plains bison use also 
increased in subsequent years after the fire, and winter distribution 
of the Farewell herd expanded due to fire-related habitat changes 
(Campbell and Hinkes 1983, pp. 18-19). Because sedges are important 
winter forage for wood bison, the amount of such habitat has a major 
influence on herd size. Newly created habitats will be used by wood 
bison when these habitats are contiguous with existing summer or winter 
ranges (Campbell and Hinkes 1983, p. 20).
    In summary, studies that have looked at the exclusion of fire or 
the effect of wildfire on wood bison habitat have concluded that fire 
is a necessary component of the landscape to maintain clearings and 
create conditions that favor forage preferred by wood bison. Controlled 
burns can have the same effect as wildfire by creating openings in the 
forest. However, repeated burns in the same location can be detrimental 
to creating suitable forage.
Timber Harvest
    The volume of timber logged in Canada rose 50 percent from 1970 to 
1997; in Alberta, the logging rate increased 423 percent from 3.4 to 
17.8 million m\3\ (120 to 628 million feet (ft)\3\) per year during the 
same time (Timoney and Lee 2001, p. 394). These values are conservative 
because forests logged on private land and those harvested on 
government land after fire, insect outbreaks, or disease may go 
unrecorded (Timoney and Lee 2001, p. 395). The primary method of 
harvest is clearcutting (Timoney and Lee 2001, p. 394). Compared to a 
closed canopy forest, clearcuts improve the amount of suitable habitat 
available to wood bison because they create openings and increase the 
amount of summer forage available. However, the quantity and quality of 
forage is less than what is found in preferred wood bison foraging

[[Page 6742]]

habitats, and the increased productivity seen after a clearcut is not 
maintained, as woody vegetation becomes more dominant over time 
(Redburn et al. 2008, p. 2233). In addition, clearcuts do not provide 
adequate winter forage because wood bison's preferred food, sedges, 
typically do not colonize these areas. Clearcutting is not being used 
as a management tool to increase wood bison habitat currently, and 
whatever gains in habitat that have occurred from clearcutting are most 
likely low.
    In summary, although timber harvest occurs throughout the range of 
wood bison, it is unclear to what extent it is creating suitable 
habitat. Clear cuts can increase summer forage, but they need to be in 
proximity to sedge meadows (wintering habitat) to increase the annual 
carrying capacity for wood bison, and the openings created by the clear 
cuts must be maintained over time. Although timber harvest has the 
potential to increase the amount of suitable habitat for wood bison, 
the amount that may have been created is most likely low and is 
undocumented.
Oil and Gas Development
    Oil and gas exploration and production in Canada has increased in 
the last 20 years (Timoney and Lee 2001, pp. 397-398). Seismic mapping 
to determine the oil and gas reserves below the surface involves 
cutting paths 5 to 8 meters (m) (16.4 to 26 ft) wide across the 
landscape. The seismic lines become persistent features in the forested 
boreal landscape (Lee and Boutin 2006, p. 249). Approximately 70 
percent of landscape disturbance for non-renewable resource extraction 
in Alberta is due to seismic lines (Timoney and Lee 2001, p. 397). 
There are an estimated 1.5 to 1.8 million km (932,000 to 1,100,000 mi) 
of seismic lines in Alberta (Timoney and Lee 2001, p. 397). Lee and 
Boutin (2006, p. 244) found that only 8.2 percent of seismic lines in 
Alberta's northeastern forested stands recovered to greater than 50 
percent woody vegetative cover after 35 years, and 64 percent of these 
seismic lines maintained a cover of grasses and herbs. In terms of 
creating forest openings, more suitable foraging habitat, and linear 
paths, seismic lines may be beneficial for wood bison. However, because 
vehicular routes were established in 20 percent of the seismic lines, 
they also become corridors for off-road vehicles, recreationalists, and 
poachers (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, pp. 19-20; Timoney and Lee 2001, 
p. 400; Lee and Boutin 2006, p. 244). Although wood bison are known to 
occupy linear clearings such as roads, and seismic lines have increased 
dramatically within their range, potentially creating suitable habitat, 
we do not have documentation of wood bison use of this type of habitat.
Agricultural Development
    The popularity of bison as an alternative to beef in human diets 
has led to a growth of commercial bison ranches in Canada and the 
United States (Gates et al. 1992, p. 155). Exports of bison meat from 
Canada doubled to over 2 million kilograms (2.3 tons) from 2001 to 2006 
(Statistics Canada 2009a, unpaginated). Plains bison dominate 
agricultural production in Canada because commercial production of this 
subspecies has been in place much longer than it has been for wood 
bison (Gates et al. 1992, p. 156; Harper and Gates 2000, p. 919). Bison 
production in Canada is concentrated in the western provinces, within 
the historical range of wood bison. In 2006, there were 195,728 plains 
bison on 1,898 farms reporting in the Canadian National Census; an 
increase of 35 percent from 2001 (Statistics Canada 2009b, 
unpaginated). Thus, plains bison represented approximately 95 percent 
of the total bison on the landscape in Canada in 2006. Existence and 
expansion of commercial plains bison production reduces the amount of 
land available for wild wood bison populations and increases the risk 
of hybridization when plains bison escape captivity (Harper and Gates 
2000, p. 919; Gates et al. 2001, pp. 24, 29). Demand currently exceeds 
supply; therefore, expansion of commercial plains and wood bison 
operations is expected to continue (Gates et al. 2001, p. 24)
    Escape of plains bison from fenced enclosures within the range of 
the wood bison in Canada poses a threat to the genetic integrity of 
wood bison (Gates et al. 1992, p. 156; Gates et al. 2001, p. 24). 
Because of their size, strength, and undomesticated nature, typical 
fences are insufficient to restrain bison (FEAP 1990, p. 29; Harper and 
Gates 2000, p. 919). Maintenance of fences can be a challenge in harsh 
environments where tree-fall, snow, ice, and frost heave can impair the 
integrity of the fence and necessitate frequent repairs. The import of 
plains bison to a private ranch near Pink Mountain, British Columbia, 
led to the establishment of a free-ranging herd of plains bison after 
they escaped their enclosure (Gates et al. 1992, p. 156).
    In addition to commercial production, free-ranging, publicly 
managed plains bison herds have been established outside their 
historical range and within the historical range of wood bison in 
Alaska and Canada (Gates et al. 2010, p. 56). Because of the potential 
for hybridization, these herds limit where wood bison can be 
reintroduced. Five plains bison herds occur in Alaska and one occurs in 
British Columbia, Canada (Gates et al. 2010, p. 56). None of these 
plains bison herds occur in close proximity to free-ranging wood bison 
herds with the exception of one herd--the Pink Mountain herd, British 
Columbia, which also occupies habitat that could have been used for 
wood bison (Harper et al. 2000, p. 11). Preventing interbreeding 
between free-ranging plains bison and wood bison is a management 
objective in British Columbia and is accomplished by maintaining a 
large physical separation between the herds and having a management 
zone around the plains bison herd that allows harvest of plains bison 
within this zone (Harper et al. 2000, p. 23).
    Agricultural development, including plains bison ranching, is the 
least compatible land use for wood bison recovery (Harper and Gates 
2000, p. 921). Loss of habitat for agricultural production is a threat 
to wood bison because of the large areas involved. Agricultural 
development near Fort St. John and Fort Nelson, British Columbia, has 
reduced habitat for wood bison, and continuing expansion of agriculture 
in the north will further limit the ability to meet population recovery 
objectives (Harper and Gates 2000, p. 921). Based on a conservative 
estimate of historical habitat only in Canada, Gates et al. (1992, p. 
154) estimated that human activities and development exclude wood bison 
from approximately 34 percent of their historic range. When an updated 
Canadian historical range (Stephenson et al. 2001, p. 136) and the 
Alaskan historical range are included in the calculation, the amount of 
compromised habitat drops to approximately 16.5 percent if only Canada 
is considered, and 13 percent if the historical habitat in Canada and 
Alaska are combined (Stephenson 2010, pers. comm.). Sanderson et al. 
(2002, pp. 894-896; 2008, p. 257) found that the level of human 
influence in the range occupied by wood bison to be extremely low (less 
than 10 percent). Although human development and influence is very low 
over the majority of range occupied by wood bison, we assume that 
because of human population growth, increased commercial production of 
plains bison, and increased agricultural production, there will be 
continued loss of suitable wood bison habitat into the foreseeable 
future.

[[Page 6743]]

Climate Change
    Climate change models project that the largest temperature 
increases will occur in the upper latitudes of the northern hemisphere, 
and that there will be an increase in extreme climate events in these 
areas (IPCC 2007, 11.5.3.1). This area includes the boreal forest of 
Canada and Alaska in the range of wood bison. Some of the predicted 
outcomes of climate change are: an increase in temperature; an increase 
in insect outbreaks; an increase in wildfire severity, area burned, and 
fire season length with potential landscape scale ecotype effects; and 
a shift northward of boreal forest (Hamann and Wang 2006, pp. 2780-
2782; Soja et al. 2007, p. 277). These aspects of climate change have 
the potential to increase the amount of habitat suitable for wood bison 
over the next 100 years.
    The mean annual temperature of interior Alaska and northern Canada 
has increased by 2 degrees Celsius ([deg]C) (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit 
([deg]F)) in the last four decades (Serreze et al. 2000, p. 163). 
Warming has triggered bark beetle outbreaks in western North America, 
including south-central Alaska and British Columbia. In British 
Columbia, by the end of 2006, 130,000 km\2\ (50,193 mi\2\) of forested 
lands were affected (Kurz et al. 2008, p. 987). The outbreak in British 
Columbia was an order of magnitude greater in area and severity than 
all previous recorded outbreaks (Kurz et al. 2008, p. 987). In the 
boreal regions of Alaska, the cumulative insect damage from 1993 to 
1998 was 1.6 to 2.4 million ha (3.9 to 5.9 million ac) (Matthews 1997, 
p. 4; Malstr[ouml]m and Raffa 2000, p. 36) with 90 percent of the 
spruce on the Kenai Peninsula being affected (Soja et al. 2007, p. 
282).
    The warmer minimum winter temperatures increased survival of 
beetles during the winter, while increased summer temperatures and 
reduced summer precipitation stressed the trees and contributed to the 
intensity of the bark beetle infestation (Kurz et al. 2008, p. 987). In 
addition, the warmer temperatures quickened the maturation rate of the 
beetles from 2 years to 1 year, hastening population growth (Berg et 
al. 2006, p. 219; Werner et al. 2006, p. 195). The effect of insect 
outbreaks on wood bison habitat includes a potential increase in 
suitable wood bison habitat, and an increase in susceptibility to fire. 
In insect-infested plots studied on the Kenai Peninsula, cover of 
bluejoint grass (Calamagrostis canadensis), a summer forage species, 
increased to more than 50 percent compared to uninfested forest stands 
(Werner et al. 2006, p. 198). These results indicate forests affected 
by beetle kill may become more suitable to wood bison by creating 
openings and changing the vegetative composition. This would be 
particularly true in areas where, because of climate change, there was 
a permanent change in landscape cover from forest to grassland (Rizzo 
and Wiken 1992, p. 53; Flannigan et al. 2000, pp. 226-227). Werber and 
Flannigan (1997, p. 157), and Malmstr[ouml]m and Raffa (2000, p. 36), 
indicate that insect outbreaks increase an area's susceptibility to 
fire ignition and spread.
    Since the mid-1980s, wildfire frequency in western forests has 
nearly quadrupled compared to the average frequency during the period 
1970-1986. The total area burned is more than six and a half times the 
previous level (Westerling et al. 2006, p. 941). In addition, the 
average length of the fire season during 1987-2003 was 78 days longer 
compared to that during 1970-1986, and the average time between fire 
discovery and control was 29.6 days longer (Westerling et al. 2006, p. 
941). In Alaska, the largest fire on record was in 2004, and the third 
largest was in 2003 (Soja et al. 2007, p. 281).
    The area burned by forest fires in Canada has increased over the 
past 4 decades (Stocks et al. 2003, p. 2; Gillett et al. 2004, p. 4; 
Soja et al., 2007, p. 281). In Canada, weather/climate is the most 
important natural factor influencing forest fires (Gillett et al. 2004, 
p. 2; Flannigan et al. 2005, p. 1). Projections based on the Canadian 
and Hadley General Circulation Models, which predict future carbon 
dioxide and temperature increases, indicate that the area burned in 
boreal forests of Canada will double by the end of the century 
(Flannigan et al. 2005, pp. 11-12), the area exhibiting high to extreme 
fire danger will increase substantially, and the length of the fire 
season will increase (Stocks et al. 1998, pp. 5-11).
    In the absence of fire, vegetation changes would occur relatively 
slowly in response to relatively slow changes in the climate. Because 
of its immediate and large-scale effect, fire is seen as an agent of 
change that will hasten the modification of the landscape to a new 
equilibrium with climate. Area burned may overshadow the direct effects 
of climate change on plant species distribution and migration (Werber 
and Flannigan 1997, p. 157). The new fire regime is expected to affect 
the age class distribution, species composition, landscape mosaics, and 
boundaries, including a retraction of the southern boreal forest 
(Werber and Flannigan 1997, pp. 157, 160).
    The increase in temperature, predicted by the Canadian and Hadley 
General Circulation Models described above, is expected to cause major 
shifts in ecosystems (Rizzo and Wiken 1992, p. 37; Hogg and Schwarz 
1997, p. 527). The amount of grassland in Canada may increase by about 
7 percent and shift northward (Rizzo and Wiken 1992, p. 52). Several 
modeling efforts suggest that boreal forests will shift northward into 
the area now characterized as subarctic (Rizzo and Wiken 1992, pp. 48-
50; Rupp et al. 2002, p. 214). These changes may favor the expansion of 
suitable habitat for wood bison over the next century. Because one of 
the anticipated outcomes under climate change and the new fire regime 
is a retraction of the southern boreal forest and expansion of 
grasslands, we anticipate that habitat for wood bison, which require 
meadows intermixed with forest, will increase over the next century.
Summary of Factor A
    Our analysis of habitat threats to wood bison under Factor A 
includes management actions that are being taken (controlled burns, 
timber harvest, oil and gas development), anticipated changes to the 
landscape based on climate change (increased insect outbreaks, 
increased fire, ecotype transition), and agricultural development. In 
summary, most likely there was loss of suitable meadow foraging habitat 
for wood bison from fire suppression in the 20th century. Several 
factors including fire, timber harvest, oil and gas exploration, and 
insect infestations could create more forest openings and grassland 
habitat. However, neither the loss, nor potential gain in habitat from 
these sources has been quantified, and the suitability of habitat for 
wood bison created as a by-product of resource development is largely 
unknown. The primary loss of habitat for wood bison has occurred from 
agricultural development (including commercial production of plains 
bison). Although the current level of human influence in the range of 
wood bison is low, we anticipate human population growth will continue, 
and loss of suitable habitat from agricultural development is expected 
in the foreseeable future. In the short term, habitat loss is expected 
to outstrip gain because of the increasing demand and production of 
commercial bison. Based on model projections of the effects of climate 
change, it is anticipated that there will be increased insect 
infestations, increased fire frequency and area burned, and warmer 
temperatures, leading to shifts in

[[Page 6744]]

ecosystems. In the long term, these changes will likely create more 
forest openings and landscapes in early successional stages and may 
increase the amount of suitable habitat available to wood bison. 
Whether the potential gain in habitat will offset the loss from 
development in the long term is unknown. Consequently, based on the 
best scientific and commercial data available, we conclude that loss of 
habitat remains as a significant threat to wood bison in the 
foreseeable future.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    Overharvesting for the fur trade and westward expansion by 
Europeans resulted in near extinction of wood bison by the late 1800s 
(Gates et al. 1992, pp. 143-145). Currently, the utilization of free-
ranging, disease-free wood bison populations is closely regulated and 
managed for sustainability. Under the Species at Risk Act (SARA), a 
species listed as threatened may not be killed on Federal lands such as 
National Parks or National Wildlife Areas, except where permitted under 
a national recovery strategy (GNT 2009, p. 15). Harvest is used as a 
recovery management tool to regulate herd size when other limiting 
factors, such as predation or disease, do not. Without harvest, herd 
size can expand beyond the carrying capacity of the landscape, may grow 
to the point where overlap with either plains bison or diseased herds 
is more likely, or may expand into areas such as highway right-of ways. 
Regulated harvest is allowed from the disease-free Mackenzie herd, 
Nahanni herd (quota of two bison annually), the Aishihik herd, and the 
Hay-Zama herds under permit systems controlled by the respective 
territorial wildlife agencies, and is managed on a conservative 
sustained-yield basis. The regulated harvests for the Mackenzie, 
Aishihik, and Hay-Zama herds are described below.
    Hunting of the Mackenzie wood bison herd is regulated under a quota 
system based on population size, and through consideration of Native 
community interests in subsistence hunting, through a co-management 
process with the Fort Providence Resource Management Board. Regulated 
hunting was initiated in 1987. Non-resident hunting licenses were first 
issued for the winter hunt in 1992/1993. The quota for resident and 
non-residents has been adjusted over time based on herd size and 
community input. The allowable quota for harvest has never been taken 
and has ranged from 20 to 93.6 percent of the quota (Reynolds et al. 
2004, p. 39). The current annual allowable harvest is 47 bison, which 
is 2.5 percent of the population estimate (Reynolds et al. 2004, pp. 
15, 39).
    Sport hunting is the primary method of regulating the growth of the 
Aishihik herd, because natural predation on the herd is low. The Yukon 
Wood Bison Technical Team provides advice on wood bison management that 
is sensitive to local conditions (i.e., to remove wood bison from 
highway right-of-ways, competition of bison with other native 
ungulates), and consistent with the National Wood Bison Recovery Plan 
(Yukon Environment 2009, p. 1). The annual allowable harvest is 
determined each year based on population size and calf recruitment 
rate. Harvest from 1999 to 2007/2008 winter season ranged from 65 to 75 
animals. In the 2008/2009 winter season, the allowable harvest 
increased to 200 because the population continued to grow under the old 
quota. Increased harvest is expected to restrict the movement of wood 
bison away from their traditional range, address highway safety 
concerns, and achieve bison management objectives (Government of Yukon 
2009, p. 1). Resident, non-resident, and First Nations hunters are 
required to have a permit to hunt wood bison. Harvest regulations are 
strictly enforced by Yukon Department of Environment conservation 
officers, often in collaboration with local First Nations Game 
Guardians.
    Hunting in the Hay-Zama herd began in 2008 for the first time. 
Hunting was initiated to regulate the population size, reduce wood 
bison conflicts with humans in the communities of Zama City and Chatey, 
reduce wood bison-vehicle collisions on two highways, and limit wood 
bison distribution eastward, preventing potential contact with diseased 
bison from WBNP (Government of Alberta 2010a, unpaginated). Harvest 
removed 128 and 155 animals in the 2008/09 and 2009/10 seasons, 
respectively (Government of Alberta 2010b, unpaginated). Three hundred 
licenses were issued each year, 200 to Aboriginal hunters and 100 to 
recreational hunters. Because the objectives of reducing herd size and 
human conflicts have been met, the total number of licenses has been 
reduced in the 2010/11 season to 105 (Government of Canada 2010b, 
unpaginated). Based on the success rate of the past two seasons, 
approximately 50 animals will likely be harvested. It is estimated that 
a population objective of 400-600 wood bison can be sustained by 
harvesting approximately 60 to 70 animals per season (Government of 
Canada 2010b, unpaginated).
    In addition to regulating herd size, harvest is also used to 
prevent the spread of bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis infection in 
wood bison. Under the Northwest Territories Big-Game Hunting 
Regulations, hunters may shoot any bison sighted within the Bison 
Control Area (BCA), an area located between the WBNP diseased herd and 
the Mackenzie and Nahanni disease-free herds. The goal is to reduce the 
risk of bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis infection of the Mackenzie 
and Nahanni herds by removing infected animals dispersing from WBNP 
(see discussion under Factor C). Thirteen bison were removed from the 
BCA in the mid-1990s (Nishi 2002, pp. 12-13). There is currently no 
authorized harvest of wood bison in British Columbia.
    Under Canada's SARA, all collection of listed species such as wood 
bison for scientific purposes is closely regulated. Scientific research 
on disease, genetics, diet, and other aspects of wood bison life 
history can and has been done using animals that have been legally 
taken by hunters, animals that died through natural factors, or road 
kill (e.g., Tessaro et al. 1990, p. 175). Scientific research must 
relate to the conservation of the species and be conducted by qualified 
persons; the activity must benefit the species or enhance its chance of 
survival in the wild. In addition, activities affecting the species 
must be incidental to carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. 
Researchers must demonstrate awareness of the provisions of SARA, that 
measures are being taken to minimize harm to listed species, and that 
the most effective measures for minimizing harm are adopted.
    Harvest of wood bison does not occur and only a small number of 
wood bison have been sporadically taken from disease-free herds for 
display in zoos or wildlife parks. This occurs only when surplus 
animals are available and these surplus animals have typically come 
from Elk Island National Park (Gates et al. 2010, p. 81).
    The wood bison was placed in Appendix I of the Convention on 
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 
(CITES) on July 1, 1975, when the treaty first went into effect. CITES 
is an international agreement between governments to ensure that the 
international trade of CITES-listed plant and animal species does not 
threaten species' survival in the wild. There are currently 175 CITES 
Parties (member countries or signatories to the Convention). Under this 
treaty, CITES Parties regulate the import, export, and reexport of 
CITES-protected plants and

[[Page 6745]]

animal species (also see Factor D). Trade must be authorized through a 
system of permits and certificates that are provided by the designated 
CITES Scientific and Management Authorities of each CITES Party (CITES 
2010, unpaginated). Species included in CITES Appendix I are considered 
threatened with extinction, and international trade is permitted only 
under exceptional circumstances, which generally precludes commercial 
trade.
    Beginning in 1993, the European Economic Community CITES Working 
Group authorized the import of wood bison trophies from the Mackenzie 
population, one of the disease-free herds with regulated harvest. On 
September 28, 1997, the wood bison was downlisted to Appendix II based 
on a proposal from Canada, which described progress made in recovery 
plan implementation (Government of Canada 1997, entire). The United 
States voted in support of the downlisting. Appendix II allows for 
regulated trade, including commercial trade, as long as the exporting 
country issues a CITES permit based on findings that the specimen was 
legally acquired and the export will not be detrimental to the survival 
of the species.
    Between the time the wood bison was first listed in CITES in 1975 
and 2009, 169 CITES-permitted shipments have been reported to the 
United Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring 
Center (UNEP-WCMC). Of these, 132 shipments have occurred since 1997, 
when the wood bison was downlisted to Appendix II. Of these 132 
shipments, 49 (37 percent) were reportedly imported into the United 
States and six (four percent) were shipments permitted for export from 
the United States (UNEP-WCMC 2010, unpaginated). With the information 
given in the UNEP-WCMC database, of the 132 shipments recorded between 
1997 and 2009, approximately 17 shipments consisted of live wood bison: 
13 shipments (165 individuals) of captive-born/captive-bred wood bison 
were traded for commercial, zoological, or captive-breeding purposes; 
two shipments of ranched wood bison (13 individuals) were traded for 
commercial purposes; and two shipments of wild wood bison (18 
individuals) were traded for commercial and captive-breeding purposes. 
There has been no trade in live, wild wood bison reported since 2002. 
The other 115 shipments since 1997 involved trade in parts and products 
(15 trophies, 1,628 kg (3,589 lb) of meat, 9 carvings, 8 skulls and 
horns, 304 teeth, 17 skins, 629 scientific specimens, and 6 garments, 
leather products, and hair) of wild, captive-born/captive-bred, pre-
Convention, and confiscated wood bison.
    As a species listed in Appendix II of CITES, commercial trade of 
wood bison is allowed. However, CITES requires that before an export 
can occur, a determination must be made that the specimens were legally 
obtained (in accordance with national laws) and that the export will 
not be detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild. Because 
CITES requires that all international shipments of wood bison must be 
legally obtained and not detrimental to the survival of the species, we 
believe that international trade controlled via valid CITES permits is 
not a threat to the species. Furthermore, we have no information 
indicating that illegal trade is a threat to this species.
Summary of Factor B
    It is possible that, with the ongoing recovery actions, a status 
review of wood bison in Canada could lead to delisting under SARA 
within the next 10 years. If this were to happen, we expect that 
regulations for recreational hunting, import of wood bison trophies, 
and permitting would change. Our ability to predict how these changes 
would affect the status of the species is limited; consequently we can 
only reliably project for a short time into the future.
    Because harvest rates of free-ranging wood bison are based on 
sustainability, harvest is closely monitored and regulated, scientific 
collecting is tightly controlled, commercial harvest does not occur in 
wild populations, and import and export are controlled via CITES 
permits, we have determined that overutilization for commercial, 
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is not a threat to 
wood bison now or in the foreseeable future.

C. Disease or Predation

Disease
    A decision in the early 1920s led to the transfer of 6,673 plains 
bison into WBNP, Alberta, Canada, where approximately 1,500 disease-
free wood bison resided (FEAP 1990, p. 6; Gates et al. 1992, pp. 146-
147). Although initially separated by fairly large distances, the 
plains bison eventually co-occurred and interbred with the wood bison 
and also transmitted bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis to them (FEAP 
1990, p. 6; Gates et al. 1992, pp. 146-147). By the late 1940s and 
early 1950s, the population of wood bison in WBNP increased to between 
12,500 and 15,000 animals (Fuller, 1950, p. 450). From that level, wood 
bison numbers began to decline from 11,000 in 1971 to approximately 
2,300 by 1998 (Carbyn et al. 1998, p. 464). The reasons for the 
population decline are not known with certainty, but disease, predation 
by wolves, and habitat condition may all have played a role (Carbyn et 
al. 1998, pp. 467-468; Joly and Messier 2004, pp. 1165-1166). 
Population numbers at WBNP have stabilized at about 4,000 to 5,000 
since 2002 (Table 1).
    Bovine tuberculosis and bovine brucellosis receive special 
attention because they cause production losses in domestic animals, 
they can potentially infect humans, and they are required to be 
reported under the Canadian Food and Inspection Agency's (CFIA) Health 
of Animals Act and Regulations (FEAP 1990, p. 7). Although wildlife is 
not under their jurisdiction, the CFIA recognizes the threat of 
reportable diseases to the commercial livestock industry and 
international trade. The CFIA follows a strict testing and eradication 
program for bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis in domestic animals, 
requiring that all infected animals and all exposed susceptible animals 
be destroyed (Canadian Food Inspection Agency 2002, unpaginated). 
Consequently, there is great concern from the Canadian cattle industry, 
which is currently recognized as disease-free, that disease will spread 
from the wood bison to domestic cattle (GNT 2009, p. 13). The goal of 
the CFIA's National Bovine Tuberculosis/Brucellosis Eradication Program 
is to detect and eradicate tuberculosis and brucellosis in farmed 
animals in Canada in order to protect the health of food-producing and 
companion animals, safeguard human health, and safeguard the health of 
free-roaming wildlife. Canada recognizes an obligation to detect, 
identify, report, and contain important diseases in wildlife, 
especially those with the potential to impact biodiversity, human and 
livestock health, the environment, and the economy within and beyond 
their borders.
    The wood bison in and around WBNP are a reservoir for bovine 
brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis. Because there is a risk that these 
diseases could spread to uninfected free-ranging bison herds or to 
commercial cattle and bison operations, limits are placed on herd 
expansion to minimize the chance that the diseased animals come into 
contact with either free-ranging, disease-free herds, or domestic 
cattle or bison operations. In addition, the diseased herds occupy 
suitable habitat that could be used for the establishment of disease-
free herds of wood bison. Therefore, the existence of diseased bison 
herds in and

[[Page 6746]]

around WBNP compromises further recovery of wood bison in northern 
Alberta, the Northwest Territories, and British Columbia (Gates et al. 
2001, p. 29). The total area compromised by diseased herds is 
approximately 218,516 km\2\ (84,369 mi\2\) or about 12 percent of the 
original range of the wood bison in Canada (Gates et al. 2001, p. 24). 
As mentioned earlier there are no effective vaccines for the treatment 
of animals in free-ranging populations.
    The disease-free herds most at risk from infection from animals at 
WBNP are the Mackenzie, Hay-Zama, and Nahanni. Regulated harvest is 
allowed from the Mackenzie herd, Nahanni herd, and the Hay-Zama herds 
under permit systems (as described under Factor B), in part to prevent 
overlap with the diseased herd. In addition, the Governments of the 
Northwest Territories, Alberta, and British Columbia have designated 
management zones to reduce the risk of dispersing animals transmitting 
disease to disease-free herds in their provinces. In 1987, the 
Government of the Northwest Territories implemented a program to reduce 
the risk of contact between infected bison in and around WBNP and 
disease-free bison in the Mackenzie and Nahanni herds by establishing a 
Bison Free Management Area (BFMA) (Nishi 2002, pp. 5-6). The BFMA 
(39,000 km\2\ (15,058 mi\2\) encompasses the area between the Alberta-
Northwest Territories border and southern shoreline of the Mackenzie 
River. In 1992, the Government of the Northwest Territories established 
the Nuisance Bison Control Regulations under the Northwest Territories 
Wildlife Regulations Act, permitting eligible hunters to legally shoot 
any bison sighted in the BFMA. All bison within this area are presumed 
disease carriers. The objectives of the program are to detect and 
remove any bison, and to prevent establishment of herds in the 
management area (Nishi 2002, p. 6). No bison were observed in the area 
during annual aerial surveys in the period 1988-2006, but 13 bison were 
killed in the mid-1990s (Nishi 2002, pp. 12-13; Hartop et al. 2009, p. 
41). Aerial surveillance occurs annually.
    In 1995, the Government of Alberta established a 36,000 km\2\ 
(13,900 mi\2\) bison management area around the Hay-Zama herd to 
protect all bison from hunting. Within this area, all wood bison are 
legally protected under Alberta's Wildlife Act; outside of the area 
they are not protected and can be hunted. The area outside of the 
protected management area creates a large buffer zone between the 
disease-free Hay-Zama herd and the diseased herds within WBNP (Gates et 
al. 2001, p. 38).
    Control areas and buffer zones between diseased and non-diseased 
populations may not prevent disease transmission (Canadian Food 
Inspection Agency 2002, unpaginated) because they are sporadically 
patrolled and imperfectly enforced. As discussed earlier, fences are an 
ineffective method to contain herds long term, especially those in 
large areas (FEAP 1990, p. 29). Consequently, a long-term, more 
sustainable solution is needed to address this problem.
    A Federal Environmental Assessment Panel (FEAP) was assembled to 
evaluate four courses of action to address the diseased herds at WBNP. 
These actions were initially proposed by the Bison Disease Task Force: 
(1) Do nothing; (2) fence WBNP to contain the diseased bison and 
prevent the spread of disease; (3) use a combination of strategically 
placed fences, buffer zones exterior to the Park from which all bison 
would be eliminated, and institute land-use restrictions on cattle 
grazing; and (4) phased elimination of the diseased herd and 
replacement with disease-free wood bison (FEAP 1990, p. 15). After 
public hearings, and consultation with technical experts, the panel 
recommended eradication of the existing diseased bison population to 
eliminate the risk of transmission of disease from bison in and around 
WBNP to domestic cattle, wood bison, and humans (FEAP 1990, p. 2). 
Public response to this recommendation was largely negative (Carbyn et 
al. 1998, p. 464). The recommendation was not implemented; 
consequently, control of disease spread currently depends on the buffer 
zones.
    Annual examinations and serological studies of bison harvested from 
the Mackenzie herd indicate that the herd continues to be disease free 
(Nishi 2002, p. 23). Over 220 samples from the Hay-Zama herd were 
received as a result of the hunts that could be tested for disease. All 
samples tested negative (Government of Canada 2010a, unpaginated). 
There is also no evidence of bovine brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis 
in reintroduced herds in the Yukon Territory, British Columbia, western 
Alberta, or Manitoba. Free-ranging, disease-free herds currently 
include approximately 4,414 wood bison (Table 1). Because of their 
distance from WBNP, the Aishihik and Chitek Lake herds are the most 
secure from disease.
    Recovery and conservation efforts for wood bison emphasize the 
importance of preventing the spread of tuberculosis and brucellosis to 
disease-free populations, and eliminating diseases in infected 
populations (Gates et al. 2001, p. 30). The focus on disease prevention 
and control is consistent with the recovery goals of increasing the 
number of disease-free populations. Parks Canada, through Elk Island 
National Park, has worked with the recovery team and others to develop 
and maintain a disease-free captive-breeding herd, which has provided 
healthy stock for several restoration projects (Gates et al. 2001, p. 
18).
    Because the northern latitudes are experiencing the greatest 
changes in climate, this area may also be at the greatest risk for the 
emergence of diseases and parasites that may threaten the stability of 
wildlife populations (Kutz et al. 2004, pp. 109, 114). Warming may be 
of particular concern for wildlife in northern regions because the 
life-history patterns of most hosts and parasites are currently 
constrained by climatic conditions (Kutz et al. 2004, p. 114). 
Researchers have hypothesized that climate change will accelerate 
pathogen development rates, lead to greater overwinter survival of 
pathogens, and modify host susceptibility to infection in such a way 
that the effects of disease will increase (Ytrehus et al. 2008, p. 
214). Wood bison are susceptible to many diseases and parasites 
(Reynolds et al. 2003, pp. 1030-1032). How climate change may affect 
the number of animals infected, the pathogen virulence, and, 
consequently, wood bison viability is unknown.
    One potential effect of climate change may be an increase in 
anthrax outbreaks because of increased summer air temperatures. Between 
1962 and 1993, nine anthrax outbreaks were recorded in northern Canada, 
killing at least 1,309 wood bison (Dragon et al. 1999, p. 209). 
Additional outbreaks continued to occur through at least 2007 (GNT 
2009, p. 13). Wood bison appear most susceptible to outbreaks when they 
are stressed, including heat stress and high densities of biting 
insects (Dragon et al. 1999, p. 212; Gates et al. 2010, p. 28). In 
addition, if climate change leads to widespread or intense drought, 
there could be changes in the quality and availability of forage that 
may cause animals to concentrate around available food and water. These 
factors could contribute to stress levels and increase susceptibility 
to anthrax (Dragon et al. 1999, p. 212; Gates et al. 2010, p. 28). 
Although isolated anthrax outbreaks occur currently, it is possible 
that outbreaks may become more frequent, widespread, or affect a 
greater number of animals in the future. Thus far, anthrax outbreaks 
have occurred

[[Page 6747]]

sporadically when the necessary factors have come together to affect 
portions of one herd at a time. Anthrax is not currently having a 
population-level effect, and we do not have enough information to 
predict with confidence if anthrax will have a population-level effect 
on wood bison in the future as a result of climate change.
Predation
    Wolf predation can be a significant limiting factor for diseased 
populations of wood bison (Reynolds et al. 1978, p. 581; Van Camp 1987, 
p. 25). Wood bison were the principle food of two wolf packs from 1975 
to 1977 in the Slave River lowlands (Van Camp 1987, pp. 29, 32). Of the 
adult and subadult wood bison that died in 1976-1977, wolves killed 31 
percent; however, hunters killed 39.3 percent (Van Camp 1987, p. 33). 
Joly and Messier (2004, p. 1173) found that productivity of the 
diseased WBNP herd was insufficient to offset losses to both predation 
and disease, but that in the absence of either factor, positive 
population growth was possible. Presence of disease likely increased 
the killing success of wolves through bison debilitation (Joly and 
Messier 2004, p. 1174). Wood bison evolved with wolves and we have no 
data showing that predation by wolves is limiting the recovery of any 
of the disease-free herds or would cause the extirpation of a herd 
(ADF&G 2007, p. 98).
Summary of Factor C
    The presence of disease and diseased herds is recognized as a 
factor limiting recovery (Mitchell and Gates 2002, p. 12). The 
effectiveness of current management actions such as maintaining spatial 
separation between diseased and disease-free herds by limiting herd 
size is yet to be determined over long timeframes. Research is 
continuing on creation of disease-free herds. No effective vaccines 
exist for brucellosis, tuberculosis, or anthrax for free-ranging 
populations. In addition, although recommendations for the management 
of the diseased herds in and around WBNP have been suggested (FEAP 
1990, p. 2) they have not yet been implemented, it is unknown if they 
will be implemented, or how implementation of the recommendations would 
affect the status of the subspecies.
    Predation by wolves is a natural threat that will persist 
indefinitely into the future. Although diseased herds may be more 
susceptible to predation, healthy herds, which now represent 
approximately half of the free-ranging wood bison, are not. As long as 
wolves are present on the landscape, they will present an ongoing, low 
level of threat, especially to diseased herds.
    The presence of disease in the largest potential donor population 
of wood bison (WBNP herd) has limited the number of animals available 
for establishing or augmenting herds throughout the wood bison's 
historical range and has removed otherwise optimal habitat from 
consideration for expansion of wild populations. The presence of 
reportable diseases will continue to lead to actions that impact 
conservation, in particular restriction of herd expansion and the 
reintroduction of herds in particular areas. Although brucellosis and 
tuberculosis may limit wood bison population growth and productivity in 
some herds, they are unlikely to cause extirpation of any population 
(Bradley and Wilmshurst 2005, p. 1204; Gates et al. 2010, p. 60), but 
when combined with predation herd size can be limited. Anthrax 
outbreaks occur sporadically when critical factors come together. 
Climate change could affect the frequency of outbreaks if increased 
temperatures or drought caused increased levels of stress in the 
animals, especially during the rut. Because disease constrains and 
inhibits full recovery of the species, until a solution for the 
diseased animals at WBNP is found, or effective vaccines are discovered 
and utilized, disease will continue to be a threat to wood bison now 
and in the foreseeable future.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The first protective legislation for wood bison, making it illegal 
for anyone to molest the species, was passed by the Canadian Government 
in 1877, but not until the law was enforced beginning in 1897 did the 
population increase (Soper 1941, pp. 362-363; Gates et al. 2001, p. 
12).
    As previously mentioned, the wood bison was recognized by the 
COSEWIC as an endangered subspecies of Canadian wildlife in 1978. It 
was reclassified to threatened in June 1988, based on a status report 
prepared by the National Wood Bison Recovery Team.
    The Species at Risk Act (SARA), enacted on December 12, 2002, 
became fully effective on June 1, 2004, and is the Canadian counterpart 
to the U.S. Endangered Species Act. The purpose of SARA is to prevent 
listed wildlife species from becoming extinct or lost from the wild 
(extirpated); to help in the recovery of extirpated, endangered, or 
threatened species; and to ensure that species of special concern do 
not become endangered or threatened. SARA also requires the development 
of recovery strategies and action plans for covered species. In the 
SARA, the COSEWIC was established as the scientific body that 
identifies and assesses a species' status; however, the government 
makes the final decision on whether to list a species.
    Species such as wood bison that were designated as threatened or 
endangered by the COSEWIC before SARA had to be reassessed before being 
included on the official list of wildlife species under SARA. The wood 
bison is currently listed as a threatened species under Schedule 1 of 
SARA. The National Recovery Plan for wood bison was published in 2001 
(Gates et al. 2001) and is currently under revision. As discussed in 
the Recovery section above, many recovery actions have been implemented 
and more are in progress. As discussed under Factor B, SARA requires 
permits for all scientific collection of listed species.
    The SARA covers all species on Federal lands such as national 
parks, national wildlife areas, Prairie Farm Rehabilitation 
Administration pastures, aboriginal reserve lands, and military 
training areas. It prohibits the killing, harming, harassing, or taking 
of extirpated, endangered, or threatened species, and the destruction 
of their residences (e.g., nest or den) on Federal lands, except where 
permitted under a national recovery strategy (GNT 2009, p. 15). Because 
the recovery strategy includes managing herd size for the health of the 
habitat and herds (Gates et al. 2001, pp. 35-39), bison hunting is 
allowed under a quota system in the Nahanni, Mackenzie, and Aishihik 
herds (described under Factor B). The Northwest Territories Big Game 
Hunting Regulations consider bison in the Slave River Lowlands to be 
hybrids, which General Hunting License holders may hunt without limit 
or closed season. In the Yukon, the Aishihik herd size is managed 
through hunting. In Alberta, Hay-Zama herd size is managed by hunting 
to reduce the likelihood that the herd will come into contact with 
animals from WBNP (GNT 2009, p. 15).
    Habitat protection within the range of the Mackenzie bison herd is 
facilitated through the SARA and the Mackenzie Valley Resource 
Management Act of 1998. Although the Mackenzie Valley Resource 
Management Act does not specifically provide protection to wood bison, 
it did create a Land and Water Board (LWB), which is given the power to 
regulate the use of land and water, including the issuance of land use 
permits and water licenses. The LWB's Environmental Impact Review Board 
is the main instrument in the Mackenzie Valley for the examination of 
the

[[Page 6748]]

environmental impact of proposed developments. The LWB's Land Use 
Planning Board is given the power to develop land use plans and to 
ensure that future use of lands is carried out in conformity with those 
plans.
    As described below, several wood bison herds occur wholly or 
partially in National Parks, ecological reserves, or Provincial Parks 
(Table 2). In 1922, WBNP was established in Alberta and the Northwest 
Territories for the protection of wood bison. Habitat protection of 
44,807 km\2\ (17,300 mi\2\) within WBNP occurs through the Canada 
National Parks Act, the purpose of which is to maintain or restore the 
ecological integrity of parks, through the protection of natural 
resources and natural processes. With respect to a park, ecological 
integrity means a condition characteristic of its natural region, 
including abiotic (nonliving) components and the composition and 
abundance of native species and biological communities. Renewable 
harvest activities can be regulated or prohibited, and is enforced 
through this legislation (Canada National Parks Act, 2000). National 
parks are protected by Federal legislation from all forms of extractive 
resource use such as mining, forestry, agriculture, and sport hunting. 
Only activities consistent with the protection of park resources are 
allowed. Efforts are directed at maintaining the physical environment 
in as natural a state as possible. Sport hunting is prohibited; 
however, traditional subsistence-level harvesting by First Nations is 
allowed in some areas as long as the resources are conserved (The 
Canadian Encyclopedia 2010a, unpaginated).
    Ecological reserves are established in part for the protection of 
rare and endangered plants and animals in their natural habitat; 
preservation of unique, rare, or outstanding botanical, zoological, or 
geological phenomena; and perpetuation of important genetic resources. 
Research and educational functions are the primary uses for ecological 
reserves, but are open to the public for non-consumptive, observational 
uses. Plans are developed by the Ministry of Environment to provide 
protection and management to ensure long-term maintenance. Resource 
use, such as tree cutting, hunting, fishing, mining, domestic grazing, 
camping, lighting of fires and removal of materials, plants or animals, 
and the use of motorized vehicles are prohibited (British Columbia 
2010, unpaginated).
    Although there are numerous parks and ecological reserves 
throughout the range of the wood bison, these areas do not necessarily 
encompass all of the individuals of a herd. Individuals frequently move 
into and out of these areas; therefore, wood bison herds are only 
afforded protection while within the boundaries of the park or 
ecological reserve.

  Table 2--Free-Ranging Wood Bison Herds and Land Management Units That
                       Provide Protection to Them
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Herd category and name      Canadian province      Protected area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free-ranging, disease-free
 herds:
    Mackenzie.................  Northwest          Mackenzie Bison
                                 Territories.       Sanctuary.
    Aishihik..................  Yukon............  None identified, but
                                                    occupied habitat is
                                                    government-owned.
    Hay-Zama..................  Alberta..........  Wildlife Management
                                                    Area.
    Nordquist.................  British Columbia.  Portage Brule Rapids
    Etthithun.................  British Columbia.   Ecological Reserve,
    Nahanni...................  British Columbia,   Smith River
    Chitek Lake...............   Northwest          Ecological Reserve,
                                 Territories.       Smith River Falls--
                                Manitoba.........   Fort Halkett Park,
                                                    Liard River Corridor
                                                    Park, Liard River
                                                    Hotsprings Park,
                                                    Liard River West
                                                    Corridor Park, Liard
                                                    River Corridor
                                                    Protected Area,
                                                    Hyland River Park,
                                                    Muncho Lake Park,
                                                    and Milligan Hills
                                                    Park.
                                                   Chitek Lake Reserve.
Free-ranging, diseased herds:
    Wood Buffalo National Park  Alberta,           Wood Buffalo National
                                 Northwest          Park.
                                 Territories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process (EARP) was 
introduced in Canada in 1973. In 1995, the Canadian Environmental 
Assessment Act replaced EARP and strengthened the Environmental Impact 
Assessment (EIA). The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act outlines 
responsibilities and procedures for the EIA of projects for which the 
Federal Government holds decisionmaking authority. The purposes of EIAs 
are to minimize or avoid adverse environmental effects before they 
occur and incorporate environmental factors into decisionmaking. All 
projects in National Parks must have an EIA. An EIA is also required 
under the law of the provinces and territories. Municipalities and 
corporations are subject to the EIA requirements of their respective 
provincial, territorial, or land claim jurisdictions, and are also 
subject to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act if the Federal 
Government holds some decisionmaking authority concerning the proposed 
development or the acceptability of its impacts. This legislation 
ensures that any projects conducted on Federal lands, including 
National Parks, are carefully reviewed before Federal authorities take 
action so that projects do not cause significant adverse environmental 
effects, including areas surrounding the project. It encourages Federal 
authorities to take actions that promote sustainable development 
(Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 2010, unpaginated). If a 
project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects 
that cannot be justified in the circumstances, even after taking into 
account appropriate mitigation measures the project shall not be 
carried out in whole or in part (Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 
(20)(b) and (37)(b)).
    The wood bison is listed on Appendix II of CITES. CITES, an 
international treaty among 175 nations, including Canada and the United 
States, became effective in 1975. In the United States, CITES is 
implemented through the U.S. Endangered Species Act. The Secretary of 
the Interior has delegated the Department of the Interior's 
responsibility for CITES to the Director of the Service and established 
the CITES Scientific and Management Authorities to implement the 
treaty.
    CITES provides varying degrees of protection to more than 32,000 
species of animals and plants that are traded as whole specimens, 
parts, or products. Under this treaty, member countries work together 
to ensure that international trade in animal and plant species is not 
detrimental to the survival

[[Page 6749]]

of wild populations by regulating the import, export, and reexport of 
CITES-listed animal and plant species (USFWS 2010, unpaginated). Under 
CITES, a species is listed on an Appendix and receives varying levels 
of regulation in international trade through permit and certification 
requirements depending upon the particular Appendix in which the 
species is listed (CITES 2010b, unpaginated). CITES Appendix-II species 
are not necessarily considered to be threatened with extinction now but 
may become so unless trade in the species is regulated. Appendix II 
allows for regulated trade, including commercial trade, as long as the 
exporting country issues a CITES permit based on findings that the 
specimen was legally acquired and the export will not be detrimental to 
the survival of the species. As discussed under Factor B, we do not 
consider international trade to be a threat impacting the wood bison. 
Therefore, protection under this treaty is an adequate regulatory 
mechanism.
    Provincial and territorial governments within Canada can use the 
Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and 
Interprovincial Trade Act (WAPPRIITA) to control transport of wood 
bison across their borders. This law applies to wood bison because it 
is on the CITES control list. The WAPPRIITA prohibits the import, 
export, and interprovincial transportation of CITES-listed species or 
any Canadian species whose capture, possession, and transportation are 
regulated by provincial or territorial laws, unless the specimens are 
accompanied by the appropriate documents (licenses, permits). In all 
cases, the WAPPRIITA applies to the animal, alive or dead, as well as 
to its parts and any derived products (Environment Canada 2010, p. 1).
    In addition to national-level legislation that provides protection 
to wood bison, there is also protection at the provincial level. 
Alberta, the Northwest Territories, British Columbia, Manitoba, and the 
Yukon Territory classify wood bison as wildlife, which is the property 
of the provincial or territorial government. In 1995, the Government of 
Alberta established a Wildlife Management Area to protect the Hay-Zama 
herd and listed the wood bison as endangered within the protected area 
under the Alberta Wildlife Act (Gates et al. 2010, p. 71). In this 
area, all wood bison are legally protected from hunting; outside of the 
area they are not protected.
    The Northwest Territories Wildlife Act enables the Minister of the 
Department of Resources, Wildlife, and Economic Development to prohibit 
the importation of any wildlife into the Northwest Territories without 
a permit. This prohibits uncontrolled importation of plains bison. In 
May 1964, wood bison were declared in danger of becoming extinct under 
the Northwest Territories Act and are now designated as a protected 
species in the Northwest Territories. As such, sport hunting and 
subsistence hunting by aboriginal people may occur, but is regulated.
    Wood bison are on British Columbia's Red List of species and 
subspecies that are candidates for legal designation as endangered or 
threatened under the Wildlife Act (Harper 2002, p. 3). Wood bison are 
an endangered species under the Yukon Act and a ``specially protected 
species'' under the Wildlife Act (Yukon legislation) and are listed as 
protected under Manitoba's Wildlife Act. Bison are considered domestic 
when held in captivity under permit or license for game farming 
purposes. If a wood bison escapes captivity, the provincial or 
territorial government acquires ownership of the animal and it, 
therefore, becomes protected (Harper and Gates 2000, p. 919).
    In the United States, as an endangered species under the Act, pure 
wood bison can be imported only by permit for scientific research or 
enhancement of propagation or survival of the species. Wood/plains 
bison hybrids, however, are not protected by the Act and can be 
imported if the required CITES Foreign Export Permits are obtained from 
Canada prior to the import. If the wood bison is reclassified to 
threatened, import of trophies legally taken and properly permitted 
under the Act could also occur. Because of the regulations in place in 
Canada for all hunts and the permits required for import/export under 
CITES, we do not anticipate that reclassification would cause any 
increase in the number of animals killed or have any effect on the 
herds that are hunted.
    In addition to the protection of CITES and the Endangered Species 
Act, the import of live wood bison and trophies is also regulated by 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service (APHIS), Veterinary Services for health purposes 
(APHIS 2007, entire). Imported wood bison must be accompanied by a 
health certificate that certifies, among other things, that the animal 
is free of any evidence of communicable disease, was not in quarantine 
in Canada, is from a brucellosis-free province or territory, and has 
continuously resided in a tuberculosis accredited-free province.
    Although there is tight control over the transmission of disease 
across the Canadian border, control of disease within Canada is more 
challenging. As explained above (Factor C), there is a program to 
detect and eradicate tuberculosis and brucellosis in farmed animals in 
Canada in order to protect the health of food-producing and companion 
animals, safeguard human health, and safeguard the health of free-
roaming wildlife. In addition, buffer zones in which dispersing animals 
may be harvested have been created around the diseased herds to reduce 
the risk of bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis infection of the 
Mackenzie and Nahanni herds, which are most at risk from infection from 
animals at WBNP. In addition, the Governments of the Northwest 
Territories, Alberta, and British Columbia have designated management 
zones to reduce the risk of dispersing animals transmitting disease to 
disease-free herds in their provinces. However, as noted above, buffer 
zones are not ideal for preventing the spread of disease because they 
are sporadically patrolled and imperfectly enforced. Existing 
regulations and policies address the transmission of disease within 
Canada, but it is impossible to regulate the movement of wild animals 
across a large, mostly uninhabited landscape. Thus, we conclude that 
regulatory mechanisms are in place to minimize the spread of disease 
but because of the difficulty in containing herds of wild animals, the 
mechanisms are inadequate to prevent the spread of disease.
    Under Factor E, we conclude that loss of genetic integrity through 
hybridization is a threat to wood bison. Preventing hybridization 
between plains bison and free-roaming wood bison is a goal of the 
recovery plan and is important to the conservation of the subspecies 
(Gates et al. 2001, p. 33). There is one free-ranging plains bison herd 
in Canada, in British Columbia, which was established as a result of 
the plains bison escaping from their enclosure. Preventing 
interbreeding between free-ranging plains bison and wood bison is a 
management objective in British Columbia and is accomplished by 
maintaining a large physical separation between the herds and having a 
management zone around the plains bison herd that allows harvest of 
plains bison within this zone (Harper et al. 2000, p. 23).
    As discussed earlier under Factor A, plains bison presence on the 
landscape is increasing and commercial plains bison operations in 
Canada are expanding. The presence of plains bison within the 
historical range of wood bison increases the probability that wood 
bison will come into contact with

[[Page 6750]]

them. Ranchers are most likely highly motivated by economics to prevent 
the escape of their animals and to recapture them if they do escape. It 
is unlikely that additional government regulations would improve on 
this basic incentive; therefore, although there may not be specific 
regulations regarding how plains bison should be contained, such 
regulations are not viewed as necessary or effectual. As mentioned 
above, buffer zones are not ideal for preventing the movement of free-
ranging bison. Thus, although regulations are in place by which the 
Pink Mountain plains bison herd (a free-ranging herd) can be managed, 
and there is no indication that they have not been effective, they may 
not be 100 percent effective in preventing hybridization in the future 
because of the difficulty of managing wild animals over large areas of 
forested landscape.
Summary of Factor D
    The wood bison is currently protected through a variety of 
regulatory mechanisms, and we anticipate those protections to continue. 
The wood bison is protected by Canadian Federal, provincial, and 
territorial law. Internationally, its trade is regulated by CITES. 
International trade is limited to animals surplus to recovery needs in 
Canada, as determined under guidance of the National Wood Bison 
Recovery Team. In the United States, activities involving wood bison 
are regulated by the Endangered Species Act, and with reclassification, 
they will continue to be regulated. Federal agencies will need to 
consult with the Service on activities that may affect the species, and 
Federal permits will be required for scientific collection or any other 
form of take.
    Disease and hybridization have been identified as threats to wood 
bison. Although buffer zones have been established and regulations 
implemented for the management of the buffer zones to minimize the 
potential of disease spread and hybridization, buffer zones have 
limitations and are an imperfect means by which to prevent animal 
movement. Therefore, we conclude that existing regulatory mechanisms 
are inadequate to completely protect wood bison from these threats.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued Existence

Accidental Mortality
    Because bison follow linear landmarks and prefer open areas, 
vehicles on roads and other linear developments, such as railroad 
lines, present a hazard to wood bison. Collisions with vehicles are the 
largest source of known mortality for individuals in the Hay-Zama herd 
(Mitchell and Gates 2002, p. 9). For the Nordquist herd, vehicle 
collisions are a significant mortality factor (Wildlife Collision 
Prevention Program. 2010, pp. 22-23). The herd was established in the 
Nordquist Flats area, near the Liard River in northeastern British 
Columbia; however, individuals, and then the majority of the herd, 
moved to the Alaska Highway corridor. In January 2007, a limited aerial 
survey counted 97 wood bison, all of which were on the highway right-
of-way, except for four bulls, which were observed within 500 m (1,640 
ft) of the road (Reynolds et al. 2009, p. 6). Three of 15 wood bison 
introduced to the Etthithun Lake area in 1996 were killed in collisions 
with industrial road traffic during the first winter (Harper and Gates 
2000, p. 921). The Yukon government has a ``bison-free'' policy in the 
vicinity of the Alaska Highway that includes deterrence, capture, and 
ultimately the destruction of problem animals (Yukon Fish and Wildlife 
Co-management undated, p. 1). During the growth phase of the Aishihik 
herd from 1988 to 1993, 49 wood bison were removed from the Alaska 
Highway right-of-way because of vehicle collisions and problem wildlife 
complaints (Boyd 2003, p. 187). Of these, 36 were captured and moved to 
a game farm, 8 were killed in collisions, and 5 were intentionally 
killed (Wildlife Collision Prevention Program 2010, unpaginated). From 
1989 to 2007, collisions with vehicles killed from 1 to 30 wood bison 
annually from three herds combined in the Northwest Territories; fewer 
than 10 were killed annually in 11 of the 18 years (GNT 2009, p. 17; 
Wildlife Collision Prevention Program 2010, unpaginated).
    Because of continued or increased resource development, tourism, 
and off-road vehicle use, it is anticipated that mortality from 
collisions with vehicles will be a source of individual mortality for 
several populations. Because mortality from road collisions represents 
a small portion of the total subspecies population, and efforts are 
made to reduce bison/highway conflicts, this source of mortality is not 
expected to have a significant impact at the subspecies population 
level.
    Spring flooding in the Peace-Athabasca River Delta in 1958, 1961, 
and 1974 killed approximately 500, 1,100, and 3,000 wood bison, 
respectively (Reynolds et al. 2003, p. 1029). Autumn flooding in the 
same area in 1959 killed an estimated 3,000 (Reynolds et al. 2003, p. 
1029). This region is within WBNP where the diseased herds reside. Most 
likely a small number of animals drown each year when caught by floods 
or when they break through ice (Soper 1941, p. 403). Large drowning 
events have not been documented from other rivers, and no large 
mortality events have been documented in recent years. Drowning is also 
recognized as a cause of mortality in the Chitek Lake herd. Because 
mortality due to drowning typically affects only a portion of a herd 
and herd sizes are increasing (Table 1), drowning does not appear to be 
having a population-level effect on wood bison.
    Although wood bison are hardy and very cold tolerant (Gates et al. 
2010, p. 24), above-average snowfall, long periods of sub-zero 
temperatures, and midwinter thaws followed by freezing can cause 
mortality. Such severe winter conditions reduce forage availability 
(Reynolds et al. 2003, p. 1030). Rain on snow events can also form an 
ice layer that creates a barrier to forage for herbivores (Putkonen 
2009, p. 221). Freezing rain in autumn that causes ground-fast ice to 
form before snow cover accumulates, ice layering in the snow cover, 
crusting of the snow, and the formation of ground-fast ice in spring 
increase the energy required to obtain forage or make forage 
unobtainable (Gunn and Dragon 2002, p. 58). Soper (1941, pp. 403-404) 
recounts several stories in which excessive snowfall caused mass 
mortalities of wood bison, and Van Camp and Calef (1987, p. 23) report 
that 33 percent of the diseased wood bison herd in the Slave River 
lowlands was lost during the severe winter of 1974-1975. Starvation in 
bad winters is recognized as a source of mortality for wood bison in 
the Chitek Lake herd. We have no information indicating that starvation 
is having a population-level effect on any of the herds currently.
    Rain on snow events may likely increase in the face of climate 
change (Rennert et al. 2009, p. 2312). A doubling of carbon dioxide is 
estimated to cause a 40 percent increase in the area impacted by rain 
on snow events in the Arctic by 2080 (Rennert et al. 2009, p. 2312). 
Rain on snow events may become more prevalent primarily in northwestern 
Canada, Alaska, and eastern Russia (Rennert et al. 2009, p. 2312). We 
have no reports that rain on snow events have led to the deaths of 
bison, but they could be susceptible to starvation by such events.
Genetic Issues
    Genetic diversity in wood bison has been reduced through the large 
historic reduction in overall population size and the starting of new 
populations with

[[Page 6751]]

very few individuals (founder effect). Genetic diversity is the primary 
means by which organisms can adapt to changing environmental conditions 
over time. Low levels of genetic diversity can reduce the ability of a 
population to respond to environmental changes. Current wood bison 
herds were established from relatively few founders (Wilson and 
Strobeck 1999, pp. 484-486). For example, the Elk Island National Park 
herd was started from 11 individuals, and the Mackenzie herd was 
started from 16 (Gates et al. 1992, p. 150; Wilson and Strobeck 1999, 
p. 494). Inbreeding, the mating of related individuals, can lead to 
lower fecundity, abnormalities, reduced growth rates, and other issues. 
Although inbreeding is more likely to occur in small herds or in herds 
that are isolated, it has not been documented in wood bison. Starting 
new populations with multiple groups of animals is one way to avoid or 
minimize the founder effect as was done in the establishment of the 
Aishihik herd. Moving disease-free animals from one herd to another is 
another method to maintain genetic diversity. One of the wood bison 
recovery goals is to ensure that the genetic integrity of wood bison is 
maintained. Because no effects of inbreeding have been documented and 
management actions have been shown to be effective, we conclude that 
loss of genetic diversity is not a threat to wood bison now or in the 
foreseeable future.
    Hybridization occurs when individuals from genetically distinct 
groups such as wood bison and plains bison interbreed. The introduction 
of plains bison to WBNP in the 1920s put the two distinct subspecies in 
contact with each other and threatened the genetic purity of wood bison 
(Gates et al. 2010, p. 17). The discovery of an isolated subpopulation 
of wood bison in 1957, and subsequent translocation of individuals, 
created the Mackenzie and Elk Island National Park herds, which were 
thought to be pure wood bison. Genetic analysis has indicated that 
these bison did have limited contact with plains bison, but it was 
minimal enough that the animals exhibit predominantly wood bison traits 
and wood bison herds originating from these founders are genetically 
more similar to one another than they are to plains bison (van Zyll de 
Jong et al. 1995, pp. 401-404; Wilson and Strobeck 1999, p. 493). 
Although recovery actions emphasize maintaining the genetic integrity 
of wood bison (i.e., recovery goal number 3) (Gates et al. 2001, p. 
33), as discussed earlier under Factor A, plains bison presence on the 
landscape is increasing. Commercial plains bison operations in Canada 
are expanding, and the Pink Mountain plains bison herd was established 
in British Columbia as a result of plains bison escaping from an 
enclosure. The commercial plains bison operations and plains bison 
herds remove potential habitat for wood bison, and the presence of 
plains bison within the historical range of wood bison increases the 
probability that wood bison will come into contact with them. For these 
reasons, loss of genetic integrity through hybridization is a threat to 
wood bison and will remain so in the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor E
    Accidental mortality typically occurs randomly and cannot be 
predicted. We expect accidents to continue at the same rate and scale 
as they have in the past, into the future, but only expect this to 
effect individuals and not be significant enough to affect the species 
as a whole. Relative to genetic diversity, inbreeding in wood bison has 
not been documented, and management actions are in place to prevent 
further loss of genetic diversity. The status of genetic issues 
relating to hybridization could change relatively rapidly, especially 
if plains bison were to escape from captivity in close proximity to a 
wood bison herd. Currently, free-ranging wood bison and plains bison 
herds are widely separated from one another, but as herd size grows, 
the separation shrinks, increasing the odds that they may come into 
contact with one another. Furthermore, bison are difficult animals to 
contain, they can travel long distances, and the wood and plains bison 
can readily interbreed.
    In summary, accidental mortality will continue to occur regularly, 
primarily through collisions with vehicles and drowning. In addition, 
climate change may create localized weather conditions such as above-
average snowfall, long periods of sub-zero temperatures, or ground-fast 
ice formation that can lead to winter mortality of portions of herds. 
Given the number of herds and their wide distribution across the 
landscape, we conclude that accidental mortality and starvation are not 
threats to wood bison now or in the foreseeable future. It is 
recognized that genetic diversity in wood bison is relatively low, and 
that the herds must be managed to maintain genetic diversity. Loss of 
genetic diversity is a factor that may limit the ability of wood bison 
to adapt to changing conditions in the future, but the magnitude of 
that limitation, if it exists, is unknown. Lack of genetic diversity is 
potentially limiting over the long term depending on the magnitude of 
environmental change wood bison may face. Because no effects of 
inbreeding have been documented and management actions have been shown 
to be effective, we conclude that loss of genetic diversity is not a 
threat to wood bison now or in the foreseeable future. Hybridization 
with plains bison is a threat that most likely will increase in the 
future. Because of consumer demand for bison meat we expect commercial 
bison production will continue to expand, removing suitable habitat for 
wood bison recovery herds, and increasing the probability that escaped 
plains bison will be free on the landscape. Hybridization is a threat 
to wood bison now and in the foreseeable future.

Finding

    As required by the Act, we considered the five factors in assessing 
whether the wood bison is threatened or endangered throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. We reviewed the petition, information 
available in our files, comments and information received after the 
publication of our 90-day finding (74 FR 5908), and other available 
published and unpublished information, and consulted with recognized 
experts. We have carefully assessed the best available scientific and 
commercial data regarding the past, present, and future threats faced 
by wood bison. This status review found that threats to wood bison are 
still present in factors A, C, D, and E. Habitat loss has occurred from 
agricultural development, and we expect losses will continue in concert 
with human growth and expansion of agriculture, including commercial 
bison production. The presence of bovine brucellosis and bovine 
tuberculosis constrains herd growth as managers attempt to maintain 
physical separation between diseased and disease-free wood bison and 
cattle herds, the diseased herds are occupying habitat that could be 
restored with disease-free herds, and disease in the largest potential 
donor population (WBNP herd) prevents those animals from being used in 
reintroduction projects. Plains bison are commercially produced in 
historical wood bison habitat. These operations remove potential 
habitat from wood bison recovery efforts and the escape of plains bison 
poses a threat to wood bison because of hybridization and the loss of 
genetic integrity. Finally, we found that regulatory mechanisms are 
inadequate to prevent disease transmission within Canada, and to 
prevent hybridization.
    In addition to the five factor analysis, we also considered the 
progress towards meeting the recovery goals outlined in the Canadian 
recovery plan to

[[Page 6752]]

determine if it is appropriate to reclassify the wood bison under the 
Act. We took into consideration the conservation actions that have 
occurred, are ongoing, and are planned. Since listing, the subspecies' 
status has improved as a result of the following:
     Enactment and enforcement of national and international 
laws and treaties have minimized the impacts of hunting and trade.
     Reintroduction of disease-free herds has increased the 
number of free-ranging herds from 1 population of 300 in 1978 to 7 
populations totaling 4,414 bison in 2008.
     Diseased and disease-free, free-ranging populations are 
stable or increasing.
    In sum, the continued reintroduction of disease-free herds, the 
ongoing development and updating of management plans, the active 
management of herds, the ongoing research, and the protections provided 
by laws and protected lands provide compelling evidence that recovery 
actions have been successful at reducing the threats posed to the 
species.
    The primary factor that led to the listing of the wood bison was 
the small number of free-ranging, disease-free animals on the 
landscape. However, the trend today is towards increasing numbers of 
disease-free herds and population sizes. We find that the threats 
identified under factors A, C, D, and E, when combined with the 
increase in number of herds and population sizes, ongoing active 
management, and protections provided by laws, are not of sufficient 
imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate that the wood bison is 
presently in danger of extinction and is, therefore, not endangered. 
However, threats to wood bison still exist and will continue into the 
foreseeable future. Consequently, we have determined that wood bison 
should be reclassified from endangered to threatened.
    We next consider whether a distinct vertebrate population segment 
(DPS) exists or whether any significant portion of the wood bison range 
meets the definition of endangered.

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment

    Under the Service's ``Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct 
Vertebrate Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act'' (61 
FR 4722, February 7, 1996), three elements are considered in the 
decision concerning the establishment and classification of a possible 
DPS. These elements, which are applied similarly for additions to or 
removal from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 
include:
    (1) The discreteness of a population in relation to the remainder 
of the species to which it belongs;
    (2) The significance of the population segment to the species to 
which it belongs; and
    (3) The population segment's conservation status in relation to the 
Act's standards for listing, delisting, or reclassification (i.e., is 
the population segment endangered or threatened).
Discreteness
    Under the DPS policy, a population segment of a vertebrate taxon 
may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following 
conditions:
    (1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the same 
taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or 
behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological 
discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation.
    (2) It is delimited by international governmental boundaries within 
which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, 
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are 
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
    Free-ranging wood bison herds do not cross international 
boundaries; no herds are discrete based on this criterion. There is 
marked geographic separation of the Aishihik and Chitek Lake herds from 
those centered more closely around WBNP, and there is no possibility of 
gene exchange between the Aishihik and Chitek Lake herds and those near 
WBNP. Because all extant wood bison herds originated from the same 
founders, there is no reason to maintain genetic distinctness among the 
herds. One of the recovery goals is to ``ensure that the genetic 
integrity of wood bison is maintained.'' Because this goal can be 
accomplished through the movement of relatively few animals among the 
herds, it is reasonable to expect that this is a strategy that may be 
employed in the future to maintain genetic integrity. However, to our 
knowledge this strategy has not been used; therefore, because of marked 
geographical separation, the Aishihik and Chitek Lake herds are 
determined to be discrete.
Significance
    Under our DPS Policy, in addition to our consideration that a 
population segment is discrete, we consider its biological and 
ecological significance to the taxon to which it belongs. This 
consideration may include, but is not limited to: (1) Evidence of the 
persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting 
that is unique or unusual for the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the 
population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of 
the taxon; (3) evidence that the population segment represents the only 
surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant 
elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historical range; and 
(4) evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from 
other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics (61 FR 
4721; February 7, 1996).
    None of the wood bison herds occur in unique or unusual ecological 
settings; they are either in typical historical habitat or have been 
established in habitat that mimics historical habitat (Chitek Lake 
herd). Wood bison herds are currently in a growth phase and are 
beginning to fill in gaps in what was once a much more extensive range. 
There are already significant gaps in its distribution compared to the 
historical condition, and no one herd is more important than another in 
this regard. In the unlikely event of a herd being extirpated, it could 
be replaced through management actions that have been refined and 
implemented over the last 20 years. Six of the seven free-ranging, 
disease-free herds are within the historical range of the species. Only 
the Chitek Lake population is outside of what is considered the 
historical range. All of the herds, except the Mackenzie herd, were 
started with animals from Elk Island National Park, and both the 
Mackenzie and Elk Island National Park herds were initiated from 
animals from WBNP.
    Because of the founder effect (a small number of founders which 
represented only a portion of the genetic variability available) and 
genetic drift, there are currently distinct, but low, genetic 
differences among the herds (Wilson and Strobeck 1999, p. 493). Wilson 
and Strobeck (1999, p. 494) note the power of the founder effect to 
lead to genetically distinct populations even when the populations were 
started at about the same time with animals taken from the same locale. 
The low level of genetic differences among the herds is an artifact of 
management actions and the differences do not represent significant, 
unique or special genetic traits. Therefore, although the Chitek and 
Aishihik herds are discrete, we find that they are not significant and 
no herds qualify as a DPS.

Significant Portion of the Range

    Having determined that the wood bison does not meet the definition 
of an

[[Page 6753]]

endangered species throughout its range, we must next consider whether 
there is a significant portion of the range where the wood bison is in 
danger of extinction. A portion of a species' range is significant if 
it is part of the current range of the species and is important to the 
conservation of the species because it contributes meaningfully to the 
representation, resiliency, or redundancy of the species. The 
contribution must be at a level such that its loss would result in a 
decrease in the ability to conserve the species.
    We evaluated the wood bison's range in the context of whether any 
potential threats are concentrated in a significant portion of the 
range such that if there were concentrated impacts, those wood bison 
populations might be in danger of extinction.
    The herds in and around WBNP, which represent approximately half of 
the free-ranging wood bison, have tested positive for bovine 
brucellosis and/or tuberculosis. Approximately 30 percent of the wood 
bison in this area test positive for brucellosis, 21 to 49 percent test 
positive for tuberculosis, with a combined prevalence of 42 percent 
(Tessaro et al. 1990, p. 174; Gates et al. 2010, p. 35). It could be 
argued that the threat of disease to these populations is concentrated. 
However, as discussed above, these diseases are chronic and cause slow 
debilitation, not acute mortality of large numbers of animals at one 
time. The population at WBNP has persisted with these diseases since 
the 1920s, and population numbers have been stable at 4,000 to 5,000 
since 2002 (Table 1).
    Research into solutions on how to manage the diseased herds in and 
around WBNP continues. In 2005, a technical workshop was convened to 
determine in part if it was technically possible to remove disease from 
the wood bison herds in and around WBNP (Shury et al. 2006). Technical 
success was defined as reestablishing a disease-free bison population 
at a similar level to the current population without any loss in 
genetic diversity. The team determined that:
    1. Eradication of bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis through 
lethal removal and reintroduction is technically feasible, and under 
controlled conditions there would be a very high probability of 
eradicating both diseases.
    2. The eradication of these diseases would be a long-term project, 
taking 15-20 years.
    3. The cost was estimated to be between 62 and 78 million dollars 
over 20 years with the greatest costs being incurred during the first 4 
years (Shury et al. 2005, pp. 1-2).
    Although the diseases affect the fitness of the herds and cause 
occasional mortalities, they will not cause herd extirpation. We are 
not aware of any other threat within this area that would act 
synergistically with disease and heighten our level of concern for 
these herds. Consequently, although we recognize that it is desirable 
to eradicate these diseases, we conclude that the threat they present 
is not of a magnitude that leads us to delineate the herds in and 
around WBNP as being more in danger of extinction than the other herds, 
and, as being a significant portion of the wood bison range.
    In summary, the primary threats to the wood bison are relatively 
uniform throughout the species' range. We have determined that none of 
the existing or potential threats currently place wood bison in danger 
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, requirements for Federal 
protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition 
through listing results in public awareness, and encourages and results 
in conservation actions by Federal governments, private agencies and 
groups, and individuals.
    Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, and as implemented by 
regulations at 50 CFR part 402, requires Federal agencies to evaluate 
their actions within the United States or on the high seas with respect 
to any species that is proposed or listed as endangered or threatened, 
and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is being designated. 
However, given that there are no wild populations of wood bison in the 
United States, critical habitat is not being designated for this 
species under section 4 of the Act.
    Section 8(a) of the Act authorizes limited financial assistance for 
the development and management of programs that the Secretary of the 
Interior determines to be necessary or useful for the conservation of 
endangered and threatened species in foreign countries. Sections 8(b) 
and 8(c) of the Act authorize the Secretary to encourage conservation 
programs for foreign endangered species and to provide assistance for 
such programs in the form of personnel and the training of personnel.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered and 
threatened wildlife. As such, these prohibitions would be applicable to 
the wood bison. These prohibitions, under 50 CFR 17.21 (17.31 for 
threatened wildlife species), make it illegal for any person subject to 
the jurisdiction of the United States to ``take'' (take includes 
harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, 
or to attempt any of these) within the United States or upon the high 
seas, import or export, deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in 
interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity, 
or to sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce, any 
endangered wildlife species. It also is illegal to possess, sell, 
deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been 
taken in violation of the Act. Certain exceptions apply to agents of 
the Service and State conservation agencies.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain 
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 
17.22 for endangered species, and at Sec.  17.32 for threatened 
species. With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit must be issued 
for the following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance the 
propagation or survival of the species, and for incidental take in 
connection with otherwise lawful activities. For threatened species, a 
permit may be issued for the same activities, as well as zoological 
exhibition, education, and special purposes consistent with the Act.

Effects of This Proposed Rule

    If made final, this rule would revise 50 CFR 17.11(h) to reclassify 
the wood bison from endangered to threatened. The prohibitions and 
conservation measures provided by the Act, particularly through 
sections 4(d) and 9 would still apply to this species. Because there 
are no wild populations of wood bison in the United States, no critical 
habitat was designated, and consequently none will be affected. We are 
also correcting the 1980 listing to include Alaska in the historical 
range based on the best available scientific information (Skinner and 
Kaisen 1947, p. 158; Stephenson et al. 2001, p. 140; Rasic and Matheus 
2007, p. 385). In addition, because the 1980 CFR indicated that the 
listed entity for wood bison was a DPS, we are correcting that mistake. 
Despite the 1980 designation, it is clear that the wood bison is listed 
at the subspecies level. The CFR through 1980 indicated the Service's 
intent of the original listing; because we have conducted no rulemaking 
since that time, we are making the correction here to change the scope 
of the listed entity.

[[Page 6754]]

The entire ``population'' of wood bison in Canada is the full extent of 
the subspecies' current range and no individuals occur in the wild 
outside this population.

Peer Review

    Under our peer review policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, 1994), we will 
solicit the expert opinions of three appropriate and independent 
specialists regarding pertinent scientific or commercial data and 
assumptions relating to the taxonomy, population models, and supportive 
biological and ecological information on this proposed rule. The 
purpose of such review is to ensure that we base listing decisions on 
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analysis. To that end, we 
will send copies of this proposed rule to these peer reviewers 
immediately following publication in the Federal Register.

Required Determinations

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that we do not need to prepare an Environmental 
Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement, as defined under the 
authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
4321 et seq.), in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to 
section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice 
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on 
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

    A complete list of the references cited may be obtained from the 
Alaska Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Author

    The primary author of this rule is Marilyn Myers, Ph.D., Ecological 
Services, Alaska Regional Office, 1011 E. Tudor Road, Anchorage, 
Alaska, 99503, (907) 786-3559.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    We propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

Part 17--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

    2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h) by revising the entry ''Bison, wood'' under 
MAMMALS in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to read as 
follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species                                                    Vertebrate
--------------------------------------------------------                        population where                                  Critical     Special
                                                            Historic range       endangered or         Status      When listed    habitat       rules
           Common name                Scientific name                              threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals..........................  ....................  ...................  ...................  ..............  ...........  ...........  ...........
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Bison, wood......................  Bison bison           Canada, Alaska.....  Entire.............  T                         3           NA           NA
                                    athabascae.
                                   ....................  ...................  ...................  ..............  ...........  ...........  ...........
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: January 28, 2011.
Larry Williams,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-2529 Filed 2-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P