Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassifying the Wood Bison (Bison bison athabascae), 6734-6754 [2011-2529]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

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


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

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

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments and other information by 
either of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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