wood bison restoration in alaska: complying with the ... · wood bison and the esa 1 running head:...

Wood Bison and the ESA 1

Running head: WOOD BISON AND THE ESA

Wood Bison Restoration in Alaska: Complying with the Endangered Species Act

Jed B. Crabb University of Alaska Anchorage

PADM 659 April 24, 2008


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. BACKGROUND

2. TAXONOMY

3. HISTORY OF THE ESA

4. CITIES

5. LEGAL DESIGNATIONS

6. 10(j) RULE

7. SECTION 9

8. SECTION 4

9. THE DELIST/DOWNLIST PROCESS

10. HABITAT

11. IMPORTATION

12. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA)

13. ADF&G WILDLIFE TRANSPORT POLICY (WTP)

14. WOOD BISON CONSERVATION IN CANADA AND RUSSIA

15. REMAINING ISSUES

16. CONCLUSION


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Wood bison once roamed the wild parts of Central and South Central Alaska for over a hundred thousand years. However, the wood bison became extinct around the turn of the twentieth century. For about 15 years, The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has been exploring the idea of restoring the wood bison within its historical Alaska range. Even though there is overwhelming support for this project, the regulatory requirements set forth by the Endangered Species Act have inhibited progress. The current regulatory requirements that the ADF&G faces is a CITIES import permit from Canada, an ESA 10(j) rule from the USFWS, and an ESA 4(d) rule. Although the Endangered Species Act protects threatened and endangered species well, its stringent regulatory caveats cause more of an impediment than an encouragement for restoration projects.

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), who are the advocators for the Wood Bison Restoration Project, face these regulatory hurdles on the path the wood bison restoration. This paper will discuss a history of the wood bison, the history of the ESA, the past and present designations of the wood bison, and what the State must do in the future to comply with the ESA. The final project will be useful to the AK Fish and Game Dept. because it will help to maintain the public’s trust in the project.


BACKGROUND

Wood bison are one of two modern subspecies of North American bison. Plains

bison (Bison bison bison) once ranged across much of the contiguous United States and

southwestern Canada, but did not occur in Alaska or northern Canada. Wood bison

(Bison bison athabascae) originally ranged across a vast region in northwestern Canada

and Alaska. Both plains bison and wood bison were driven nearly to extinction by 1900,

when fewer than 300 wood bison survived in Canada. Wood bison are 10 to 15% heavier

than plains bison, making them the largest native land mammal in North America. They

are well adapted to northern habitats, having lived in northern meadows and forests for

thousands of years. The bison currently living in Alaska near Delta Junction, Farewell,

and in the Copper and Chitina river drainages are descendants of plains bison that were

introduced to the state in 1928.

The steppe bison (Bison priscus), a large-horned species, is one of the most

common species known from Eastern Beringia (unglaciated parts of Alaska, Yukon and

adjacent areas of the Northwest Territories). The steppe bison was evidently well-adapted

to cool steppe-like grasslands that existed throughout the Holarctic region (northern

Eurasia and North America) from England eastward to the Northwest Territories of

Canada during the Pleistocene (about 2 million to 10,000 years ago). The appearance of

this species is well known, based on both Stone Age (Paleolithic) cave images in Europe

and carcasses preserved in frozen ground. (National Park Service)

Officials in one office in DC have expressed uncertainty about the taxonomy

issue, but the State has recently provided them with some of the key scientific


information on bison evolution, taxonomy and history, which is very clear on the

question and is in agreement that the last type of bison to occur in Alaska were wood

bison. The State claims that their data makes it abundantly clear that for decades the large

horned steppe bison have not been present in Alaska for 10,000 years or so.

The skeletal remains of wood bison have been found in many places in Interior

and Southcentral Alaska, and Alaska Native oral tradition includes stories about bison in

Interior Alaska. The last reported sightings of wood bison in Alaska were in the early

1900s. Alaska Native elders, and anthropologists, archaeologists, and paleontologists at

the University of Alaska Fairbanks and elsewhere in Alaska and Canada have worked

with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) to compile historical

information about wood bison. The use of radiocarbon dating has expanded our

knowledge of Alaska's history, and the number of dated bison specimens has increased

steadily. Each year, additional bison skulls and other remains are discovered at

archaeological sites and elsewhere. There are now numerous radiocarbon dates showing

that bison lived here continuously during the last 40,000 years, and that wood bison were

present throughout the last several thousand years. The most recent specimen, a wood

bison skull found in Anchorage, is estimated to be about 170 years old. (Stephenson,

et.al. 2007)

Oral history provided by Native elders in Interior Alaska and northwestern

Canada has further enriched our understanding of wood bison. These accounts describe

how bison were hunted and used, with some elders emphasizing the importance of bison


as a resource. Native elders also describe a few sightings of wood bison in Alaska during

the early 1900s.

Skeletal remains show that wood bison lived in Alaska for several thousand years.

The evidence suggests they disappeared from Alaska because of a combination of factors,

the most important being changes in the distribution of habitat and the effects of hunting.

The last reported sightings of wood bison in Alaska occurred around 1900, about the

same time that muskoxen disappeared from the state. Muskox populations have since

been restored in several areas. Historical information about wood bison, including an

exploration of the likely causes for their disappearance, is presented in a 2001 study

entitled "Wood Bison in Late Holocene Alaska and Adjacent Canada: Paleontological,

Archaeological and Historical Records."

Historically Wood Bison ranged throughout the boreal forest of northern Alberta,

northeastern British Columbia, northwestern Saskatchewan, the southwestern Northwest

Territories, and much of Yukon and Alaska. In the early 1800s, Wood Bison numbers

were estimated at 168,000 animals, but by the late 1800s only a few hundred animals

remained.

TAXONOMY

Wood Bison--

Kingdom : ANIMALIA

Phylum : CHORDATA


Class : MAMMALIA

Order : ARTIODACTYLA

Family : BOVIDAE

Genus : Bison

Taxon : Bison bison (Linnaeus, 1758) ssp. athabascae Rhoads, 1898

There has been some dispute over which species of bison were actually

indigenous to Alaska. Some US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) employees have

argued that the bison that once roamed the Alaska wild were more than likely the steppe

bison (Bison priscus) or at least a remnant of the steppe bison. One USFWS individual

firmly believes that the wood bison is nothing more than an ecotype, which is a

subspecies or race that is especially adapted to a particular set of environmental

conditions. If the bison that were found in Alaska were not the wood bison, then the

introduction of them would constitute a non-native species introduction instead of a re-

introduction. The uncertainty about the taxonomy issue is one factor that has limited the

current importation of wood bison as “captivity only”. In rebuttal, the State has provided

USFWS with some of the key scientific information on bison evolution, taxonomy and

history, which is very clear on the question and is in agreement that the last type of bison

to occur in Alaska were wood bison. State studies have concluded that the large horn

steppe bison have been extinct for 10,000 years or so.


History of ESA

The Endangered Species Act (ESA)was passed by Congress in 1966. It is the law

that allows only the listing of native animal and plant species as endangered. The

original ESA provided limited means for the protection of species listed as endangered,

so in 1969 the Endangered Species Conservation Act was passed to provide additional

protection for species in danger of worldwide extinction. A 1973 Conference in

Washington led to the creation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which restricted the international trade of

plant and animal species that were thought could be harmed by such commerce. Also in

1973, the ESA of 1973 was passed and further strengthened the original ESA. One of the

principal provisions that were created was the defining of “endangered” and “threatened”

categories. In 1982, a provision was made for designation of experimental populations of

listed species that could be subject to different treatment under section 4, for critical

habitat, and section 7 [section 10]. This is one of the key sections that pertain to the re-

introduction of the wood bison to Alaska. (see section 10(j) below and Appendix A)

In 1988 several amendments were made to the ESA that dealt with recovery

matters. One states that recovery plans will undergo a public notice and review, and

affected Federal agencies must give consideration to those comments. Second, section

4(g) requires 5 years of monitoring of species that have been recovered. Third, biennial

reports are required on the development and implementation of recovery plans and on the

status of all species with plans. A new section 18 requires a report of all reasonably


identifiable expenditures on a species-by-species basis be made on the recovery of

endangered or threatened species by the States and the Federal government.

CITIES

The ESA also implements U.S. participation in the Convention on International Trade

in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), a 169-nation agreement

designed to prevent species from becoming endangered or extinct due to international

trade. The law prohibits trade in ESA-listed species except under CITES permits.

The focus of CITES is to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild

animals and plants does not threaten their survival. CITES is an international agreement

to which States (countries) adhere voluntarily. States that have agreed to be bound by the

Convention ('joined' CITES) are known as Parties. Although CITES is legally binding on

the Parties – in other words they have to implement the Convention – it does not take the

place of national laws. Rather it provides a framework to be respected by each Party,

which has to adopt its own domestic legislation to ensure that CITES is implemented at

the national level. The species covered by CITES are listed in three Appendices,

according to the degree of protection they need. The following listed Appendices are

pertinent to wood bison:

Appendices I and II

• Appendix I includes species threatened with extinction. Trade in specimens of these

species is permitted only in exceptional circumstances.


• Appendix II includes species not necessarily threatened with extinction, but in which trade

must be controlled in order to avoid utilization incompatible with their survival.

Appendix-II specimens

1. An export permit or re-export certificate issued by the Management Authority of the State

of export or re-export is required.

An export permit may be issued only if the specimen was legally obtained and if the

export will not be detrimental to the survival of the species.

A re-export certificate may be issued only if the specimen was imported in accordance

with the Convention.

2. In the case of a live animal or plant, it must be prepared and shipped to minimize any risk

of injury, damage to health or cruel treatment.

3. No import permit is needed unless required by national law.

LEGAL DESIGNATIONS

The WB were downlisted from Appendix I to Appendix II in June 1997, but were

not delisted by USFWS. However, being listed as Appendix II of CITIES is not the

equivalent of Threatened under the ESA. Although CITIES Parties consider the level of

threat when listing a species, the listing criteria are different. The CITIES listing criteria

states that a species can be placed in CITIES appendices only if it is threatened or has the

potential to be threatened by trade. (Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 227, Nov 25, 1998.)


In Canada, The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada

(COSEWIC) assessed wood bison as Endangered in April 1978. As a result of Canada’s

Wood Bison Recovery Program, wood bison were downlisted to Threatened by

COSEWIC in April 1988. Although the overall population has increased, some of the

populations are declining (including the largest one) due mostly to disease. As of 2006,

there were an estimated 4188 Wood Bison in seven free-ranging, disease-free herds, 6216

animals in four diseased, free-ranging herds, and 1029 animals in captive conservation

(public and private) and research herds. Other populations remain at risk from disease

(brucellosis and tuberculosis) and hybridization with the plains bison subspecies.

The USFWS has the Wood Bison listed as “Endangered in Canada” as of

1970. However the COSEWIC has the date listed Endangered as April 1978. Despite the

discrepancy, the USFWS does not have an automatic listing connection with foreign

government listings. Since there wasn’t any interest in the re-designation of the WB until

recently, the last time that the USFWS visited the issue was in November 1998. This was

a proposal submitted by Mr. Gary A. Plumlee of Anderson, Indiana to delist the wood

bison. The document that Mr. Plumlee used to substantiate his delisting petition was a

copy of the proposal submitted by the Government of Canada to the Tenth Meeting of the

Conference of the Parties to the Convention (CITIES). However, the USFWS declared a

“not-substantial information” finding on the petition, due to the recovery goals in Canada

not being met.

The United States listed wood bison as “Endangered in Canada” under the federal


Endangered Species Act in 1970 and has not updated that listing (United States Federal

Register 1998). Listing as “endangered in Canada” under the U.S. Endangered Species

Act (1973) may have presented a barrier to exports of wood bison and wood bison

products to the United States (Gates et al. in prep.). Until recently, this was also a concern

of state officials proposing a translocation of Canadian wood bison to Alaska. It has now

become apparent that their listing as “endangered in Canada” does not establish a

designation for wood bison within the United States (Stephenson and Fleener 1998).

The term “endangered species” is defined by the ESA as any species, which is in danger

of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

10(j) Rule

Subsection (j) in Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act permits reintroduction

of an endangered species to a location where it used to live, but has since been absent.

For each reintroduction effort, a special rule, called a “10(j) rule,” is written, which

determines whether the population is essential to the survival of the species and

specifically describes how the species will be treated by agency staff, whether lethal

control can ever be used on the species, and what private citizens can or cannot do in

regard to the species. Reintroduced species are managed differently than other

endangered species. Federal agencies have more control over these reintroduced

populations, which they call “experimental populations,” than they do for endangered

populations that have not been reintroduced. The Fish and Wildlife Service considers

these populations to be supplementary to the core population of the species; a designation


which gives FWS more flexibility in managing the species because they do not have to

abide by regular ESA standards. Under section l0(j), reintroduced populations of

endangered or threatened species established outside the current range but within the

species' historical range may be designated, at the discretion of the Service, as

"experimental," lessening the Act's regulatory authority over such populations. Thus,

because these populations are not provided full Endangered Species Act protection,

management flexibility is increased, local opposition is reduced, and more

reintroductions are possible.

Two types of experimental population designations exist: essential and

nonessential. An essential experimental population is a reintroduced population whose

loss would be likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival of the species in

the wild. These populations are treated as threatened species (with special rules) for the

purposes of section 9 of the Act. Therefore, they can be managed with greater flexibility

with regard to incidental take and regulated take. A nonessential experimental population

is a reintroduced population whose loss would not be likely to appreciably reduce the

likelihood of the survival of the species in the wild. Experimental populations are treated

under the ESA as threatened species unless designated “nonessential” to the continued

existence of the species, a designation that allows FWS to manage the species as though

it were a candidate for listing. This would likely be the case for wood bison released in

Alaska. Since there is a stable population already in Canada, the status of the wood bison

in Alaska would most likely be considered “nonessential.” Unlike the protection

accorded other threatened or endangered species, federal agencies are not required to


consult with FWS to insure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize members of a

nonessential experimental population, unless the population is located on a national

wildlife refuge or national park. (Defenders of Wildlife)

If the WB is considered a non-essential species, then for the purposes of Section 7

(ESA) they are treated as a species proposed to be listed, unless they located within the

National Wildlife Refuge System or the National Park System. If they are located within

a NWR or NP, then they are treated as “Threatened”. Since the Minto Flats is state game

refuge and the Yukon Flats a National Wildlife Refuge, then wood bison would be

treated differently if than if located on state (Minto Flats, Lower Innoko River) or private

land (Doyon Corp).

SECTION 9

Section 9 (see Appendix B) of the Act prohibits certain activities that directly or

indirectly affect endangered species. These prohibitions apply to all individuals,

organizations, and agencies subject to United States jurisdiction. Section 4(d) (see

Appendix C) of the Act allows the promulgation of regulations that apply any or all of the

prohibitions of section 9 to threatened species. Under the Act and regulations, it is illegal

for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take (includes harass,

harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of

these), import or export, ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of

commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any


endangered fish or wildlife species and most threatened fish and wildlife species. It is

also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has

been taken illegally.

It is the policy of the Services to identify, to the extent known at the time a

species is listed, specific activities that will not be considered likely to result in violation

of section 9. To the extent possible, activities that will be considered likely to result in

violation also will be identified in as specific a manner as possible. For those activities

whose likelihood of violation is uncertain, a contact will be identified in the final listing

document to assist the public in determining whether a particular activity would

constitute a prohibited act under section 9

SECTION 4

Currently, ADFG is discussing a section 4(d) rule but that requires downlisting to

threatened status, which could be delayed by a court agreement that FWS must adhere to.

Section 4 is titled "Determination of Endangered Species and Threatened Species."

Section 4(d) is "Protective Regulations" and provides that when a species is listed as

threatened the Secretary shall issue such regulations as he deems necessary and advisable

to provide for the conservation of the species. It goes on to say that with respect to

threatened species the Secretary may prohibit by regulation the same things prohibited for

endangered species, "except that with respect to taking of resident species of fish and

wildlife, such, regulations shall apply in any State which has entered into a cooperative

agreement pursuant to Sec, 6(c) of this Act only to the extent that such regulations have


also been adopted by such State." (According to Lenzini's 2003 analysis, "...Alaska is a

party to a full authority section 6(c) cooperative agreement for wildlife.") All this seems

to mean that Sec. 4(d) could allow state management of a threatened resident species and

implies that a cooperative agreement with the state is necessary, but references to

"resident species" and other provisions make this confusing, and a careful review by

USFWS would be needed in order to clarify what could be accomplished with a 4(d) rule.

A key problem is that downlisting in the next year seems unlikely.

Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) allows the USFWS to issue

regulations to conserve species listed as threatened, but no so for endangered species.

This applies particularly to “take," which can include any act that kills or injures wood

bison, and may include habitat modification. The ESA prohibits ANY take of species

listed as endangered, but some take of threatened species that does not interfere with

survival and recovery of the species can be allowed. These "4(d) rules" take the place of

the normal protections of the ESA and may either increase or decrease the ESA's normal

protections. The ESA specifies that 4(d) rules must be "necessary and advisable to

provide for the conservation of such species." One use of 4(d) rules is to relax the normal

ESA restrictions to reduce conflicts between people and the protections provided to the

threatened species by the ESA. A 4(d) rule can be used in such a situation if those

conflicts would adversely affect recovery and if the reduced protection would not slow

the species' recovery.

THE DELIST/DOWNLIST PROCESS


The process used to delist or downlist a species is similar to the one used in

considering whether to initially list a species. USFWS assesses populations and recovery

achievements in eliminating or reducing threats, and they seek peer-review. They review

five factors in assessing threats:

1. Is there a present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species’

habitat or range?

2. Is the species subject to over-utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or

educational purposes?

3. Is disease or predation a factor?

4. Are there adequate existing regulatory mechanisms in place, taking into account the

initiatives by States and other organizations, to protect the species or habitat?

5. Are other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence?

If the determination is made that the threats have been eliminated or sufficiently

reduced, USFWS may consider delisting or downlisting the species. The first step is

publishing a proposed rule in the Federal Register and seeking review and comment by

other Federal agencies, State biologists, and the public, as well as the advice of

independent species experts. After analyzing the comments, USFWS responds to them

and announces their final decision in the Federal Register, either completing the final

rule or withdrawing the action and maintaining the species’ status.

Species are removed from the endangered and threatened species list for a variety of

reasons, including recovery, extinction, or new evidence of additional populations.


Recovery is not a fast process; it takes time to address threats that were years in the

making. The first milestone in recovery is halting the decline of the species. Next is

stabilizing the species, followed by increasing its numbers and distribution—finally to the

point that it is secure in the wild. One measure of the success of the Endangered Species

Act is its rate of preventing extinctions: 99 percent. (Delisting a Species)

HABITAT

Suitable wood bison habitat exists in parts of Alaska. A detailed habitat

assessment has been completed for the Yukon Flats, north of Fairbanks, where an

abundance of high quality wood bison habitat was found. ADF&G biologists are also

evaluating potential habitat in the Minto Flats area and the lower Innoko-Yukon river

area.

There are three sites that ADF&G are considering for wood bison restoration

which are the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge (YF), Minto Flats State Game

Refuge (MF), and the lower Innoko-Yukon River area (IYR). The YF has about 3,800

square miles of high quality wood bison habitat and could support the largest number of

animals. One drawback from using the YF is that fact the WB would be treated as

“Threatened.” The MF is State owned land and includes approximately 800 square miles

of bison habitat. Although smaller in area and therefore not capable of supporting the

number of animals that the YF could, the MF area is more accessible via the Elliot

Highway and the Minto Road. The third consideration is the IYR area, which consists of


1,348 square miles. The majority of the area consists of privately owned land and Bureau

of Land Management land. This are is more remote than the MF, with no road access

available. However, there are at least two usable airstrips that could be utilized if the WB

are transported to the area via plane.

Considering costs and logistics, wood bison restoration in each area would

initially involve releasing bison on private lands near a local community, with the

understanding that bison would be likely to range onto other lands as the population

grew. This is due the logistical difficulties in releasing the wood bison into free-range.

They would be released onto private land from a local airstrip, since airstrips are more

available within the three proposed areas. The expectation would be that the bison would

eventually inhabit state and/or federal public lands. ADF&G proposes to initiate site

specific planning efforts for both the Yukon Flats and the Minto Flats areas, while

continuing to discuss restoration in the lower Innoko-Yukon river area.

IMPORTATION

Wood Bison can be imported without either downlisting or having a 10(J) rule in

place. They would be imported under a permit from USFWS. The current permit that the

State has obtained requires that the bison be held in captivity and does not allow for

release into the wild. It is speculated that the bison will be held at the Alaska Wildlife

Conservation Center (AWCC) for approximately 2 years, until a release comes to

fruition. During this time the State will most likely work with USFWS on a downlisting

rule. USFWS will likely take into account the status in Canada when they process a


downlisting rule, but they make up their mind to a large degree independent of what

Canada says the species status is, but Canada's recovery efforts certainly count for

something. USFWS indicates they may start working on downlisting in a year or so. The

time required to complete a 10(j) rule is generally 1-2 years.

If wood bison are imported, they would be treated as a foreign listed species

which means that federal permits would be required for import and export as long as the

species remains listed in Canada. Also, if their status under the ESA is not revised,

sections 3 and 7 of the ESA only allows for harvests that are essential for herd

management. In order for the State to allow hunting, a special rule from the USFWS

would have to be obtained, a delisting of the species would have to occur, or a 10(j)-

nonessential species designation would have to be made. A change in status under the

ESA would be considered only if a third party, i.e. a non-profit animal rights group,

petitioned the USFWS to list the wood bison here in the U.S. However, legal review of

this possible scenario claims that a listing would not be warranted.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

NEPA compliance can be required when a project, such as wood bison

restoration, involves federal money or federal lands, constitutes a major federal action, or

requires a federal permit. (Stephenson, et.al. 2007) NEPA may require an environmental

assessment (EA), which is an assessment of the likely positive and/or negative influence

a project may have on the environment and is neutral to the project. The purpose of the


assessment is to ensure that decision-makers consider environmental impacts before

deciding whether to proceed with new projects. NEPA does allow for categorical

exclusions to the EA requirement; however each federal agency has its own specific list

of categorical exclusions. One of the USFWS categorical exclusions is when

reintroduction of a native species into suitable habitat within their historic range occurs,

and no or negligible environmental disturbances are anticipated. A Finding of No

Significant Impact in an EA is likely, but it appears that there are no BLM or Department

of Interior categorical exclusions if WB were restored on BLM land. But since the

current plan is to release WB onto private land, near an airstrip, then NEPA compliance

would not be required.

ADF&G Wildlife Transplant Policy (WTP)

The ADF&G Commissioner is required to determine that wood bison restoration

is in the best interest of the state. The process of obtaining approval under the WTP

begins with a scoping report, a finding regarding the legal and management status of WB

in Alaska, and establishment of a WTP review committee. The review committee is

tasked with determining whether WB restoration is likely to affect a significant range,

distribution, habitat, or preexisting human use of other species. The Department of

Wildlife Conservation (DWC) Director must approve the findings of the committee.

Then a detailed transplant plan and itemized budget must be prepared. They are then

submitted to the Commissioner for final approval. In January 2007, the WTP review


committee concluded that wood bison restoration is not likely to effect a significant

reduction in the range, distribution, habitat, or preexisting human use of other species.

(Stephenson, et.al. 2007)

WOOD BISON CONSERVATION IN CANADA AND RUSSIA

Conservation efforts in Canada begun in the early 1900s have allowed wood bison

to increase, and there are now over 3,000 animals in six healthy, free-ranging herds. The

largest herd is in the Northwest Territories and has about 2,000 bison. A herd of 500

wood bison has also been reestablished in the southern Yukon, and other herds exist in

British Columbia and Alberta. Various provincial and territorial governments, as well as

local communities and other public interests, cooperated to improve the status of wood

bison. In recent decades this effort has been guided by Canada's Wood Bison Recovery

Team, which helps coordinate wood bison conservation programs. Environment Canada

maintains a wood bison herd at Elk Island National Park, Alberta to serve as a source of

healthy stock for conservation and restoration projects.

In 1997, the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) decided to establish a new population of

bison into the territory and approached the Canadian Wood Bison Recovery Team for

assistance. However, it wasn’t until 2005 that the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) was able

to locate funding for a cargo aircraft to transport the bison. A major Russian diamond

mining company, Alrosa, donated the use of one of their aircraft to transport the animals.

In April 2006, 30 wood bison, 15 males and 15 females, were loaded onto large cargo

plane and were flown to Lenskie Stolby Nature Park located near Yakutsk. The 30 wood


bison arrived and remained in the captive facility at the park for about one year to allow

for additional disease testing. Twenty-four of the bison were released into the Orto-Salaa

region, while the remaining bison stayed at the park for long-term management and

study.

REMAINING ISSUES

Two of the remaining issues that must be addressed include disease testing and

health certification requirements established by the Alaska State Veterinarian and U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA). The spread of disease is a common result of

translocating wildlife without proper health screening. The two primary diseases include

tuberculosis and brucellosis. Tuberculosis shortens life spans and brucellosis impairs

reproductive performance, so both diseases have the potential to significantly affect the

long-term survival of any infected bison. Both diseases pose a health threat to livestock

as well as humans. Because individual animals or herds may move great distances during

the year, the infected animals pose a disease threat to healthy herds either in the wild or

even in captivity and to other indigenous wildlife.

USDA regulations banned the importation of bovines into the U.S. from Canada

due to concerns about “mad cow disease.” However, on September 18, 2007, the Animal

and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) published a final rule in the Federal

Register to amend those regulations regarding the importation of animals and animal

products. The final rule became effective November 19, 2007 so wood bison can now be

imported into the U.S.


CONCLUSION

ADF&G has obtained an import permit from USFWS. The permit allows for

importation of up to 70 juvenile WB from Elk Island National Park herd. However, the

permit specifically states the WB are to only be used to establish a captive-held herd, and

does not authorize the release of any of the animals or their progeny. These WB will

supplement the small herd that already exists at the AWCC near Portage, AK.

Captive populations, such as the wood bison located at AWCC, can be cultivated

as useful tool to facilitate recovery of a species in the wild, but it is not a substitute for

reestablishment of viable wild populations. The initiation of this significant and costly

captive cultivation program is necessary, to help achieve a substantial number of disease

free individuals to release into the wild. This technique has allow for the current permit

that ADF&G has obtained. The captive herd will help to improve a the health status of

the species in the wild.

Restoring this historically important indigenous species will help ensure the long-

term survival of wood bison, and will enhance Alaska's wildlife resources by

reestablishing a key grazing animal in northern ecosystems and increasing habitat and

species diversity. It will also provide benefits to Alaska's people and economy. This

restoration project will be a major step in restoring the species in its original range and

will enhance the global security of wood bison.


Appendix A SEC. 10. (a) PERMITS.—(1) The Secretary may permit, under such terms and conditions as he shall prescribe— (A) any act otherwise prohibited by section 9 for scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of the affected species, including, but not limited to, acts necessary for the establishment and maintenance of experimental populations pursuant to subsection (j); (j) EXPERIMENTAL POPULATIONS.—(1) For purposes of this subsection, the term “experimental population” means any population (including any offspring arising solely therefrom) authorized by the Secretary for release under paragraph (2), but only when, and at such times as, the population is wholly separate geographically from nonexperimental populations of the same species. (2)(A) The Secretary may authorize the release (and the related transportation) of any population (including eggs, propagules, or individuals) of an endangered species or a threatened species outside the current range of such species if the Secretary determines that such release will further the conservation of such species. (B) Before authorizing the release of any population under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall by regulation identify the population and determine, on the basis of the best available information, whether or not such population is essential to the continued existence of an endangered species or a threatened species. (C) For the purposes of this Act, each member of an experimental population shall be treated as a threatened species; except that— (i) solely for purposes of section 7 (other than subsection (a)(1) thereof), an experimental population determined under subparagraph (B) to be not essential to the continued existence of a species shall be treated, except when it occurs in an area within the National Wildlife Refuge System or the National Park System, as a species proposed to be listed under section 4; and (ii) critical habitat shall not be designated under this Act for any experimental population determined under subparagraph (B) to be not essential to the continued existence of a species. Appendix B SEC. 9. (a) GENERAL.—(1) Except as provided in sections 6(g)(2) and 10 of this Act, with respect to any endangered species of fish or wildlife listed pursuant to section 4 of this Act it is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to— (A) import any such species into, or export any such species from the United States; Appendix C SEC. 4. (a) GENERAL.—(1) The Secretary shall by regulation promulgated in accordance with subsection (b) determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species… (b) BASIS FOR DETERMINATIONS.—(1)(A) The Secretary shall make determinations


required by subsection (a)(1) solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available to him after conducting a review of the status of the species and after taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation. Under section 4(c)(2) of the ESA, the Secretary shall (A) conduct, at least once every five years, a review of all species included in 9 a list which is published pursuant to paragraph (1) and which is in effect at the time of such review; and (B) determine on the basis of such review whether any such species should—(i) be removed from such list; (ii) be changed in status from an endangered species to a threatened species; or (iii) be changed in status from a threatened species to an endangered species. (d) PROTECTIVE REGULATIONS.—Whenever any species is listed as a threatened species pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, the Secretary shall issue such regulations as he deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of such species. Appendix D STAKEHOLDERS Some of the stakeholders include the following: Dendu Gwitch’in Tribal Council, Safari Club International, Chalkyitsik Village Council, Circle Village Council, City of Fort Yukon, Inc., Beaver Village Council, Fort Yukon Elders Inc., Venetie Tribal Council, Canyon Village Tribal Council, Eastern Interior Alaska Subsistence Regional Advisory Council, Alaska Outdoor Council, Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc., Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments, Minto-Nenana Advisory Committee, Seth-De-Ya-Ah Corporation.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Defenders of Wildlife. Northern Rockies 10(j) Rule Q&A. Retrieved April 10, 2008,

from: www.forwolves.org/ralph/10(j)%20QandA%20Fact%20Sheet%20FINAL.pdf ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973, As Amended through the 108th Congress.

Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 20240.

Gates, C.C., H. Reynolds, M. Hoefs, C.G. van Zyll de Jong, N. Cool, H. Schwantje, S.

Brechtel, R. Larche, and R.O. Stephenson. In prep. National recovery plan for the Wood Bison. Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife Committee (RENEW). Available from the Can. Wildl. Serv., Ottawa, ON.

Stephenson, Bob., Rogers, Randy R., Hunter, Andrea. 2007. Wood Bison Restoration in

Alaska: A review of Environmental and Regulatory issues and proposed decisions for Project Implementation.

Stephenson, R.O., and C.L. Fleener. 1998. Biopolitical perspectives on a proposed Wood

Bison reintroduction to Alaska. Pages 251–257 in L. Irby, and J. Knight, eds. International Symposium on Bison Ecology and Management in North America. Montana State Univ., Bozeman, MT.

Stephenson, R.O., S. C. Gerlach, R.D. Guthrie, C. R. Harrington, R. O. Mills, and G.

Hare. 2001. Wood bison in late Holocene Alaska and adjacent Canada: paleontological, archaeological and historical records. Wildlife and People in Northern America. Essays in honor of R. Dale Guthrie. S. C. Gerlach, and M. S. Murray, editors. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 944. http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=game.restoration

U.S. Department of Interior. Bering Land Bridge. Retrieved March 4, 2008.

http://www.nps.gov/bela/historyculture/ice-age-steppe-bison.htm U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Endangered and Threatened Species Listing and

Recovery Priority Guidelines. Federal Register 48(184):43098 and 51985. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Delisting a Species: Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act. Retrieved February 12, 2008. Website:

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/factsheets/delisting.pdf

wood bison restoration in alaska: complying with the ... · wood bison and the esa 1 running head:...

Documents