Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10299 

interoperability testing on the following 

3GPP LTE interfaces: Uu—LTE air 

interface, S6a—Visited MME to Home 

HSS, S8—Visited SGW to Home PGW 

and S9—Visited PCRF to Home PCRF 

for dynamic policy arbitration. 

(3) Within thirty days of the date its 

network achieves service availability, a 

certification that its network can 

provide a minimum outdoor data rate of 

256 Kbps uplink and 768 Kbps 

downlink for all types of devices, per 

single user at the cell edge. 

(4) Six months following the release 

of a public notice announcing the 

availability of the PTCRB testing process 

for 3GPP LTE Band Class 14, a 

certification that the devices in use on 

its network have gone through and 

completed this process. 

(g) Out of Band Emissions: Public 

Safety Broadband Network Operators 

must adhere to the following limitations 

on out of band emissions: 

(1) On any frequency outside the 763– 

768 MHz band, the power of any 

emission shall be attenuated outside the 

band below the transmitter power (P) by 

at least 43 + 10 log (P) dB. 

(2) On any frequency outside the 793– 

798 MHz band, the power of any 

emission shall be attenuated outside the 

band below the transmitter power (P) by 

at least 43 + 10 log (P) dB. 

(h) Public Safety Broadband Network 

Operators must support the following 

applications: Internet access; Virtual 

Private Network access; a status or 

information ‘‘homepage;’’ access for 

users to the Incident Command System; 

and field-based server applications. 

(i) Public Safety Broadband Network 

Operators must support LTE signaling 

layer security features over the Radio 

Resource Control (RRC) protocol layer 

(UE and eNodeB); EPC signaling layer 

security features over the Non-Access 

Stratum (NAS) protocol layer (UE and 

MME); and user data/control layer 

security features over the Packet Data 

Convergence Sublayer (PDCP) protocol 

layer (UE and eNodeB). 

(j) Interference Mitigation. Ninety 

days prior to the deployment of any 

Radio Access Network equipment, a 

Public Safety Broadband Network 

Operator must provide notice to all 

adjacent or bordering jurisdictions of its 

plans for deployment. Any notified 

jurisdiction may then request, in 

writing, the opportunity to enter a 

written frequency coordination 

agreement with the operator. 

(1) Any such agreement, or 

modification to such agreement, must be 

submitted to the Public Safety and 

Homeland Security Bureau within 30 

days of its execution. 

(2) If parties are unable to execute an 

agreement within ninety days of the 

date a request is made, the parties may 

submit the dispute to the Bureau for 

resolution. 

4. Add § 90.1409 to read as follows: 

§ 90.1409 Protection of Incumbent 

Narrowband Operations 

(a) Ninety days prior to the 

deployment of any Radio Access 

Network equipment, a Public Safety 

Broadband Network Operator must 

provide notice to any incumbent Public 

Safety Narrowband Operator within its 

proposed area of operation or in any 

adjacent or bordering jurisdictions of its 

plans for deployment. Such notice shall 

identify: 

(1) The geographic borders within 

which the Public Safety Broadband 

Network Operator intends to operate; 

(2) Any geographic overlap; and 

(3) The proposed method of 

interference mitigation or notice of their 

intent to relocate the incumbent Public 

Safety Narrowband Operator. 

(b) Any notified jurisdiction shall 

respond to a notification under 

paragraph (a) of this section within 60 

days. Such response shall identify: 

(1) The jurisdictions consent to any 

proposed interference mitigation or 

relocation proposal, and any 

counterproposals; and/or 

(2) Specific objections to any element 

of the notification. 

(c) The Public Safety Broadband 

Network Operator and Public Safety 

Narrowband Operator shall memorialize 

such agreements in writing. These 

agreements, or modification to such 

agreement, must be submitted to the 

Public Safety and Homeland Security 

Bureau within 30 days of its execution. 

(d) Any jurisdictions failing to resolve 

any disputes within 90 days following 

a response under paragraph (b) of this 

section may submit the dispute to the 

Bureau for resolution. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4058 Filed 2–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2010–0095; MO 

92210–0–0008–B2] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants: 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To List the Wild Plains Bison 

or Each of Four Distinct Population 

Segments as Threatened 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, announce a 90-day 

finding on a petition to list the wild 

plains bison (Bison bison bison), or each 

of four distinct population segments 

(DPSs), as threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). Based on our review, we 

find that the petition does not present 

substantial information indicating that 

listing may be warranted. Therefore, we 

are not initiating a status review in 

response to this petition. However, we 

ask the public to submit to us any new 

information that becomes available 

concerning the status of, or threats to, 

the wild plains bison or its habitat at 

any time. 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on February 24, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R6–ES–2010–0095. Supporting 

documentation we used in preparing 

this finding is available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Ecological 

Services, Wyoming Field Office, 5353 

Yellowstone Road, Suite 308A, 

Cheyenne, WY 82009. Please submit 

any new information, materials, 

comments, or questions concerning this 

finding to the above address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Sattelberg, Field Supervisor, 

Wyoming Field Office (see ADDRESSES), 

by telephone (307–772–2374) or by 

facsimile (307–772–2358). If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), please call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that we 

make a finding on whether a petition to 

list, delist, or reclassify a species 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

We are to base this finding on 

information provided in the petition, 

supporting information submitted with 

the petition, and information otherwise 

available in our files. To the maximum 

extent practicable, we are to make this 

finding within 90 days of our receipt of 

the petition, and publish our notice of 

the finding promptly in the Federal 

Register. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
10300 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Our standard for substantial scientific 

or commercial information within the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with 

regard to a 90-day petition finding is 

‘‘that amount of information that would 

lead a reasonable person to believe that 

the measure proposed in the petition 

may be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). 

If we find that substantial scientific or 

commercial information was presented, 

we are required to promptly conduct a 

species status review, which we 

subsequently summarize in our 12- 

month finding. 

Petition History 

On June 22, 2009, we received a 

petition, dated June 19, 2009, from 

James A. Bailey and Natalie A. Bailey, 

requesting that the wild plains bison be 

listed as threatened or that each of its 

four major ecotypes be considered DPSs 

and listed as threatened (Bailey and 

Bailey 2009, cover page). The petition 

clearly identified itself as such and 

included the requisite identification 

information for the petitioners, as 

required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a July 

14, 2009, letter to the petitioners, we 

responded that we reviewed the 

information presented in the petition 

and determined that issuing an 

emergency regulation temporarily 

listing the subspecies under section 

4(b)(7) of the Act was not warranted. We 

also stated that due to staff and budget 

limitations, we would not be able to 

begin work on a 90-day finding for this 

petition until Fiscal Year 2010 or 2011. 

On August 25, 2010, we received a letter 

from the petitioners requesting that we 

consider (1) New information regarding 

genetic diversity; (2) a publication by 

Gates et al., 2010; (3) the National Park 

Service’s (NPS) draft environmental 

impact statement on a proposed 

brucellosis remote vaccination program; 

and (4) any new information that was 

added to our files since the date of the 

original petition. This finding addresses 

the petition and all information readily 

available to us at this time. 

Previous Federal Action(s) 

We received a petition to list the 

bison herd at Yellowstone National Park 

(Yellowstone) in the northwest corner of 

Wyoming as a subspecies or ‘‘distinct 

population group’’ on February 11, 1999. 

We completed a 90-day finding on 

August 15, 2007 (72 FR 45717). Based 

upon the information available at that 

time, we determined that there was 

substantial information indicating that 

the Yellowstone bison herd may meet 

the criteria of discreteness and 

significance as defined by our policy on 

DPSs. However, we also determined that 

there was not substantial information 

indicating that listing the Yellowstone 

bison herd was warranted throughout 

all or a significant part of its range, and 

a status review was not conducted. 

Species Information 

Taxonomy 

Bison occupied Eurasia about 700,000 

years ago and moved across the Bering 

Land Bridge into Alaska during the 

middle Pleistocene Epoch 300,000 to 

130,000 years ago (Martin 1970, p. 220; 

Kurte ́n and Anderson 1980, p. 39; Gates 

et al. 2010, p. 5). Bison moved further 

south into the grasslands of central 

North America as ice sheets retreated 

130,000 to 75,000 years ago (Gates et al. 

2010, p. 5). The genus Bison is 

represented by two extant species, the 

American bison (Bison bison) and the 

European bison (B. bonasus) (Halbert 

2003, p. 1; Gates et al. 2010, p. 15). 

Linnaeus first classified the bison in 

1758, assigning the animal to Bos, the 

same genus as domestic cattle (Bos 

taurus) (Gates et al. 2010, p. 13). During 

the 19th century, taxonomists 

determined that there was adequate 

anatomical distinctiveness to warrant 

assigning the bison to its own genus, 

Bison (Gates et al. 2010, p. 13). Since 

then, taxonomists have debated the 

validity of the genus. Some recommend 

returning the species to the genus Bos 

(Boyd 2003, p. 27; Halbert 2003, p. 2). 

However, most sources, including the 

American Society of Mammalogists, the 

Integrated Taxonomic Information 

System (ITIS), and the International 

Union for Conservation of Nature 

(IUCN), consider Bison as a separate 

genus from Bos (Meagher 1986, p. 1; 

Wilson and Ruff 1999, pp. 342–343; 

Reynolds et al. 2003, p. 1010; Gates et 

al. 2010, p. 15; ITIS 2010, p. 1). At this 

time, we support continued placement 

of bison in the genus Bison because the 

majority of taxonomic experts consider 

this classification to be correct. 

American bison is divided into two 

subspecies, first recognized by Rhoads 

in 1897 (Gates et al. 2010, p. 15). The 

two subspecies of American bison, 

plains bison (B. b. bison) and wood 

bison (B. b. athabascae), diverged 

approximately 5,000 years ago (Halbert 

2003, p. 1). Many authors have 

acknowledged subspecific status, 

although some attribute differences in 

morphology to environmental 

influences and not to genetics (Reynolds 

et al. 2003, p. 1009). Differences in 

physical traits between the two 

subspecies are not affected by 

geographic location, suggesting that 

differences are genetically controlled 

(Boyd 2003, p. 32; Reynolds et al. 2003, 

p. 1009; Gates et al. 2010, pp. 15–18). 

However, due to the recent divergence 

of the two bison subspecies, current 

genetic analysis techniques may not yet 

be able to detect the differences (Boyd 

2003, p. 33). At this time, we support 

continued recognition of two subspecies 

of American bison because of 

geographic separation, morphological 

differences, and greater genetic 

differences between the two subspecies 

than within either of the two subspecies 

(Gates et al. 2010, pp. 15–18). 

Although the two entities are the 

same species (Bison bison bison), the 

petitioners generally limit their 

discussion to ‘‘wild’’ plains bison and 

assert that plains bison in commercial 

herds do not contribute to restoration of 

wild plains bison (Bailey and Bailey 

2009, p. 5). Commercial herds are 

typically managed by private entities for 

production of meat and other 

commodities. Wild plains bison 

currently exist only in conservation 

herds, which are typically managed by 

governments and environmental 

organizations for the purpose of 

conserving the subspecies as wildlife in 

their native ecosystem. The petitioners 

contend that commercial herds are 

selectively bred, mixed with cattle 

genes, removed from natural selection, 

and not legally classified as wildlife 

under State laws (Bailey and Bailey 

2009, p. 5). Further, the petitioners 

claim that wild plains bison in many 

conservation herds also may undergo 

selective culling, contain cattle genes 

from early efforts to crossbreed with 

domestic cattle, are removed from some 

aspects of natural selection, and in some 

cases are not legally classified as 

wildlife. These considerations are 

discussed in more detail under Factors 

B, D, and E. 

Determination of the Listable Entity 

Neither the Act nor our implementing 

regulations expressly address whether 

commercial populations should be 

considered part of an entity being 

evaluated for listing, and no Service 

policy addresses the issue. 

Consequently, in our determination of 

how to address commercial populations 

in our analysis, we considered the 

following: (1) Our interpretation of the 

intent of the Act with respect to the 

disposition of native populations, and 

(2) criteria from another organization 

(IUCN) regarding the consideration of 

commercial populations in species 

evaluations. 

Intent of the Endangered Species Act 

Section 2(b) of the Act states that the 

purposes of the Act ‘‘are to provide a 

means whereby the ecosystems upon 

which endangered species and 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10301 

threatened species depend may be 

conserved, to provide a program for the 

conservation of such endangered 

species and threatened species, and to 

take such steps as may be appropriate to 

achieve the purposes of the treaties and 

conventions set forth.’’ In recent 

decisions, including a 12-month finding 

published on September 8, 2010 (75 FR 

54707), for the Arctic grayling 

(Thymallus arcticus) and a 12-month 

finding published on September 22, 

2010, for the plant Agave eggersiana (75 

FR 57720), we have focused on wild 

populations in our analysis of the 

species’ status and potential threats 

because these are the populations that 

contribute to conservation of the 

species. Therefore, we believe that 

considering populations that contribute 

to species conservation in a listing 

evaluation is consistent with the intent 

of the Act. 

Guidelines Used in Other Evaluation 

Systems 

The IUCN follows similar criteria in 

their species evaluations. The IUCN 

uses its Red List system to evaluate the 

conservation status and relative risk of 

extinction for species, and to catalogue 

and highlight plant and animal species 

that are facing a higher risk of global 

extinction (http://www.iucnredlist.org). 

The IUCN does not use the term 

‘‘listable entity’’ as the Service does; 

however, IUCN does clarify that their 

conservation ranking criteria apply to 

any taxonomic group at the species level 

or below (IUCN 2001, p. 4). Further, the 

IUCN guidelines for species status and 

scope of the categorization process focus 

on wild populations inside their natural 

range (IUCN 2001, p. 4; 2003, p. 10) or 

so-called ‘‘benign’’ or ‘‘conservation 

introductions,’’ which are defined as 

attempts to establish a species, for the 

purpose of conservation, outside its 

recorded distribution, when suitable 

habitat is lacking within the historical 

range (IUCN 1998, p. 6; 2003, pp. 6, 10). 

Commercial plains bison herds are not 

eligible for consideration in the 

guidelines for evaluating conservation 

status under the IUCN (IUCN 2008, 

http://www.iucnredlist.org). In effect, 

the IUCN delineates between 

commercial plains bison herds and wild 

plains bison in conservation herds, in 

that commercial herds do not qualify for 

evaluation under the IUCN Red List 

system. 

There does not appear to be any 

conservation value for plains bison in 

commercial herds, as they are not used 

in restoration programs. Instead, their 

primary purpose is the production of 

meat and other commodities for 

commercial purposes. Our 

interpretation is that the Act intended to 

conserve species in their native 

ecosystems. We are not considering 

plains bison managed for production of 

meat and other commodities in this 

finding because we do not believe that 

individuals propagated and managed for 

commercial uses aid in the conservation 

or the recovery of the subspecies in the 

wild. For the purposes of this finding, 

we are analyzing status and potential 

threats to a petitioned entity that 

includes plains bison managed 

primarily for purposes of wildlife and 

ecosystem conservation, hereby referred 

to as wild plains bison, even though no 

bison herd has remained in a 

completely wild state since prehistoric 

times (see our discussion on 

Significance, below). Consequently, we 

do not address commercial bison herds 

further in this finding. 

In summary, we accept the 

characterization of plains bison as a 

valid subspecies because the 

preponderance of currently available 

information indicates that the genus, 

species, and subspecies nomenclature 

are correct. Furthermore, we will only 

consider wild plains bison in 

conservation herds in this evaluation 

because we do not consider it to be 

within the intent of the Act to consider 

plains bison in commercial herds for 

listing. 

Physical Description 

Bison are the largest native terrestrial 

mammal in North America (Reynolds et 

al. 2003, p. 1015). Wood bison are 

generally larger than the plains bison, 

but there is an overlap in size and 

dimensions between the two subspecies 

(Meagher 1986, p. 1). Body mass is 

1,200 to 2,000 pounds (lbs) (544 to 907 

kilograms (kg)) in mature males and 700 

to 1,200 lbs (318 to 545 kg) in mature 

females (Meagher 1986, p. 1). Bison are 

brown, with longer hair over the 

forehead, neck, shoulder hump, and 

front-quarters; and shorter hair over the 

rear and tail (Meagher 1986, p. 1; 

Reynolds et al. 2003, p. 1009). The head 

is large and carried low on a short, thick 

neck (Meagher 1986, p. 1; Reynolds et 

al. 2003, p. 1009). Both sexes have 

short, black horns curving upward and 

inward, which are never shed (Meagher 

1986, p. 1; Reynolds et al. 2003, p. 

1009). 

Life History 

Sexual maturity most commonly 

occurs at 2 to 4 years of age; however, 

bulls do not usually breed until age 6 

(Meagher 1986, p. 4). Female wild 

plains bison typically breed as 2-year 

olds and have their first calf at 3 years 

(Gates et al. 2010, p. 49). Gestation is 

approximately 285 days (Meagher 1986, 

p. 4). Calving season is from mid-April 

through May, with one calf being born; 

twins are rare (Meagher 1986, p. 4). 

Females typically breed until at least 16 

years of age, although they may not 

breed in every year (Gates et al. 2010, 

p. 49). 

Wild plains bison are grazers 

throughout the year, taking mostly 

grasses and sedges (Meagher 1986, p. 5; 

Reynolds et al. 2003, p. 1034). Most 

free-ranging wild plains bison appear to 

be seasonally migratory (Meagher 1986, 

p. 5). Females of all ages, calves, and 

young males form herds (Meagher 1986, 

p. 6). Older bulls temporarily join these 

groups in late July to mid-August as rut 

approaches, but are otherwise found 

singly or in small groups (Meagher 

1986, p. 6; Reynolds et al. 2003, p. 

1020). It is likely that the vast historical 

plains bison herds had a considerable 

impact on vegetation within their 

traditional ranges, through grazing, 

nutrient cycling, and physical 

disturbance (Reynolds et al. 2003, p. 

1037). Prairie dog colonies (Cynomys 

spp.) are preferentially grazed by wild 

plains bison and also are used for 

grooming and wallowing (Reynolds et 

al. 2003, p. 1039). 

Distribution 

Historically, habitat for the wild 

plains bison encompassed 

approximately 2.8 million square miles 

(mi2) (7.2 million square kilometers 

(km2), with approximately 1.9 million 

mi2 (5.0 million km2) west of the 

Mississippi River (Sanderson et al. 

2008, p. 257). Wild plains bison were 

most abundant on the Great Plains, but 

their range also extended eastward into 

the Great Lakes region, beyond the 

Allegheny Mountains, and into Florida; 

westward into Nevada, the Cascade 

Mountains, and the Rocky Mountains; 

northward into mid-Alberta and 

Saskatchewan; and southward along the 

Gulf of Mexico into Mexico (Hornaday 

1889, p. 377; Boyd 2003, p. 20; 

Reynolds et al. 2003, p. 1012; Gates et 

al. 2010, p. 56). Wild plains bison were 

eliminated west of the Rocky Mountains 

and east of the Mississippi River by the 

early 1800s (Halbert 2003, p. 4). By 

1889, only a few wild plains bison 

remained in the Texas Panhandle, 

Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, and the 

western Dakotas, as well as a small 

number in captive herds (Hornaday 

1889, p. 525). Today, wild plains bison 

occur in parks, preserves, other public 

lands, and on private lands throughout, 

and external to, their historical range. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
10302 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Abundance 

Historical estimates regarding 

numbers of wild plains bison range from 

30 to 75 million (Shaw 1995, p. 149). At 

the close of the Civil War, wild plains 

bison probably numbered in the tens of 

millions (Shaw 1995, p. 150). Intensive 

market hunting for hides and meat 

occurred following the Civil War; by 

1889, a minimum of 285 free-ranging 

wild plains bison and 256 captive plains 

bison were estimated to remain 

(Hornaday 1889, p. 525). Recent 

population estimates range from 

400,000 to 500,000, with approximately 

20,500 animals in 62 conservation herds 

(Gates et al. 2010, p. 57) and the 

remainder in approximately 6,400 

commercial herds (Gates et al. 2010, p. 

57). 

Trends 

In the 1800s, wild plains bison 

declined from approximately 30 million 

individuals rangewide to perhaps as few 

as 541. In the late 1800s, a few 

concerned individuals undertook 

independent efforts to conserve the 

remaining plains bison (Hornaday 1889, 

pp. 458–464; Freese et al. 2007, p. 176). 

The American Bison Society formed in 

1905 and pressed Congress to establish 

public bison herds in several locations, 

including Wichita Mountains National 

Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in Oklahoma, 

National Bison Range in Montana, 

Sullys Hill National Game Preserve in 

North Dakota, and Fort Niobrara NWR 

in Nebraska (Boyd 2003, p. 23). 

Yellowstone National Park (NP) and Elk 

Island National Park in Alberta, Canada, 

also participated in early efforts to 

conserve the wild plains bison. By 1970, 

an estimated 30,000 plains bison 

occurred in North America, 

approximately half in public 

conservation herds and half in private 

commercial herds (Boyd 2003, p. 23). By 

2003, the number of plains bison in 

commercial herds increased 

dramatically to approximately 300,000 

to 500,000 (Boyd 2003, p. 23; Halbert 

2003, p. iii), while wild plains bison in 

conservation herds increased modestly 

to approximately 19,200 (Boyd 2003, p. 

23). In 2007, there were approximately 

420,000 plains bison in commercial 

herds in the United States and Canada 

(National Bison Association 2010). In 

2008, there were an estimated 20,500 

wild plains bison in conservation herds 

(Gates et al. 2010, p. 57). Population 

trends for wild plains bison in 

conservation herds appear stable to 

slightly increasing in recent years. The 

petitioners also note that population 

trends for wild plains bison in 

conservation herds have been stable 

since the 1930s, based upon information 

presented by Freese et al. (2007, p. 177) 

(Bailey and Bailey 2009, p. 15). 

The most recent information we have 

in our files regarding population status 

and trends of wild plains bison in 

conservation herds is presented in the 

following table. All information is from 

Boyd (2003, Appendix 1), with the 

exception of information for Rocky 

Mountain Arsenal NWR (Hastings 2011, 

pers. comm.) and House Rock Valley 

State Wildlife Area (Northern Arizona 

University 2009, p. 15). 

TABLE 1—PLAINS BISON CONSERVATION HERD STATUS

[The Nature Conservancy is abbreviated TNC] 

Herd Jurisdiction Population Trend 

Antelope Island State Park, UT .................................................................. State ................................................. 600 Stable. 

Badlands NP, SD ........................................................................................ Federal ............................................. 750 Stable. 

Bear River State Park, WY ......................................................................... State ................................................. 8 Stable. 

Blue Mounds State Park, MN ..................................................................... State ................................................. 56 Stable. 

Buffalo Pound Provincial Park, SK ............................................................. Provincial (Canada) ......................... 33 Stable. 

Caprock Canyons State Park, TX .............................................................. State ................................................. 40 Decreasing. 

Chitina, AK .................................................................................................. State ................................................. 38 Stable. 

Clymer Meadow Preserve, TX .................................................................... TNC & Private .................................. 320 Stable. 

Copper River, AK ........................................................................................ State ................................................. 108 Stable. 

Cross Ranch Nature Preserve, ND ............................................................ TNC .................................................. 140 Increasing. 

Custer State Park, SD ................................................................................ State ................................................. 1100 Stable. 

Daniels Park, CO ........................................................................................ Municipal .......................................... 26 Stable. 

Delta Junction, AK ...................................................................................... State ................................................. 360 Stable. 

Elk Island NP, AB ....................................................................................... Federal (Canada) ............................. 430 Stable. 

Farewell Lake, AK ...................................................................................... State ................................................. 400 Increasing. 

Fermi National Accelerator Lab, IL ............................................................. Federal ............................................. 32 Stable. 

Finney Game Refuge, KS .......................................................................... State ................................................. 120 Stable. 

Fort Niobrara NWR, NE .............................................................................. Federal ............................................. 352 Stable. 

Fort Robinson State Park, NE .................................................................... State ................................................. 500 Stable. 

Genesee Park, CO ..................................................................................... Municipal .......................................... 26 Stable. 

Grand Teton NP & National Elk Refuge, WY (Jackson Herd) ................... Federal & State ................................ 700 Increasing. 

Henry Mountains, UT .................................................................................. State ................................................. 279 Stable. 

Hot Springs State Park, WY ....................................................................... State ................................................. 11 Stable. 

House Rock Valley State Wildlife Area, AZ ............................................... State ................................................. 276 Increasing. 

Konza Prairie Biological Station, KS .......................................................... State & TNC .................................... 275 Stable. 

Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area, KY ........................... Federal ............................................. 130 Decreasing. 

Maxwell Wildlife Refuge, KS ....................................................................... State ................................................. 230 Stable. 

Medano-Zapata Ranch, CO ....................................................................... TNC .................................................. 1500 Decreasing. 

National Bison Range, MT ......................................................................... Federal ............................................. 400 Stable. 

Neal Smith NWR, IA ................................................................................... Federal ............................................. 35 Stable. 

Niobrara Valley Preserve, NE ..................................................................... TNC .................................................. 473 Stable. 

Ordway Prairie Preserve, SD ..................................................................... TNC .................................................. 255 Stable. 

Pink Mountain, BC ...................................................................................... Provincial (Canada) ......................... 1000 Stable. 

Prairie State Park, MO ............................................................................... State ................................................. 76 Stable. 

Primrose Air Weapons Range, AB & SK ................................................... Provincial & Federal (Canada) ........ 100 Increasing. 

Prince Albert NP, SK .................................................................................. Federal (Canada) ............................. 310 Increasing. 

Raymond Wildlife Area, AZ ........................................................................ State ................................................. 72 Stable. 

Riding Mountain NP, MB ............................................................................ Federal (Canada) ............................. 33 Increasing. 

Rocky Mountain Arsenal NWR, CO ........................................................... Federal ............................................. 47 Increasing. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10303 

TABLE 1—PLAINS BISON CONSERVATION HERD STATUS—Continued 

[The Nature Conservancy is abbreviated TNC] 

Herd Jurisdiction Population Trend 

Sandhill Wildlife Area, WI ........................................................................... State ................................................. 15 Stable. 

Santa Catalina Island, CA .......................................................................... Catalina Island Conservancy ........... 225 Increasing. 

Smoky Valley Ranch, KS ........................................................................... TNC .................................................. 45 Increasing. 

Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, ND .................................................... Federal ............................................. 37 Stable. 

Tallgrass Prairie Preserve, OK ................................................................... TNC .................................................. 1500 Increasing. 

Theodore Roosevelt NP, ND ...................................................................... Federal ............................................. 850 Stable. 

Wainwright Training Center, AB ................................................................. Federal (Canada) ............................. 16 Stable. 

Waterton Lakes NP, AB ............................................................................. Federal (Canada) ............................. 27 Stable. 

Wichita Mountains NWR, OK ..................................................................... Federal ............................................. 565 Stable. 

Wildcat Hills State Recreation Area, NE .................................................... State ................................................. 10 Stable. 

Wind Cave NP, SD ..................................................................................... Federal ............................................. 375 Stable. 

Yellowstone NP, WY, MT, ID ..................................................................... Federal ............................................. 4000 Stable. 

U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bison 

Conservation Initiative 

The U.S. Department of Interior 

(USDOI) Bison Conservation Initiative 

provides a framework for managing wild 

plains bison within the USDOI (USDOI 

2008, p. 3). This initiative specifies that 

the USDOI will: (1) Manage wild plains 

bison on their lands based on the best 

available science, seeking to restore 

them on appropriate landscapes; (2) 

apply adaptive management principles; 

(3) seek to develop genetic tests to 

maximize genetic diversity in herds; (4) 

seek to develop new techniques to 

diagnose, prevent, and control 

contagious diseases; and (5) work with 

interested parties (USDOI 2008, p. 2). 

One priority of the Initiative is to 

actively seek opportunities to increase 

existing herds to 1,000 or more wild 

plains bison, or establish new herds that 

can reach that size (USDOI 2008, p. 2). 

This priority describes numeric goals 

and allows the other seven priorities, 

including genetic diversity, disease, and 

introgression with cattle genes, to also 

be addressed. This initiative addresses 

the major concerns of wild plains bison 

management on USDOI lands, including 

genetics, disease, introgression with 

cattle genes, and the number and size of 

herds. 

Private Management 

Forty-two wild plains bison 

conservation herds in the United States 

were described in 2003; of these, 22 are 

solely or jointly managed by States, 12 

herds are solely or jointly managed by 

Federal agencies, 9 herds are solely or 

jointly managed by private 

organizations, and 2 herds are managed 

by municipalities (Boyd 2003, pp. 144– 

147). An additional eight herds are 

managed by Federal or provincial 

agencies in Canada (Boyd 2003, p. 147). 

Since 2003, 12 additional wild plains 

bison herds have been enumerated 

(Gates et al. 2010, p. 57). Initiatives for 

new wild herds also are under way, 

including herds managed by The Nature 

Conservancy (TNC) in Alberta and in 

South Dakota, by American Prairie 

Foundation and World Wildlife Fund in 

Montana, by the Cheyenne River Sioux 

Tribe in South Dakota, by the Lower 

Brule Sioux Tribe in South Dakota, and 

by Rosebud Sioux Tribe in South Dakota 

(Freese et al. 2007, p. 182). Management 

of wild plains bison for conservation 

purposes appears to be active in both 

the private and public sectors. An 

additional 6,400 herds are managed for 

commercial purposes (Gates et al. 2010, 

p. 57). 

Evaluation of Information for This 

Finding 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and its implementing regulations at 50 

CFR part 424 set forth the procedures 

for adding a species to, or removing a 

species from, the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. A species may be 

determined to be an endangered or 

threatened species due to one or more 

of the five factors described in section 

4(a)(1) of the Act: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

In making this 90-day finding, we 

evaluated whether information 

regarding the threats to the wild plains 

bison, as presented in the petition and 

other information available in our files, 

is substantial, thereby indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

Our evaluation of this information is 

presented below. 

In considering what factors might 

constitute threats, we must look beyond 

the mere exposure of the species to the 

factor to determine whether the species 

responds to the factor in a way that 

causes actual impacts to the species. If 

there is exposure to a factor, but no 

response, or only a positive response, 

that factor is not a threat. If there is 

exposure and the species responds 

negatively, the factor may be a threat 

and we then attempt to determine how 

significant a threat it is. If the threat is 

significant, it may drive or contribute to 

the risk of extinction of the species such 

that the species may warrant listing as 

threatened or endangered as those terms 

are defined by the Act. This does not 

necessarily require empirical proof of a 

threat. The combination of exposure and 

some corroborating evidence of how the 

species is likely impacted could suffice. 

The mere identification of factors that 

could impact a species negatively may 

not be sufficient to compel a finding 

that listing may be warranted. The 

information shall contain evidence 

sufficient to suggest that these factors 

may be operative threats that act on the 

species to the point that the species may 

meet the definition of threatened or 

endangered under the Act. We found no 

information to suggest that threats are 

acting on the wild plains bison such 

that the species may become extinct 

now or in the foreseeable future. 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petitioners note the historical 

destruction and modification of plains 

habitat due to conversion to cropland 

and development of grazing land for 

cattle (Bailey and Bailey 2009, p. 15). 

They assert that there are ongoing 

habitat impacts from dam construction, 

cattle grazing, cropland conversion, tree 

invasion, wetland drainage, absence of 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
10304 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

fire, subdivision of land for housing and 

other construction, and energy 

development (Bailey and Bailey 2009, p. 

16). They further assert that with the 

possible exceptions of cattle grazing and 

dam construction, all of these activities 

are expected to increase in the 

foreseeable future (Bailey and Bailey 

2009, p. 16). The petitioners also assert 

that a lack of populations on a 

minimum range size of 500 mi2 (1,300 

km2) of habitat threatens the wild plains 

bison, and only the Yellowstone herd 

meets this standard (Bailey and Bailey 

2009, p. 21). The petitioners contend 

that the lack of suitable habitat is 

evidenced by dramatic declines in 

grassland birds (Bailey and Bailey 2009, 

p. 22). 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

We agree that there have been 

historical destruction and modification 

of habitat due to conversion to cropland 

and development of grazing land for 

cattle. Information in our files indicates 

that cropland conversion, woody plant 

invasion, and cattle grazing have altered 

native grasslands (Ricketts et al. 2008, 

pp. 273–274), and cultivation has 

reduced the tallgrass portion of the 

Great Plains from approximately 168 

million acres (ac) (68 million hectares 

(ha)) to less than 5 percent of that 

amount (Knapp et al. 1999, p. 39). 

American bison, including both plains 

bison and wood bison in conservation 

and commercial herds, currently occupy 

less than 1 percent of their historical 

range (Sanderson et al. 2008, p. 253). 

The petitioners do not provide 

citations to support their assertions 

regarding the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of habitat or range. Their 

arguments seem to rely on the losses of 

individuals and habitat that occurred in 

the 1800s. We do not have information 

indicating that present or potential 

future impacts to habitat or range from 

dam construction, cattle grazing, 

cropland conversion, tree invasion, 

wetland drainage, absence of fire, 

subdivision, or energy development are 

threats to wild plains bison. 

Despite the historical loss of 

grasslands, much suitable habitat 

remains available, and additional 

habitat has often been only degraded 

rather than converted. There is potential 

for rapid recovery of these degraded 

grasslands (Ricketts et al. 2008, p. 288). 

Boyd (2003, pp. 95, 148–151) states that 

a lack of suitable habitat is limiting wild 

plains bison recovery, but also notes 

that 25 out of 50 wild plains bison herds 

that she evaluated have potential for 

expansion. The petitioners note that 

wild plains bison restoration 

opportunities exist on public lands 

managed by the USDOI and the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

often mixed with State public lands 

(Bailey and Bailey 2009, p. 10). National 

Grasslands managed by the U.S. Forest 

Service (USFS) account for nearly 4 

million ac (1.6 million ha), with some 

parcels of suitable habitat currently 

large enough to maintain wild plains 

bison herds (Olson 1997, p. 4; Ricketts 

et al. 2008, p. 275). Native American 

Tribes also have large tracts of suitable 

habitat that could support wild plains 

bison (Boyd 2003, p. 106; Freese et al. 

2007, p. 181). 

When determining whether a species 

should be listed, we examine the 

current status of a species, which 

necessitates examining the species in its 

current range and analyzing current and 

future threats to the remainder of the 

species’ distribution. The information 

the petitioner presented on lost 

historical range, by itself, does not 

provide substantial information that 

listing the wild plains bison may be 

warranted. However, loss of historical 

range may be relevant to the analysis of 

the current and future viability of the 

species, if the factors that caused the 

past decline are shown to be operating 

on populations within the current range. 

Once wild plains bison were protected 

from market hunting, beginning in the 

late 1800s, their numbers rapidly 

increased (Gates et al. 2010, p. 9). We 

do not believe that the market hunting 

that led to the precipitous decline of 

wild plains bison in the 1800s is likely 

to be repeated. Habitat is currently 

available to accommodate additional 

herds. Furthermore, recent stable-toslightly increasing population trends in 

conservation herds do not indicate that 

habitat is a limiting factor for wild 

plains bison. 

The petitioners did not provide any 

citations and we do not have any 

information in our files to support a 

proposed minimum of 500 mi2 (1,300 

km2) of habitat necessary to maintain an 

ecologically significant herd. The 

petitioners state that only the 

Yellowstone herd meets this proposed 

standard, and the Henry Mountain herd 

nearly meets it. We are aware of three 

additional wild plains bison herds that 

occupy more than 500 mi2 (1,300 km;2) 

of habitat: Farewell Lake in Alaska, Pink 

Mountain in British Columbia, and 

Primrose Air Weapons Range in Alberta 

and Saskatchewan. The first two herds 

are outside of the historical range of the 

plains bison, and the Primrose herd is 

at the periphery of the historical range. 

Nevertheless, five herds meet or exceed 

500 mi2 (1,300 km2). We agree that, in 

general, the larger the extent of habitat 

available, the greater the ecological 

significance. However, we believe that 

herds residing on less than 500 mi2

(1,300 km2) also can have ecological 

significance. We have no evidence that 

indicates that wild plains bison in herds 

occupying less than 500 mi2 (1,300 km2) 

of habitat are threatened from lack of 

habitat. Most herds, whether occupying 

more or less than this amount, exhibit 

stable to increasing population trends. 

Therefore, we do not believe that there 

is substantial information indicating 

that listing may be warranted due to a 

lack of herds occupying at least 500 mi2

(1,300 km2) of habitat. 

The petitioners also contend that the 

lack of suitable habitat is evidenced by 

dramatic declines in grassland birds 

(Bailey and Bailey 2009, p. 22). 

Grassland bird abundance and diversity 

is one indicator of a healthy ecosystem, 

as the petitioners suggest, but 

addressing their population trends is 

beyond the scope of this document. We 

have no evidence that there is a 

relationship between grassland bird 

abundance and wild plains bison 

persistence. 

In summary, we find that the 

information provided in the petition, as 

well as other information in our files, 

does not present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted 

due to present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of habitat or range. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petitioners do not assert that 

overutilization is a threat to the wild 

plains bison. They do note that, 

historically, wild plains bison 

numbered in the tens of millions, but 

were subsequently reduced to near 

extinction (Bailey and Bailey 2009, p. 

3). They also suggest that hunting may 

be an appropriate management tool 

(Bailey and Bailey 2009, p. 11). 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

We agree that there was a dramatic 

historical decline in numbers of wild 

plains bison due to market hunting and, 

to a lesser extent, subsistence hunting 

and recreational shooting (Hornaday 

1889, pp. 499–525; Boyd 2003, p. 22; 

Freese et al. 2007, p. 176; IUCN 2008). 

However, market hunting for wild 

plains bison ended in 1884 (Hornaday 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10305 

1889, p. 513) and is no longer a factor. 

We also agree that hunting can be an 

appropriate management tool. Limited 

authorized hunting of wild plains bison 

currently occurs on three public herds 

in the contiguous United States, four 

herds in Alaska, and five herds in 

Canada (Reynolds et al. 2003, pp. 1047– 

1048). 

In summary, we find that the 

information provided in the petition, as 

well as other information in our files, 

does not present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted 

due to overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petitioners note that wild plains 

bison in the Greater Yellowstone 

Ecosystem are infected with brucellosis 

(Brucella abortus), which they assert is 

a minor direct threat, but indirectly 

severely limits the herd because of 

limitations imposed by disease 

management (Bailey and Bailey 2009, 

pp. 8, 21). They note that management 

for brucellosis can involve capture, 

retention, handling, culling, hazing, and 

vaccination and assert that this 

interferes with natural selection, may 

enhance disease transmission, alters age 

structure, and limits herd numbers 

(Bailey and Bailey 2009, p. 21). They 

also contend that vaccinations in 

general subvert natural selection and 

promote domestication (Bailey and 

Bailey 2009, p. 21). The petitioners did 

not cite predation as a threat. 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

Brucellosis is a bacterial infection that 

occurs in cattle, bison, and other 

mammals (Cook et al. 2004, p. 254; 

Seabury et al. 2005, p. 104). It has been 

eradicated from all commercial bison 

herds and most wild bison herds in the 

United States through improved 

management (Seabury et al. 2005, p. 

105). 

Wild plains bison and elk (Cervus 

elaphus) in the Greater Yellowstone 

Area are the last remaining reservoirs of 

brucellosis in the United States (Aune et 

al. 2007, p. 205). Brucellosis is not a 

direct threat, because reproduction is 

only marginally limited, but wild plains 

bison can be indirectly affected by the 

potential risk that infected bison herds 

pose to the livestock industry. Wild 

plains bison leaving Yellowstone NP in 

the winter on the northern and western 

boundaries are subject to hazing, 

vaccination, radio-telemetry, capture, 

testing, and slaughter of animals that 

test positive for the disease (Aune et al. 

2007, p. 206). Transmission of 

brucellosis from bison to cattle has been 

demonstrated in captive studies, but 

there are no confirmed cases of 

transmission in the wild (Boyd 2003, p. 

80). 

In December 2000, following more 

than 10 years of collaborative planning, 

the USDOI (NPS) and the USDA 

(Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service and USFS) signed a Record of 

Decision for a joint bison management 

plan for Yellowstone and the State of 

Montana (USDOI and USDA 2000, p. 3). 

The intent of this plan is to preserve 

Yellowstone’s wild plains bison and 

minimize the potential risk of 

transmission of brucellosis from bison 

to cattle (USDOI and USDA 2000, p. 6). 

This separation is attempted through 

hazing of wild plains bison back into 

Yellowstone, followed by, when 

necessary, capture, testing, and 

slaughter or release of captured bison, 

depending on test results (USDOI and 

USDA 2000, p. 6). Agencies allow wild 

plains bison outside of Yellowstone in 

areas without cattle (USDOI and USDA 

2000, p. 11). If severe winter conditions 

exist and wild plains bison numbers 

drop below 2,300, the agencies will 

temporarily halt slaughter of infected 

bison (USDOI and USDA 2000, pp. 13, 

34). This plan is a comprehensive 

approach to protecting wild plains bison 

in the Park and minimizing the risk of 

brucellosis transmission to cattle 

grazing on adjacent lands. The NPS has 

recently proposed a remote vaccination 

program for wild plains bison in 

Yellowstone that would minimize 

capture and handling of bison (NPS 

2010, p. iii). 

Brucellosis has been eradicated from 

all wild plains bison herds in the United 

States, with the exception of the two 

herds in the Greater Yellowstone Area 

(Yellowstone and Jackson herds). The 

Jackson herd is jointly managed by 

Grand Teton National Park and the 

Service’s National Elk Refuge. Disease 

management is ongoing in these two 

herds. The petitioners contend that the 

hazing, capture, vaccination, and 

culling that may occur subvert natural 

selection, may enhance disease 

transmission, alter age structure, and 

limit herd numbers (Bailey and Bailey 

2009, p. 21). However, the petitioners 

did not provide evidence to support that 

these activities are a threat to the status 

of the species such that the species may 

warrant listing as threatened or 

endangered. Furthermore, recent stableto-increasing population trends do not 

indicate that management for 

brucellosis is a limiting factor for wild 

plains bison in the Greater Yellowstone 

Area. Additionally, disease management 

is often an essential aspect of wildlife 

management. 

In summary, we find that the 

information provided in the petition, as 

well as other information in our files, 

does not present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted 

due to disease or predation. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petitioners assert that existing 

Federal and State regulatory 

mechanisms for wild plains bison 

conservation are inadequate (Bailey and 

Bailey 2009, pp. 16–19). They cite the 

Interagency Bison Management Plan for 

Yellowstone NP, the USDOI’s Bison 

Conservation Initiative, Charles M. 

Russell NWR, National Grasslands 

management, and legal designations by 

the States as examples of inadequate 

regulations where more could be done 

to restore wild plains bison. They also 

assert that management by private 

programs is inadequate (Bailey and 

Bailey 2009, p. 19). 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

We consider plans and initiatives to 

be voluntary agreements that provide 

guidance for better managing wild 

plains bison, rather than regulatory 

mechanisms. Therefore, we discuss the 

Interagency Bison Management Plan for 

Yellowstone under Factor C, because it 

focuses on disease. The USDOI’s Bison 

Conservation Initiative and private 

programs are discussed under 

Background. Management of wild plains 

bison on NWRs and National 

Grasslands, and legal designations by 

States, are discussed under this factor. 

We evaluate the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms from the 

standpoint of the other factors. If there 

is not substantial information that 

listing a species may be warranted due 

to another factor, then the regulations 

affecting that factor cannot be 

considered inadequate. 

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife 

Refuge 

The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act established the 

National Wildlife Refuge System and 

identified a primary mission of wildlife 

conservation. The Service manages over 

500 National Wildlife Refuges and their 

satellites. Wild plains bison 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
10306 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

conservation is a National Wildlife 

Refuge System priority (Jones and Roffe 

2008, p. 5). Purposes of wild plains 

bison management include: (1) To fulfill 

a legal mandate as part of establishing 

a Refuge, (2) to conserve bison, (3) to 

provide education and recreation for the 

public, (4) to manage habitat, (5) to 

protect cultural or historic significance, 

and (6) to carry out research (Jones and 

Roffe 2008, p. 5). Charles M. Russell 

NWR is one of eight National Wildlife 

Refuges in the contiguous United States 

that include wild plains bison 

management among their priorities 

(Jones and Roffe 2008, p. 3). Wild plains 

bison management is at an early stage at 

Charles M. Russell NWR, with only a 

small number of bison currently 

present. The other refuges with wild 

plains bison are Wichita Mountains 

NWR in Oklahoma (herd founding date 

1907), the National Bison Range in 

Montana (herd founding date 1908), 

Fort Niobrara NWR in Nebraska (two 

herds, founding dates 1913 and 1919), 

Sullys Hill National Game Preserve in 

North Dakota (herd founding date 2006), 

Neal Smith NWR in Iowa (herd 

founding date 1996), the National Elk 

Refuge in Wyoming (jointly managed 

with Grand Teton National Park; herd 

founding date 1948), and Rocky 

Mountain Arsenal NWR in Colorado 

(herd founding date 2007). The Service 

has a strong and active commitment to 

wild plains bison conservation and 

ecological restoration, and we do not 

believe that there is substantial 

information indicating that listing may 

be warranted due to perceived 

inadequacies in refuge planning at 

Charles M. Russell NWR. 

National Grasslands Management 

The USFS administers 20 National 

Grasslands consisting of approximately 

3.8 million ac (1.6 million ha) in 13 

States, but the grasslands are primarily 

in Colorado, North Dakota, South 

Dakota, and Wyoming (Olson 1997, p. 

4). According to the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act, these grasslands 

are to be administered under sound and 

progressive principles of land 

conservation and multiple use (36 CFR 

part 213). Approximately 189 million ac 

(77 million ha) of National Forests also 

are managed by the USFS. We believe 

that several National Grasslands and 

National Forests are of sufficient size 

and habitat type to support wild plains 

bison. Wild plains bison on USFS lands 

are typically the result of overflow from 

herds on NPS lands (such as the 

Yellowstone herd) (USDOI and USDA 

2000, p. 3), or are State-owned herds 

(such as the House Rock Valley herd) 

(Northern Arizona University 2009, p. 

1). These wild plains bison are 

adequately protected by Federal laws 

and regulations mandating how USFS 

lands are managed. We do not believe 

that there is substantial information 

indicating that listing may be warranted 

due to lack of actions on the part of the 

USFS. 

Legal Designations 

Plains bison fall into an unusual legal 

classification that can complicate 

understanding the management intent 

for a given herd (Freese et al. 2007, p. 

181). Their legal status can be either 

domestic livestock or wildlife among 

various Federal, State, and provincial 

jurisdictions across North America 

(Gates et al. 2010, p. 66). Plains bison 

are managed as captive or free-ranging 

wildlife on National Parks and National 

Wildlife Refuges. They have dual status 

(herds may be considered domestic 

livestock or wildlife, depending on 

whether they are commercial or 

conservation herds) in Alaska; Arizona; 

Idaho; Utah; Missouri; Montana; New 

Mexico; South Dakota; Texas; Wyoming; 

British Columbia; Saskatchewan; and 

Chihuahua, Mexico (Gates et al. 2010, 

pp. 66–73). Plains bison are classified 

solely as domestic livestock in 

Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, 

Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, North 

Dakota, Nevada, Oklahoma, Alberta, and 

Manitoba, regardless of whether they are 

in commercial or conservation herds 

(Gates et al. 2010, pp. 66–73). 

Nevertheless, wild plains bison that are 

classified as domestic livestock and are 

in conservation herds are managed for 

purposes of wildlife conservation, and 

not for production of meat and other 

commodities. Therefore, they are not 

adversely affected by their legal 

designation. A more uniform and 

straightforward classification of plains 

bison could simplify the regulatory 

status by which they are managed, but 

we do not believe that there is 

substantial information indicating that 

listing may be warranted due to their 

legal status. 

Summary of Factor D 

In summary, we find that the 

information provided in the petition, as 

well as other information in our files, 

does not present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted 

due to the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petitioners assert that loss of 

genetic diversity threatens the wild 

plains bison, and that a minimum herd 

size of 2,000 animals is required to 

provide genetic diversity, noting that 

only 1 herd (Yellowstone) fulfills this 

requirement (Bailey and Bailey 2009, p. 

19). They contend that management 

activities such as roundups, culling, 

protection from predators, pasture 

rotation, supplemental feeding, and 

vaccination lead toward domestication 

and genomic extinction (Bailey and 

Bailey 2009, p. 20). 

The petitioners assert that 

introgression (hybridization) with cattle 

genes threatens the wild plains bison, 

and that only seven herds have been 

found to be free of cattle genes (Bailey 

and Bailey 2009, p. 20). The petitioners 

also allude to impacts from climate 

change, noting that the presence of at 

least one wild plains bison herd in each 

of the four major ecotypes could provide 

redundancy, resiliency, and perhaps 

genetic adaptations in the event of 

global warming (Bailey and Bailey 2009, 

pp. 11–12). 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

Loss of Genetic Diversity 

Preservation of genetic diversity in 

the wild plains bison is essential to its 

conservation (Boyd 2003, p. 60). Genetic 

diversity provides flexibility for 

evolutionary change and adaptation 

(Gardipee 2007, p. 1; Gates et al. 2010, 

p. 19). The population decline for wild 

plains bison was severe—from tens of 

millions to possibly as low as 541 

animals. Demographic bottlenecks such 

as this, and resultant founder effects, 

genetic drift, and inbreeding, can reduce 

genetic diversity (Boyd 2003, p. 60). The 

consequences of a bottleneck depend on 

the severity of the decline and how 

quickly the population recovers (Boyd 

2003, p. 60). 

The small numbers of plains bison 

remaining after the bottleneck resulted 

in very few founders and the possibility 

for genetic drift, which involves the 

random change in gene frequencies 

leading to the loss of certain unique 

DNA sequences in a particular gene type 

(allele) from one generation to the next 

(Boyd 2003, pp. 60–61). Small 

populations also may experience 

inbreeding or highly skewed gender 

ratios, which can lead to the expression 

of deleterious alleles, the decreased 

presence of both dominant and 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10307 

recessive alleles (decreased 

heterozygosity (decreased hybridization 

of genes; an indicator of poor genetic 

health), lower fecundity, and 

developmental defects (Boyd 2003, p. 

61). However, the duration of the 

bottleneck for plains bison was 

relatively short (Halbert 2003, p. 52), 

and the population recovered quickly 

(Boyd 2003, p. 60). Pre-bottleneck wild 

plains bison numbers, movement, and 

distribution suggest widespread 

interbreeding and significant genetic 

homogeneity among continental 

populations. The selection of captive 

and wild plains bison used in early 

foundation herds represented a large 

portion of the historical range and, 

therefore, likely captured a large portion 

of pre-bottleneck genetic variation 

(Halbert 2003, p. 52). Today’s wild 

plains bison have substantially greater 

genetic variation than reported for other 

mammalian species that have 

experienced similar bottlenecks (Halbert 

2003, p. 51). In general, populations of 

wild plains bison that have been tested 

display a moderately high level of 

overall genetic diversity, with notable 

differences in overall allelic variation 

and heterozygosity (Halbert 2003, p. 60). 

A minimum viable population (MVP) 

is the smallest population size that 

provides a high probability (typically 95 

percent) of persistence for a given 

period of time (typically, 100 years) 

(Boyd 2003, p. 36). Large-bodied species 

with a long lifespan tend to experience 

less severe population fluctuations than 

smaller, short-lived species (Boyd 2003, 

p. 37). Consequently, a lower MVP is 

typical for large, long-lived species. The 

Canadian National Wood Bison 

Recovery Team uses a MVP of 400 for 

wood bison (Boyd 2003, p. 38). More 

recently, the IUCN considered wild 

plains bison populations to be viable if 

they were greater than 1,000 animals 

(IUCN 2008). Freese et al. (2007, p. 180) 

suggest that in consideration of exotic 

diseases and climate change, a prudent 

goal would be retention of at least 95- 

percent allelic diversity for 200 years, 

which would require a MVP of 2,000 

animals. We are aware of 15 

conservation herds with at least 400 

wild plains bison, 4 conservation herds 

with at least 1,000 wild plains bison 

(Custer State Park in South Dakota, 

Medano-Zapata Ranch in Colorado, Pink 

Mountain in British Colombia, and 

Yellowstone), and 1 conservation herd 

with more than 2,000 wild plains bison 

(Yellowstone). Selectively moving 

animals in smaller herds from one herd 

to another as is still frequently done in 

conservation herds, and can counter the 

effects of genetic drift and maintain 

viability (Halbert 2003, p. 153; Jones 

and Roffe 2008, p. 8). The USDOI has 

a priority of increasing their existing 

herds to at least 1,000 animals, or 

establishing new herds that can reach 

that size (USDOI 2008, p. 2). 

All wild plains bison herds have 

experienced some degree of 

management, ranging from initial 

establishment of the herd to more 

intensive management activities such as 

roundups, culling, protection from 

predators, pasture rotation, 

supplemental feeding, and vaccination. 

We recognize that maximizing the 

wildness of the plains bison is 

important for the maintenance of 

genetic diversity, but also believe that 

continued judicious management is 

necessary for long-term survival in the 

modern world. For example, in an effort 

to minimize capture and handling of 

wild plains bison in Yellowstone, the 

NPS is considering the use of air rifles 

to deliver brucellosis vaccines remotely 

(NPS 2010, p. iii). 

Populations of wild plains bison that 

have been tested display a moderately 

high level of overall genetic diversity. 

Selective movement of animals between 

herds, as currently practiced, can help 

maintain that genetic diversity. We do 

not believe that there is substantial 

information indicating that listing may 

be warranted due to a loss of genetic 

diversity. 

Introgression With Cattle Genes 

Introgression was caused by 

hybridization between plains bison and 

cattle, followed by breeding of the 

hybrid offspring to at least one of their 

respective parental populations (Gates 

et al. 2010, p. 22). The introgressed or 

alien DNA replaced sections of the 

original DNA, thereby affecting the 

genetic integrity of the wild plains bison 

(Gates et al. 2010, p. 22). Most genetic 

studies we are aware of have been 

conducted on conservation herds 

(Polziehn et al. 1995, p. 1638; Ward et 

al. 1999, p. 52; Boyd 2003, p. 68; 

Halbert 2003, p. 70; Halbert et al. 2005, 

pp. 2349–2350). 

When plains bison were at their 

lowest numbers in the late 1800s, a few 

individuals established small captive 

foundation herds that saved the 

subspecies from extinction. Each of 

these herds was, to some extent, used to 

either experimentally create bisondomestic cattle crosses, or 

supplemented with plains bison from 

herds involved in such experiments 

(Halbert et al. 2005, p. 2344). Controlled 

breeding of male plains bison to female 

domestic cattle has been recorded 

extensively, although the birth rate of 

first-generation offspring is very low 

(Halbert et al. 2005, p. 2344), and male 

offspring are usually sterile (Meagher 

1986, p. 6). Behavioral constraints 

typically prevent domestic bulls from 

mating with female bison (Boyd 2003, p. 

67). Due to the sterility of male offspring 

and the lack of domestic bulls that 

successfully breed with female bison, 

there is no evidence of male-linked or 

Y-chromosome cattle gene introgression 

in bison (Boyd 2003, p. 67). However, 

maternally inherited DNA, known as 

mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), and 

nuclear DNA (contributed by either 

parent) introgression have been 

demonstrated (Polziehn et al. 1995, p. 

1641; Ward et al. 1999, p. 51; Boyd 

2003, p. 67; Halbert 2003, p. 13), which 

indicates that many plains bison contain 

some cattle DNA from experimental 

crosses conducted in the past. 

The proportion of cattle DNA that has 

been measured in introgressed 

individuals and herds is typically quite 

low, ranging from 0.56 to 1.8 percent 

(Polziehn et al. 1995, p. 1642; Halbert et 

al. 2005, p. 2343). However, estimates 

based on extrapolation from portions of 

genomes sampled, to the entire genome, 

to all animals in a herd should be 

considered only as approximations 

(Roffe and Jones 2008, p. 1). The 

petitioners assert that seven herds have 

been found free of cattle genes (Bailey 

and Bailey 2009, p. 20). We are aware 

that very few herds lack evidence of at 

least some cattle allele introgression. 

Based upon the information currently 

available, the following wild plains 

bison conservation herds show no 

evidence of introgression: Elk Island 

National Park in Alberta, Jackson herd 

(Grand Teton National Park—National 

Elk Refuge) in Wyoming, Henry 

Mountains in Utah, Sullys Hill National 

Game Preserve in North Dakota, Wind 

Cave National Park in South Dakota, 

and Yellowstone (Halbert and Derr 

2007, p. 8). One private herd, Castle 

Rock in New Mexico, also shows no 

evidence of introgression (Freese et al. 

2007, p. 182). The Jackson and Sullys 

Hill herds have not been adequately 

sampled to allow for statistical 

confidence (Halbert and Derr 2007, p. 

8), and many other herds have not yet 

been tested. As techniques improve and 

more extensive sampling occur, some 

herds previously without evidence of 

introgression may be found to contain 

introgressed alleles. 

Some conservation herds known to 

have low levels of cattle introgression 

also contain unique or rare plains bison 

genetic diversity (Halbert 2003, p. 98; 

Gates et al. 2010, p. 23). To minimize 

genetic loss and not exacerbate the 

effects of the historical bottleneck on the 

wild plains bison, managers feel that 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
10308 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

this unique genetic background should 

be conserved, while herds with no 

evidence of introgression should be 

maintained in isolation from 

introgressed populations (Halbert 2003, 

p. 94). Issues of introgression and 

unique genetic diversity are both 

considered in management of wild 

plains bison. 

The presence of cattle DNA in the 

genetic makeup of wild plains bison 

appears widespread, but occurs at low 

levels. Conservation herds are managed 

according to their genetic background, 

so as to maintain genetic diversity and 

introgression-free herds. We expect the 

frequency of cattle DNA to remain low 

in conservation herds. Wild plains bison 

from introgressed herds conform 

morphologically, behaviorally, and 

ecologically to the scientific taxonomic 

description of the native subspecies. 

Some wild plains bison herds with 

evidence of cattle introgression also 

contain valuable genetic diversity that is 

not found elsewhere and should be 

conserved. We do not believe that there 

is substantial information indicating 

that listing may be warranted due to 

introgression with cattle genes. 

Climate Change 

No information on the direct 

relationship between climate change 

and wild plains bison was provided by 

the petitioners or is available in our 

files. According to the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC 2007, p. 6), ‘‘warming of 

the climate system is unequivocal, as is 

now evident from observations of 

increases in global average air and ocean 

temperatures, widespread melting of 

snow and ice, and rising global average 

sea level.’’ Average Northern 

Hemisphere temperatures during the 

second half of the 20th century were 

very likely higher than during any other 

50-year period in the last 500 years, and 

likely the highest in at least the past 

1,300 years (IPCC 2007, p. 6). It is very 

likely that over the past 50 years, cold 

days, cold nights, and frosts have 

become less frequent over most land 

areas, and hot days and hot nights have 

become more frequent (IPCC 2007, p. 6). 

It is likely that heat waves have become 

more frequent over most land areas, and 

the frequency of heavy precipitation 

events has increased over most areas 

(IPCC 2007, p. 6). 

Changes in the global climate system 

during the 21st Century are likely to be 

larger than those observed during the 

20th Century (IPCC 2007, p. 19). For the 

next 2 decades, a warming of about 0.2 

°Celsius (°C) (0.4 °Fahrenheit (°F)) per 

decade is projected (IPCC 2007, p. 19). 

Afterward, temperature projections 

increasingly depend on specific 

emissions scenarios (IPCC 2007, p. 19). 

Various emissions scenarios suggest that 

by the end of the 21st Century, average 

global temperatures are expected to 

increase 0.6 to 4.0 °C (1.1 to 7.2 °F), 

with the greatest warming expected over 

land (IPCC 2007, p. 20). The IPCC (2007, 

pp. 22, 27) report outlines several 

scenarios that are virtually certain or 

very likely to occur in the 21st Century 

including: (1) Over most land, there will 

be warmer days and nights, and fewer 

cold days and nights, along with more 

frequent hot days and nights; (2) areas 

affected by drought will increase; and 

(3) the frequency of warm spells and 

heat waves over most land areas will 

likely increase. The IPCC predicts that 

the resiliency of many ecosystems is 

likely to be exceeded this century by an 

unprecedented combination of climate 

change, associated disturbances (e.g., 

flooding, drought, wildfire, and insects), 

and other global drivers. With medium 

confidence, IPCC predicts that 

approximately 20 to 30 percent of plant 

and animal species assessed so far are 

likely to be at an increased risk of 

extinction if increases in global average 

temperature exceed 1.5 to 2.5 °C (3 to 

5 °F). 

The wild plains bison had a very 

extensive historical range that extended 

nearly coast to coast and from central 

Canada to northern Mexico. Therefore, 

it would appear that it is adaptable to 

a wide variety of climatic conditions. 

We also believe that all four ecotypes 

described by the petitioners as potential 

distinct population segments will 

persist in the face of climate change. 

Consequently, we do not believe that 

there is substantial information 

indicating that listing may be warranted 

due to climate change. 

Summary of Factor E 

In summary, we find that the 

information provided in the petition, as 

well as other information in our files, 

does not present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted 

due to loss of genetic diversity, 

introgression with cattle genes, or 

climate change. 

Summary of Five Factor Evaluation 

We have carefully examined 

information from the petition and from 

our files regarding the status of wild 

plains bison. We also consulted with 

Service biologists and managers from 

NWRs that have wild plains bison. 

There have been several impacts to the 

wild plains bison; in particular, market 

hunting caused a precipitous decline in 

the mid- to late-1800s. Diligent efforts 

by a few individuals prevented 

extinction. However, subsequent 

attempts to crossbreed plains bison with 

cattle resulted in low-level, but 

widespread, presence of cattle DNA. 

Nevertheless, the wild plains bison 

appears to have retained much of its 

genetic diversity. However, the presence 

of both commercial herds and 

conservation herds has resulted in some 

conflicting legal designations. 

Brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone 

Ecosystem requires special 

management. Despite these stressors, 

the numbers of plains bison have 

increased dramatically since the early 

1900s, and population trends of wild 

plains bison in conservation herds 

appear to be stable to increasing in 

recent years. The number of 

conservation herds also continues to 

increase. In summary, the petition does 

not present substantial information that 

wild plains bison as a subspecies may 

require listing. 

Distinct Vertebrate Population 

Segments 

The petitioners requested that if we 

should determine that substantial 

information was not presented 

indicating that listing may be warranted, 

then each major ecotype of the 

subspecies should be listed as a 

‘‘significant distinct population segment 

(DPS).’’ The petitioners specified four 

ecotypes (population segments) of wild 

plains bison: The northern Great Plains, 

the southern Great Plains, the Rocky 

Mountains, and the Great BasinColorado Plateau. 

To interpret and implement the DPS 

provisions of the Act, the Service and 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration published the Policy 

Regarding the Recognition of Distinct 

Vertebrate Population Segments Under 

the Endangered Species Act in the 

Federal Register on February 7, 1996 

(61 FR 4722). Under the DPS Policy, 

three elements are considered in the 

decision regarding the establishment 

and classification of a population of a 

vertebrate species as a possible DPS: 

(1) The discreteness of a population in 

relation to the remainder of the species 

to which it belongs, (2) the significance 

of the population segment to the species 

to which it belongs, and (3) the 

population segment’s conservation 

status in relation to the Act’s standards 

for listing, delisting, or reclassification. 

Both discreteness and significance are 

required for a species population to 

meet our criteria for classification as a 

DPS. If any portion of a species’ 

population is considered a potentially 

valid DPS, we may list, delist, or 

reclassify that DPS under the Act. We 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10309 

address these elements with respect to 

the wild plains bison. 

Discreteness 

Under the DPS policy, a population 

segment of a vertebrate species may be 

considered discrete if it satisfies either 

one of the following conditions: (1) It is 

markedly separated from other 

populations of the same taxon as a 

consequence of physical, physiological, 

ecological, or behavioral factors 

(quantitative measures of genetic or 

morphological discontinuity may 

provide evidence of this separation); or 

(2) it is delimited by international 

governmental boundaries within which 

differences in control of exploitation, 

management of habitat, conservation 

status, or regulatory mechanisms exist 

that are significant in light of section 

4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. 

Markedly Separated 

The petitioners assert that the four 

proposed wild plains bison ecotypes or 

population segments are physically 

separated, and therefore discrete (Bailey 

and Bailey 2009, p. 11). While nearly all 

conservation herds are geographically 

separated, the available information 

indicates that the ‘‘markedly separated’’ 

criteria are not satisfied because the 

frequent interchange between herds that 

has occurred since the late 1800s has 

provided a physical connectivity 

between herds, and has maintained 

genetic homogeneity. 

There is no evidence indicating that 

landscape features historically separated 

herds of plains bison. Prior to the 

population bottleneck in the late 1800s, 

the species likely experienced a high 

degree of genetic homogeneity, despite 

their extensive range (Gates et al. 2010, 

p. 20). Wild plains bison ranged over 

large areas, suggesting extensive animal 

movement and gene flow between 

populations (Gates et al. 2010, p. 20). 

Separation should also be considered 

in the context of the more recent history 

of the four wild plains bison ecotypes or 

population segments. Several 

researchers have concluded that nearly 

all plains bison present today in both 

commercial and conservation herds 

descend from 76 to 84 individuals from 

5 private foundation herds and no more 

than 30 wild bison in Yellowstone 

(Halbert 2003, p. 9). The private 

foundation herds originated from across 

a large portion of the species’ range. 

Early federally owned herds were 

established from foundation herds and 

subsequently augmented with plains 

bison from multiple herds in disparate 

locations. For example, the current wild 

plains bison herd on the National Bison 

Range was started in 1908 with stock 

from three different foundation herds in 

Canada, Texas, and Montana (Halbert 

and Derr 2007, p. 2). This same herd 

was augmented in 1939 with plains 

bison from a private ranch of unknown 

origin; in 1952 with wild plains bison 

from Fort Niobrara NWR, Nebraska; in 

1953 with wild plains bison from 

Yellowstone, Wyoming; and in 1984 

with wild plains bison from Maxwell 

Wildlife Refuge, Kansas (Halbert and 

Derr 2007, p. 2). Similar histories exist 

for most other Federal herds (Halbert 

and Derr 2007, p. 2). In contrast, one 

State-owned herd, the Texas Caprock 

herd, has been a small, closed 

population for more than 120 years 

since its founding with five plains bison 

from the Goodnight foundation herd 

(Halbert 2003, p. 95). This herd suffers 

from lower birth rates and higher death 

rates than other captive herds (Halbert 

2003, p. 95). The careful introduction of 

unrelated plains bison has been 

recommended to increase genetic 

diversity, reduce inbreeding, and 

increase fitness (Halbert 2003, p. 124). 

The strategy for wild plains bison 

herds in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System is to manage bison as a 

metapopulation to maintain the genetic 

complement and minimize loss of 

diversity through low levels of carefully 

planned and monitored translocations 

between herds (Jones and Roffe 2008, p. 

9). Similar translocations occur for other 

public herds (Halbert and Derr 2007, p. 

2). Translocations are often between 

ecotypes, which further supports 

management as a metapopulation (Boyd 

2003, Appendix 2). 

The diverse origins of the early 

foundation herds, and subsequent 

translocations that were undertaken 

(and continue to be undertaken) to 

establish new herds and to later 

augment herds, have resulted in 

population segments that, despite their 

current geographic separation, are 

essentially one metapopulation where 

connectivity is maintained through 

management practices. Therefore, the 

four wild plains bison ecotypes or 

population segments are not markedly 

separate. 

International Boundaries With 

Differences in Exploitation, 

Management, Status, or Regulations 

Although wild plains bison herds also 

occur in Canada, each of the four plains 

bison ecotypes or population segments 

proposed by the petitioners occurs 

within the United States. Therefore, 

there are no international governmental 

boundaries to consider. 

Conclusion 

The historically wide-ranging nature 

of wild plains bison likely resulted in a 

high degree of genetic homogeneity for 

the species. The subsequent 

management of the wild plains bison 

has maintained that homogeneity 

through numerous translocations 

between various conservation herds. 

Additionally, there are no international 

boundaries between the four proposed 

population segments. Therefore, the 

discreteness criteria, as applied to the 

DPS policy, have not been met. 

Significance 

Because the petition does not present 

substantial information that any of the 

four wild plains bison ecotypes or 

population segments is discrete, we did 

not evaluate whether the information 

contained in the petition regarding 

significance was substantial. However, 

we note that the wild plains bison is a 

generalist with regard to its habitat 

requirements, as evidenced by its broad 

historical range, and none of the 

ecological settings of the four 

population segments is unique or 

unusual. Each of the population 

segments contains multiple herds 

managed under different Federal, State, 

municipal, or private regimes, and the 

complete loss of any population 

segment is very unlikely. No population 

segment represents the only surviving 

natural occurrence of the taxon. Lastly, 

due to multiple, diverse origins and 

subsequent translocations, no 

population segment is genetically, 

behaviorally, or ecologically unique. 

We recognize that this conclusion 

differs to some extent from an earlier 

decision. In a previous negative 90-day 

finding published on August 15, 2007 

(72 FR 45717), we determined that the 

Yellowstone plains bison herd may 

meet the criteria of discreteness and 

significance as defined by our policy on 

DPS. However, this finding and the 

previous 90-day finding differ in scope. 

The August 15, 2007, finding only 

addressed plains bison in the 

Yellowstone herd. The current finding 

addresses wild plains bison in all 

conservation herds. 

The 2007 finding concluded that the 

Yellowstone herd may be discrete from 

other plains bison, because it was 

considered the only herd that has 

‘‘remained in a wild state since 

prehistoric times’’ and because of 

physical distance and barriers. The best 

available information now indicates that 

the basis for our 2007 DPS 

determination was erroneous. We still 

use the term ‘‘wild plains bison’’ to 

describe the Yellowstone herd because 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
10310 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

they are managed as a conservation 

herd, rather than as a commercial herd. 

However, we no longer consider the 

Yellowstone herd to have remained in 

more of a ‘‘wild’’ state than any other 

conservation herd. Specifically, these 

wild plains bison are no longer thought 

to have remained in an unaltered 

condition from prehistoric times, as 

implied in the previous determination. 

In 1902, no more than 30 wild plains 

bison remained in Yellowstone (Halbert 

2003, p. 24). In the same year, 18 female 

plains bison from the captive PabloAllard herd in Montana and 3 bulls 

from the captive Goodnight herd in 

Texas were purchased to supplement 

the Yellowstone herd (Halbert 2003, pp. 

24–25). Additionally, intensive 

management (supplemental feeding, 

roundups, and selective culling) of the 

Yellowstone herd occurred from the 

1920s through the late 1960s (Gogan et 

al. 2005, p. 1719). Wild plains bison 

from Yellowstone also have been used 

to start or augment many later 

conservation herds (Halbert and Derr 

2007, p. 2). Despite geographic 

separation, the Yellowstone herd is 

essentially part of one metapopulation 

and is not markedly separate from other 

herds. 

Summary of the Distinct Population 

Segment Analysis 

On the basis of the preceding 

discussion, we believe that the petition 

has not provided substantial 

information to conclude that each of the 

four population segments may be 

discrete. Therefore, we did not evaluate 

significance or conservation status of 

the four population segments within the 

meaning of the DPS Policy. In 

conclusion, we do not believe that any 

of the population segments may 

constitute a valid DPS. 

However, even if we had concluded 

that the four population segments may 

be discrete and significant, the petition 

does not present substantial information 

that any of the stressors described under 

the above five factor analysis are 

concentrated within any one DPS to 

indicate that any of the DPSs would be 

more likely to be threatened or 

endangered than the species at large. 

Thus, there is no information indicating 

stressors rise to the level of a threat for 

any population segment. 

Finding 

In summary, the petition does not 

present substantial information that 

wild plains bison may require listing 

either as a subspecies or a DPS. The 

conclusion that impacts from the 

various factors discussed above may 

constitute a threat is not supported by 

the available information regarding 

distribution, abundance, and population 

trends of wild plains bison. Wild plains 

bison are distributed in parks, preserves, 

other public lands, and private lands 

throughout and external to their 

historical range. The current population 

of wild plains bison is estimated to be 

20,500 animals in 62 conservation 

herds. Recent population trends appear 

stable to slightly increasing in 

conservation herds (as noted by the 

petitioners). 

On the basis of our determination 

under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we 

conclude that the petition does not 

present substantial scientific or 

commercial information to indicate that 

listing the wild plains bison, or any of 

four proposed DPSs, under the Act as 

threatened or endangered may be 

warranted at this time. Although we 

will not review the status of the species 

at this time, we encourage interested 

parties to continue to gather data that 

will assist with conservation of the wild 

plains bison. If you wish to provide 

information regarding the wild plains 

bison, you may submit your information 

or materials to the Wyoming Field 

Supervisor (see ADDRESSES) at any time. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and upon request 

from the Wyoming Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this notice are 

staff members of the Mountain-Prairie 

Regional Office and the Wyoming Field 

Office (see ADDRESSES). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Rowan W. Gould, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4121 Filed 2–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS–R8–ES–2010–0078; MO 92210–0–0008 

B2] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To List the Unsilvered Fritillary 

Butterfly as Threatened or Endangered 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, announce a 90-day 

finding on a petition to list the 

unsilvered fritillary butterfly (Speyeria 

adiaste) as threatened or endangered 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973 (Act), as amended, and designate 

critical habitat. Based on our review, we 

find that the petition does not present 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that listing the 

unsilvered fritillary may be warranted. 

Therefore, we are not initiating a status 

review in response to this petition. We 

ask the public to submit to us any new 

information that becomes available 

concerning the status of, or threats to, 

the unsilvered fritillary or its habitat at 

any time. 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on February 24, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket Number 

FWS–R8–ES–2010–0078 and at http:// 

www.fws.gov/ventura. Supporting 

documentation we used in preparing 

this finding is available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and 

Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Road, 

Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003; telephone 

805–644–1766; facsimile 805–644–3958. 

Please submit any new information, 

materials, comments, or questions 

concerning this finding to the above 

street address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael McCrary, Listing and Recovery 

Coordinator for Wildlife, Ventura Fish 

and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES), by 

telephone 805–644–1766, or by 

facsimile 805–644–3958. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS