Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Peary Caribou and Dolphin and Union Population of the Barren-Ground Caribou as Endangered or Threatened, 18701-18706 [2011-7653]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
finding on the petition, which will
address whether the petitioned action is
A complete list of references cited is
warranted, as provided in section
available on the Internet at https://
4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
www.regulations.gov and upon request
DATES: To allow us adequate time to
from the Montana Field Office (see
conduct this review, we request that we
ADDRESSES section).
receive information on or before June 6,
Authors
2011. After this date, you must submit
The primary authors of this notice are information directly to the office listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
the staff members of the Montana Field
CONTACT section below. Please note that
Office.
we may not be able to address or
Authority
incorporate information that we receive
The authority for this section is
after the above requested date.
section 4 of the Endangered Species Act ADDRESSES: You may submit
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
information by one of the following
seq.).
methods:
Dated: March 21, 2011.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Search for docket
Gregory E. Siekaniec,
FWS–R9–ES–2010–0001 and then
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
follow the instructions for submitting
[FR Doc. 2011–7827 Filed 4–4–11; 8:45 am]
comments.
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R9–
ES–2010–0001; Division of Policy and
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and
Fish and Wildlife Service
Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
MS 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
50 CFR Part 17
We will post all information received
[FWS–R9–ES–2010–0001; MO 92210–0–0010 on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any
B6]
personal information you provide us
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
(see the Information Requested section
and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a
below for more details).
Petition To List the Peary Caribou and
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dolphin and Union Population of the
Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of
Barren-Ground Caribou as Endangered Foreign Species, Endangered Species
or Threatened
Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420,
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703–
Interior.
358–2171; facsimile 703–358–1735. If
ACTION: Notice of petition finding and
you use a telecommunications device
initiation of status review.
for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
800–877–8339.
Wildlife Service, announce a 90-day
finding on a petition to list the Peary
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
(Rangifer tarandus pearyi) and the
Information Requested
Dolphin and Union population of the
barren-ground (R. t. groenlandicus x
When we make a finding that a
pearyi) caribou as endangered or
petition presents substantial
threatened under the Endangered
information indicating that listing a
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
species or subspecies may be warranted,
Based on our review, we find that the
we are required to promptly review the
petition presents substantial scientific
status of the species (conduct a status
and commercial information indicating
review). For the status review to be
that the petitioned action may be
complete and based on the best
warranted. Therefore, with the
available scientific and commercial
publication of this notice, we are
information, we request information on
initiating a review of the status of these
these two subspecies from governmental
two subspecies to determine if listing
agencies (including Canadian national
these two subspecies is warranted. To
and provincial governments), local
ensure that this status review is
indigenous people of Canada (who also
comprehensive, we request scientific
may be acknowledged as Native
and commercial data and other
American or Aboriginal tribes), the
information regarding these two
scientific community, industry, and any
subspecies. At the conclusion of this
other interested parties. We seek
review, we will issue a 12-month
information on:
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
References Cited
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:08 Apr 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18701
(1) Each subspecies’ biology, range,
and population trends, including:
(a) Habitat requirements for feeding,
breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range
including distribution patterns,
particularly regarding their seasonal
migrations;
(d) Historical and current population
levels, and current and projected
population trends;
(e) Potential threats to each
subspecies such as mining, resource
extraction, or other threats not
identified; and
(f) Past and ongoing conservation
measures for each subspecies or their
habitat.
(2) The factors that are the basis for
making a listing determination for a
species or subspecies under section 4(a)
of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),
which are:
(a) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of their habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes, particularly data on hunting;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting their continued existence.
(3) The potential effects of climate
change on each subspecies and its
habitat.
Please include sufficient information
with your submission (such as full
references) to allow us to verify any
scientific or commercial information
you include. Submissions merely stating
support for or opposition to the action
under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted,
will not be considered in making a
determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the
Act directs that determinations as to
whether any species is an endangered or
threatened species must be made ‘‘solely
on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.’’
You may submit your information
concerning this status review by one of
the methods listed in the ADDRESSES
section. If you submit information via
https://www.regulations.gov, your entire
submission—including any personal
identifying information—will be posted
on the Web site. If you submit a
hardcopy that includes personal
identifying information, you may
request at the top of your document that
we withhold this personal identifying
information from public review.
However, we cannot guarantee that we
will be able to do so. We will post all
E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM
05APP1
18702
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
hardcopy submissions on https://
www.regulations.gov.
Information and supporting
documentation that we received and
used in preparing this finding, will be
available for you to review at https://
www.regulations.gov, or you may make
an appointment during normal business
hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Endangered Species Program,
Branch of Foreign Species (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires
that we make a finding on whether a
petition to list, delist, or reclassify a
species presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition,
supporting information submitted with
the petition, and information otherwise
available in our files. To the maximum
extent practicable, we are to make this
finding within 90 days of our receipt of
the petition and publish our notice of
the finding promptly in the Federal
Register.
Our standard for substantial scientific
or commercial information within the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with
regard to a 90-day petition finding is
‘‘that amount of information that would
lead a reasonable person to believe that
the measure proposed in the petition
may be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)).
If we find that substantial scientific or
commercial information was presented,
we are required to promptly review the
status of the species, which is
subsequently summarized in our 12month finding.
In considering what factors might
constitute threats, we look beyond the
exposure of the species to determine
whether the species responds to the
factor in a way that causes actual
impacts to the species and we look at
the magnitude of the effect. If there is
exposure to a factor, but no response, or
only a beneficial 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 the factor is.
If the factor is significant, it may drive
or contribute to the risk of extinction of
the species such that the species
warrants listing as threatened or
endangered as those terms are defined
by the Act. However, the identification
of factors that could impact a species
negatively may not be sufficient to
compel a finding that the information in
the petition is substantial. The
information must include evidence
sufficient to suggest that these factors
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:08 Apr 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
may be operative threats that act on the
species to the point that the species may
meet the definition of endangered or
threatened under the Act.
Petition History
On September 15, 2009, we received
a petition (also dated September 15,
2009), from the International Fund for
Animal Welfare (hereafter referred to as
petitioner) requesting that two
subspecies of barren-ground caribou
(Rangifer tarandus) be listed as
endangered or threatened under the Act.
These two subspecies are the Peary
caribou (R. t. pearyi) and the Dolphin
and Union population of the barrenground caribou (R. t. groenlandicus x
pearyi). The petition clearly identified
itself as such and included the requisite
identification information as required
by 50 CFR 424.14(a). The petition was
amended on May 14, 2010, and the
petitioner provided supplemental
information to the original petition. We
consider this amended petition, along
with the previously submitted
information, to be a new petition and
the statutory timeframes to begin on
May 14, 2010. This finding addresses
the petition.
Species Information
Taxonomic Background
Banfield’s 1961 taxonomic
characterization listed nine subspecies
of caribou (R. tarandus), two of which
are now extinct. Peary caribou was first
taxonomically described by J. A. Allen
in 1902. The Dolphin and Union
caribou was described in 1960 as R. t.
groenlandicus x pearyi by Manning.
Prior to 1979, Peary caribou (R. t.
pearyi) and the Dolphin and Union
caribou (R. t. groenlandicus x pearyi)
were considered the same subspecies. In
1991, three populations of R. t. pearyi
were recognized; Banks Island, High
Arctic, and Low Arctic. In 2003, Zittlau
et al. found (pp. 593–598) that the
Dolphin and Union population of
barren-ground caribou is genetically
distinct from both Peary and mainland
barren-ground caribou (R. t.
groenlandicus). In 2004, the Committee
on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
Canada (COSEWIC) recognized four
populations of Peary caribou. We accept
Peary caribou as a subspecies because of
the genotypic and phenotypic evidence
presented by COSEWIC (2004, p. 17).
Also in 2004, COSEWIC clarified that
the Dolphin and Union population of
the barren-ground caribou (R. t.
groenlandicus x pearyi) is comprised of
a portion of the former ‘‘Low Arctic
population’’ of Peary caribou. Although
most entities agree that the Dolphin and
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Union population is a valid subspecies,
the taxonomic reclassification process
can be slow, and the Dolphin and Union
population has not yet been
taxonomically reclassified. For the
purpose of this finding, we consider the
Dolphin and Union population of the
barren-ground caribou to be a valid
subspecies and treat it as such.
Throughout this finding, we will refer to
this subspecies as the Dolphin and
Union caribou.
General Habitat Characteristics and Life
History
Both subspecies live in an ecological
grazing system in which abiotic factors
such as snow, rain, and ice largely
determine their fate (COSEWIC 2004, p.
54). Food shortages can have a
significant effect on caribou populations
in these ecosystems. In the winter of
1973–1974, both subspecies
experienced a population crash—
freezing rain created sheets of ice,
forming a barrier that covered the
caribou’s food sources and subsequently
caused mass starvation (Miller et al.
1977a in Miller and Gunn 2003, p. 2).
Their nutrition is closely related to
plant phenology (timing of plant
blooming based on daylight and
temperature). Seasonal feeding is
critical for various life stages such as
lactation and growth during the spring,
increasing fat reserves during the
summer, and simply surviving during
the winter. Caribou generally migrate
great distances in search of food; some
herds travel significantly greater
distances than others. The distance
traveled likely depends on food
availability (COSEWIC 2004, pp. 29–30).
Caribou forage by pushing snow off the
vegetation with their noses, but when
snowpack is deeper, they will dig small
craters in the snow to reach the
vegetation (COSEWIC 2004, p. 35).
Peary Caribou
Description
With an average total body length of
1.7 meters (m) (5.6 feet (ft)), the Peary
caribou is relatively small and short
when compared to other caribou species
(COSEWIC 2004, pp. 9–10).
Distribution and Population
Peary caribou are endemic to the
Queen Elizabeth Islands in northeastern
Canada, in the provinces of Nunavut
and the Northwest Territories. They
exist in the Canadian Arctic Islands and
coastal Greenland, but live mainly on
the islands of the Canadian archipelago.
The four populations of Peary caribou
are generally delineated as follows:
(1) Queen Elizabeth Islands, (2) Banks
E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM
05APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Island and NW Victoria Island, (3)
Prince of Wales and Somerset Islands,
and (4) Boothia Peninsula (COSEWIC
2004, p. 19). This subspecies is rarely
found on the mainland (COSEWIC 2004,
pp. 13–14). Their habitat spans 800,000
km2 (308,882 mi 2) between 20 Queen
Elizabeth islands and the other 3 island
groups listed above (COSEWIC 2004,
pp. vi, 19). Other than subsistence
hunting when allowed, the Peary
subspecies is generally not directly
affected by human activities due to the
remoteness of their habitat (COSEWIC
2004, p. 50).
The historical population and
population trends are difficult to
estimate due to differences in survey
methodology, the remoteness of their
island habitat, and the movements of
Peary caribou between islands, and the
taxonomic uncertainty prior to 2004. An
assessment completed in 1991 indicated
that between 1961 and 1987 the
population of Peary caribou likely
decreased by 86 percent (Miller 1991).
COSEWIC further estimates that in the
last 40 years, Peary caribou have
declined 84 percent (COSEWIC 2004,
pp. 36–37). In 2004, the total population
estimate for Peary caribou was 7,890
individuals, including calves (COSEWIC
2004, p. 62). Although population
estimates for the Peary caribou have
been typically unreliable, in part due to
the remoteness of the species, the 2004
estimate is believed to be fairly accurate.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Habitat Characteristics
Peary caribou migrate between the
various islands based on availability of
vegetation, and may recolonize islands
that were abandoned in previous years
(Ferguson and Messier 2000, p. 173).
They have been documented migrating
up to 450 km (280 mi) between islands
in search of food and calving grounds
(COSEWIC 2004, pp. 19, 30). Peary
caribou migrate from northwestern
Victoria Island to the Minto Inlet area
(Gunn and Fournier 2000, pp. 15–57).
However, some caribou remain faithful
to one particular island despite the
absence of food sources (Miller 2002 in
COSEWIC 2004, p. 30). It is unclear why
some caribou migrate and others do not,
but the majority of caribou engage in
some degree of migration.
Conservation Status
As of 2004, the Peary caribou is
assessed as ‘‘endangered’’ by the
Canadian Government (COSEWIC 2004,
p. 19). Neither subspecies addressed in
this finding is listed on any appendices
of the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES). Caribou are
protected by land claim agreements
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:08 Apr 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
within Canada, and hunts are managed
by regulatory entities such as the
Nunavut Wildlife Management Board
(NWMB) and hunting and trapping
associations (COSEWIC 2004, p. 61).
Native tribes who hunt caribou for
subsistence have voluntarily placed
moratoriums on hunts in the past; as of
2004, a moratorium was still in place.
Peary caribou have been assessed as
endangered since 1996 by the
International Union for Conservation of
Nature (IUCN).
Dolphin and Union Caribou
Description
The Dolphin and Union caribou is
generally larger than Peary caribou but
smaller than the mainland population of
barren-ground caribou (R. t.
groenlandicus). The pelage (coloring) of
Dolphin and Union caribou is slightly
darker than Peary caribou and their
antler velvet is grey (like the Peary
caribou) but is distinct from mainland
barren-ground caribou, which do not
have grey antler velvet.
Distribution and Population
The Dolphin and Union caribou
primarily reside on the southern part of
Victoria Island and its range does not
overlap with Peary caribou. Seasonally,
they cross the frozen ice of the Dolphin
and Union Strait to winter on the
mainland. Their range consists of the
lower part of Victoria Island (excluding
northwestern Victoria Island), and is
estimated to be 195,417 km2 (75,451
mi 2) and Stefansson Island (4,463 km2
(1723 mi 2)).
A 1922 estimate (Anderson, cited in
COSEWIC 2004, p. 41) indicated that
between 100,000 and 200,000 caribou
migrated across the Dolphin and Union
Strait to Victoria Island. Using other
caribou population densities as a proxy,
Manning (1960), indicated that 100,000
was likely a more realistic estimate. In
1973, both subspecies experienced a
population crash due to freezing rain
and sheets of ice (Miller et al. 1977). In
1980, a survey by Jackimchuck and
Carruthers indicated that there were
approximately 3,400 Dolphin and Union
caribou on Victoria Island (COSEWIC
2004, p. 41). Gunn et al. (2000, p. 43)
estimated the southern Victoria Island
population to be 14,600 caribou in 1994
and 27,800 caribou in 1997. This herd
does not appear to have been surveyed
since then. The 2004 COSEWIC report
indicates the population is estimated to
be approximately 25,000 and the
population appears to be stable or
increasing (pp. viii and 15).
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18703
Conservation Status
As of 2004, the Dolphin and Union
caribou is assessed as ‘‘Special Concern’’
(COSEWIC 2004, p. 19) by the Canadian
Government. It is not listed on any
CITES appendices. Hunts are managed
by boards such as the NWMB, the
Canadian Department of Environment,
and hunting associations (COSEWIC
2004, p. 61). Indigenous tribes who hunt
caribou for subsistence have voluntarily
placed moratoriums on hunts in the
past. IUCN in 2008 listed R. tarandus at
the species level, as least concern. The
IUCN criteria are designed for global
taxon assessments (IUCN 2003, p. 1).
Before assessments of taxa below the
species level (subspecies, variety or
subpopulation) can be included on the
IUCN Red List, an assessment of the full
species is required. No assessment has
been made of this subspecies by the
IUCN.
Evaluation of Information for This
Finding
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and its implementing regulations at 50
CFR 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.
Following is a threats assessment in
which we evaluate whether any of these
factors threaten or endanger these two
subspecies. This evaluation is specific
to each subspecies unless specified that
the evaluation is for both subspecies. In
making this 90-day finding, we
evaluated whether information
regarding threats to both the Peary and
Dolphin and Union subspecies, as
presented in the petition and based on
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.
E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM
05APP1
18704
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Peary Caribou
A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Peary Caribou’s
Habitat or Range
The petitioner asserts that global
climate change due to global warming
presents the largest threat to the Peary
caribou’s habitat in that previously
frozen water surrounding the Queen
Elizabeth Islands will become navigable
to large ships associated with shipping
and oil exploration and these ships will
threaten caribou movement. In this
finding, we will evaluate climate change
threats under Factor E. Other Natural or
Manmade Factors Affecting the Species’
Continued Existence. Climate change
was the only stressor asserted as having
an effect on this subspecies under
Factor A by the petitioner. Although we
determined that the petition does not
present substantial information
indicating that listing the Peary caribou
as endangered or threatened may be
warranted under factor A, we intend to
assess the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the Peary caribou’s
habitat or range more thoroughly during
the status review.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
The petitioner does not indicate that
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific or educational
purposes is currently contributing to the
decline of the Peary caribou. Nor do we
have other data in our files that this
factor is a threat to the Peary caribou.
Therefore, we determine that the
petition does not present substantial
information that the petitioned action
may be warranted due to overutilization
for commercial, recreational, scientific,
or educational purposes.
C. Disease or Predation
The petitioner acknowledged that
disease is not thought to be a significant
factor affecting either subspecies of
caribou addressed in this finding. We
concur with the petitioner that, based
on the information provided with the
petition and information available in
our files, disease is not currently a
threat to either subspecies.
The petitioner asserted that if climate
change caused significant increases in
snowfall, caribou could be more
susceptible to attacks by wolves. We
acknowledge that caribou are preyed
upon by various predators such as
wolves. However, information presented
in the petition and available in our files
does not indicate that the effect of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:08 Apr 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
increased predation by predators would
increase such that it rises to the level of
a threat to either subspecies (Miller
1998, in COSEWIC 2004, p. 50; Gunn
2005, pp. 10–11, 39–41). Therefore, we
determined that the petition does not
present substantial information that the
petitioned action may be warranted due
to disease or predation. However, all
factors, including threats from disease
or predation, will be evaluated when we
conduct our status review.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
The petitioner asserts that the
regulatory mechanisms with respect to
climate change are inadequate to protect
both the Peary caribou and the Dolphin
and Union caribou. Because this factor
is applicable to both subspecies, this
evaluation under Factor D applies to
both subspecies in this finding. The
petitioner indicates that the inadequacy
of existing regulatory mechanisms with
respect to global climate change is the
gravest threat to the long-term survival
of these two subspecies. The petitioner
discussed the ineffectiveness of various
regulatory mechanisms associated with
climate change such as the United
Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto
Protocol, and United States climate
initiatives.
Currently, there are no regulatory
mechanisms in place that effectively
address climate change and associated
changes in habitat or sea-ice or
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
International efforts to address climate
change began with the UNFCCC, which
was adopted in May 1992. The
UNFCCC’s objective is stabilization of
GHG concentrations in the atmosphere
at a level that would prevent dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the
climate system, but it does not impose
any mandatory and enforceable
restrictions on GHG emissions. The
Kyoto Protocol became the first
agreement to set GHG emissions targets
for signatory counties, but the targets are
not mandated. Current international
efforts to regulate GHG emissions are
focused on emissions targets,
monitoring requirements, and voluntary
actions. None of these mechanisms
establish mandatory requirements
limiting the amount of GHG that may be
emitted. For several decades, the surface
air temperatures in the Arctic have
warmed at approximately twice the
global rate (Christensen et al. 2007, p.
904). The observed and projected effects
of climate change are most extreme
during summer in northern highlatitude regions, in large part due to the
ice-albedo (reflective property) feedback
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
mechanism, in which melting of snow
and sea ice lowers surface reflectivity,
thereby further increasing surface
warming from absorption of solar
radiation.
The petitioner provided information
with the petition that states that climate
change may result in irregular winter
events such as freezing rain or heavy
snow accumulation, which may not
allow caribou access to vegetation
(COSEWIC 2004, pp. 51–52). Both
subspecies of caribou forage by pushing
snow away from vegetation and by
breaking through hard-packed snow to
reach vegetation. If these conditions
occur, both species could suffer
widespread starvation (Miller and
Gunn, 2003, p. 6). Energetic costs will
increase if they have to travel greater
distances to locate food. Over time, poor
body condition could lead to lower
reproductive rates, greater susceptibility
to disease or predation, and possibly
higher mortality rates. Currently, there
are no regulatory mechanisms in place
that effectively address a warming
climate and its consequences for both
subspecies of caribou addressed in this
finding due to associated changes in
habitat. Accordingly, we conclude that
there is substantial information
presented in the petition or readily
available in our files to indicate that
regulatory mechanisms in place may be
inadequate to effectively address
changes in habitat or sea-ice habitat
relied upon by these two subspecies of
caribou. We find that the information
provided presents substantial
information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted for
both subspecies due to increased
snowfall events and freezing rain based
on the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms. We will evaluate this
factor further for each subspecies during
the status review.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting the Subspecies’ Continued
Existence
The petitioner states that global
warming due to global climate change
presents the largest threat to both
subspecies of caribou. The petitioner
asserts that the Arctic is warming more
rapidly than other areas on the globe. If
warming occurs, there may be less sea
ice available for crossing from one
island to another in search of vegetation
(COSEWIC 2004, pp. 54–55; Atkinson et
al. 2006, pp. 350, 355, 357). The
petitioner asserts that climate change
will cause Peary caribou to use more
energy in search of food by migrating
farther. Some of the information
provided with the petition supports
these assertions (Thomas 1982, pp. 597–
E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM
05APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
602; Struzik 1998, pp. 38–44). Both
subspecies of caribou forage by pushing
snow away from vegetation and by
breaking through hard-packed snow to
reach vegetation. The petitioner
provided information with the petition
that states that climate change may
result in irregular winter events such as
freezing rain or heavy snow
accumulation, which may not allow
caribou access to vegetation (COSEWIC
2004, pp. 51–52). If these conditions
occur, both species could suffer
widespread starvation (Miller and
Gunn, 2003, p. 6). This type of
starvation has been the primary cause of
decline in the past. The extreme
mortality events—between 1973 and
1974 and between 1994 and 1997—
coincided with extremely heavy
snowfall, deep snow packs, and heavy
icing in those same years (Miller and
Gunn 2003, pp. 5–6). After reviewing
the information provided in the petition
and available in our files, we find that
the information provided presents
substantial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted
for both subspecies due to increased
snowfall events and freezing rain.
Low genetic diversity was an issue
raised by the petitioner as a stressor on
the subspecies. We will further evaluate
this during the status review.
Dolphin and Union Caribou
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Dolphin and Union
Caribou’s Habitat or Range
The petitioner states that the waters of
the Dolphin and Union Strait will
become navigable to large ships in the
near future based on decreased sea ice
due to global warming, and that these
ships will disrupt caribou movement.
The petitioner suggested that shipping
traffic has, in the past, interrupted the
migration of the Dolphin and Union
caribou. Other than expression of
concern, the supporting information did
not indicate that this increase in
shipping traffic has had a negative
impact on the subspecies (COSEWIC
2004, pp. 46–47). The petitioner also
suggests that caribou will be adversely
affected by the increasing development
associated with shipping and oil
exploration. Although oil development
and increased shipping may occur, there
is no evidence that it will have a
significant effect on caribou. After
reviewing the information provided in
the petition and available in our files, it
does not support the claim that oil
exploration, and an increase in
shipping, development, and related
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:08 Apr 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
human activity will affect the Dolphin
and Union caribou’s habitat.
The petitioner provides no other
information addressing Factor A, and
we have no information in our files
indicating that listing the subspecies
due to the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the Dolphin and Union
caribou’s habitat or range may be
warranted. Therefore, we find that the
petition does not present substantial
information to indicate that the
petitioned action may be warranted
based on the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
The petitioner identifies hunting of
the Dolphin and Union caribou as a
possible factor in the decline of this
subspecies. The petition reports that
this subspecies is hunted by the Inuit
for subsistence, and it is also hunted
commercially along the mainland on the
north coast bordering the Dolphin and
Union Strait. Various management units
such as the NWMB, the Wildlife
Management Advisory Council for the
Inuvialuit Settlement Region in the
Northwest Territories, the Canadian
Department of Environment, and the
Inuit and Inuvialuit tribes play a role in
the regulation of hunting of the various
caribou populations at the larger scale.
At more local scales, committees and
trapper associations are involved in
monitoring caribou. Hunting has not
been implicated as a causative factor in
any of the major caribou die-offs. The
hunting of this subspecies appears to be
sufficiently managed by the local
hunting boards, the local indigenous
peoples of Canada such as the Inuit and
Inuvialuit, who are allowed to hunt
caribou for subsistence. Based on the
information available in the petition and
in our files, hunting does not appear to
be causing a decline in the Dolphin and
Union caribou.
The petitioner did not indicate any
other threats under this factor. After
reviewing the information provided in
the petition and available in our files,
we find that the information provided
does not present substantial information
indicating that the petitioned action
may be warranted due to overutilization
for commercial, recreational, scientific,
or educational purposes.
C. Disease or Predation
Refer to the discussion under Factor
C above for Peary caribou for additional
information. Based on the information
provided in the petition and available in
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18705
our files, we find that the petition does
not present substantial information
indicating that listing the Dolphin and
Union caribou as endangered or
threatened may be warranted due to
disease or predation.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
Refer to the discussion under Factor
D above for Peary caribou for additional
information. After reviewing the
information provided in the petition
and available in our files, we find that
the information provided presents
substantial information indicating that
listing the Dolphin and Union caribou
as endangered or threatened may be
warranted due to the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting the Continued Existence of
Dolphin and Union Caribou
The petitioner states that global
climate change presents the greatest
threat to the Dolphin and Union
caribou’s habitat. We currently do not
know the extent of the subspecies’
capacity to adapt to potential changes in
its habitat resulting from climate
change. However, there is an upward
trend in temperature which may
decrease sea ice in the Dolphin and
Union Strait (refer to discussion above).
This subspecies crosses the sea ice in
the Strait seasonally, and this decrease
in sea ice may affect the species’
migration patterns and availability to
access food sources. Seasonally, herds
congregate at the edge of the Strait while
waiting for the ice to form. Energetic
costs will increase if they have to travel
greater distances to locate food sources,
and foraging efficiency is reduced. Over
time, poor body condition could lead to
lower reproductive rates, greater
susceptibility to disease or predation,
and ultimately higher mortality rates.
The loss of seasonal ice across the
Dolphin and Union Strait could reduce
access to traditional foraging areas and
it may increase competition among
individuals for food resources in areas
close to staging grounds. After
reviewing the information provided in
the petition and available in our files,
we find that the information provided
presents substantial information
indicating that the petitioned action
may be warranted due to changes in sea
ice (also refer to the discussion under
Factor E above for Peary caribou). We
intend to investigate the effects of
climate change, particularly the changes
in sea ice, on the Dolphin and Union
caribou during the status review.
E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM
05APP1
18706
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Finding
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
On the basis of our evaluation under
section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we find
that the petition presents substantial
scientific or commercial information
indicating that listing both the Peary
and Dolphin and Union caribou as
endangered or threatened may be
warranted. This finding is based on
information evaluated under factors D
and E for both subspecies. Because we
have found that the petition presents
substantial information indicating that
listing these two subspecies may be
warranted, we are initiating a status
review to determine whether listing
these two subspecies of caribou as
endangered or threatened under the Act
is warranted.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is
available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov and upon request
from the Branch of Foreign Species,
Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this notice are
the staff members of the Branch of
Foreign Species, Endangered Species
Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority: The authority for this action is
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: March 11, 2011.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–7653 Filed 4–4–11; 8:45 am]
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:08 Apr 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
50 CFR Parts 300 and 660
[Docket No. 110218143–1209–01]
RIN 0648–BA49
Fisheries in the Eastern Pacific Ocean;
Pelagic Fisheries; Vessel Identification
Requirements
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
NMFS proposes to revise
vessel identification requirements for
U.S. vessels based out of the U.S. West
Coast that fish for highly migratory
species. The new measures would allow
these vessels to be marked in
accordance with the international
standards that were implemented by
NMFS for vessels fishing on the high
seas in the Area of the Convention on
the Conservation and Management of
Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the
Western and Central Pacific Ocean
(Convention Area) in early 2010.
Currently, the domestic marking
requirements for some U.S. West Coast
vessels do not comport with these
international standards. The new
measures would require vessels that fish
in the Convention Area to display their
International Telecommunication Union
Radio Call Sign (IRCS), or if an IRCS has
not been assigned to the vessel, the
vessel would be required to display its
official number, preceded by the
characters ‘‘USA–’’. The intent of the
proposed action is to bring the existing
vessel identification requirements into
conformity with the binding vessel
identification requirements adopted by
the Western and Central Pacific
Fisheries Commission (WCPFC).
DATES: Comments must be received by
5 p.m., local time, on May 5, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by 0648–BA49, by any one of
the following methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov.
• Fax: 562–980–4047, Attn: Heidi
Hermsmeyer.
• Mail: Rodney R. McInnis, Regional
Administrator, NMFS Southwest
Regional Office (SWR), 501 W. Ocean
Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA
90802. Include the identifier ‘‘0648–
BA49’’ in the comments.
Instructions: All comments received
are a part of the public record and will
generally be posted to https://
www.regulations.gov without change.
All Personal Identifying Information (for
example, name, address, etc.)
voluntarily submitted by the commenter
may be publicly accessible. Do not
submit Confidential Business
Information or otherwise sensitive or
protected information.
NMFS will accept anonymous
comments (enter N/A in the required
fields, if you wish to remain
anonymous). You may submit
attachments to electronic comments in
Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or
Adobe PDF file formats only.
Written comments regarding the
burden-hour estimates or other aspects
of the collection-of-information
requirements contained in this proposed
rule may be submitted to NMFS SWR at
the address above, and by e-mail to
OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax
to (202) 395–7285.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Heidi Hermsmeyer, NMFS SWR, 562–
980–4036.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
WCPFC was established under the
Convention on the Conservation and
Management of Highly Migratory Fish
Stocks in the Western and Central
Pacific Ocean (Convention). The
Convention’s objective is to ensure,
through effective management, the longterm conservation and sustainable use
of highly migratory fish stocks in the
western and central Pacific Ocean,
including measures to manage and
conserve tunas and to minimize impacts
on protected resources, such as sea
turtles and seabirds. Figure 1 is a map
of the Convention Area. The Convention
Area includes the operational areas of
U.S. troll, pole-and-line, tuna purse
seine, and pelagic longline fisheries.
E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM
05APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18701-18706]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7653]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R9-ES-2010-0001; MO 92210-0-0010 B6]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To List the Peary Caribou and Dolphin and Union Population
of the Barren-Ground Caribou as Endangered or Threatened
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of petition finding and initiation of status review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a 90-day
finding on a petition to list the Peary (Rangifer tarandus pearyi) and
the Dolphin and Union population of the barren-ground (R. t.
groenlandicus x pearyi) caribou as endangered or threatened under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review,
we find that the petition presents substantial scientific and
commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be
warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are
initiating a review of the status of these two subspecies to determine
if listing these two subspecies is warranted. To ensure that this
status review is comprehensive, we request scientific and commercial
data and other information regarding these two subspecies. At the
conclusion of this review, we will issue a 12-month finding on the
petition, which will address whether the petitioned action is
warranted, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request
that we receive information on or before June 6, 2011. After this date,
you must submit information directly to the office listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below. Please note that we may not
be able to address or incorporate information that we receive after the
above requested date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Search for docket FWS-R9-ES-2010-0001 and then follow the instructions
for submitting comments.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: FWS-R9-ES-2010-0001; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS
2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all information received on https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see the Information Requested
section below for more details).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of
Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203;
telephone 703-358-2171; facsimile 703-358-1735. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information Requested
When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing a species or subspecies may be
warranted, we are required to promptly review the status of the species
(conduct a status review). For the status review to be complete and
based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we
request information on these two subspecies from governmental agencies
(including Canadian national and provincial governments), local
indigenous people of Canada (who also may be acknowledged as Native
American or Aboriginal tribes), the scientific community, industry, and
any other interested parties. We seek information on:
(1) Each subspecies' biology, range, and population trends,
including:
(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range including distribution patterns,
particularly regarding their seasonal migrations;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected population trends;
(e) Potential threats to each subspecies such as mining, resource
extraction, or other threats not identified; and
(f) Past and ongoing conservation measures for each subspecies or
their habitat.
(2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing
determination for a species or subspecies under section 4(a) of the Act
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are:
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of their habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes, particularly data on hunting;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting their continued
existence.
(3) The potential effects of climate change on each subspecies and
its habitat.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
full references) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial
information you include. Submissions merely stating support for or
opposition to the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.''
You may submit your information concerning this status review by
one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit
information via https://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission--
including any personal identifying information--will be posted on the
Web site. If you submit a hardcopy that includes personal identifying
information, you may request at the top of your document that we
withhold this personal identifying information from public review.
However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will
post all
[[Page 18702]]
hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
Information and supporting documentation that we received and used
in preparing this finding, will be available for you to review at
https://www.regulations.gov, or you may make an appointment during
normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered
Species Program, Branch of Foreign Species (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on
whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted
with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files. To
the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90
days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the
finding promptly in the Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information
within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day
petition finding is ``that amount of information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition
may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial
scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to
promptly review the status of the species, which is subsequently
summarized in our 12-month finding.
In considering what factors might constitute threats, we look
beyond the exposure of the species to determine whether the species
responds to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the
species and we look at the magnitude of the effect. If there is
exposure to a factor, but no response, or only a beneficial 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 the factor is. If the factor is significant,
it may drive or contribute to the risk of extinction of the species
such that the species warrants listing as threatened or endangered as
those terms are defined by the Act. However, the identification of
factors that could impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to
compel a finding that the information in the petition is substantial.
The information must include 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 endangered or threatened
under the Act.
Petition History
On September 15, 2009, we received a petition (also dated September
15, 2009), from the International Fund for Animal Welfare (hereafter
referred to as petitioner) requesting that two subspecies of barren-
ground caribou (Rangifer tarandus) be listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act. These two subspecies are the Peary caribou
(R. t. pearyi) and the Dolphin and Union population of the barren-
ground caribou (R. t. groenlandicus x pearyi). The petition clearly
identified itself as such and included the requisite identification
information as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). The petition was amended
on May 14, 2010, and the petitioner provided supplemental information
to the original petition. We consider this amended petition, along with
the previously submitted information, to be a new petition and the
statutory timeframes to begin on May 14, 2010. This finding addresses
the petition.
Species Information
Taxonomic Background
Banfield's 1961 taxonomic characterization listed nine subspecies
of caribou (R. tarandus), two of which are now extinct. Peary caribou
was first taxonomically described by J. A. Allen in 1902. The Dolphin
and Union caribou was described in 1960 as R. t. groenlandicus x pearyi
by Manning. Prior to 1979, Peary caribou (R. t. pearyi) and the Dolphin
and Union caribou (R. t. groenlandicus x pearyi) were considered the
same subspecies. In 1991, three populations of R. t. pearyi were
recognized; Banks Island, High Arctic, and Low Arctic. In 2003, Zittlau
et al. found (pp. 593-598) that the Dolphin and Union population of
barren-ground caribou is genetically distinct from both Peary and
mainland barren-ground caribou (R. t. groenlandicus). In 2004, the
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC)
recognized four populations of Peary caribou. We accept Peary caribou
as a subspecies because of the genotypic and phenotypic evidence
presented by COSEWIC (2004, p. 17).
Also in 2004, COSEWIC clarified that the Dolphin and Union
population of the barren-ground caribou (R. t. groenlandicus x pearyi)
is comprised of a portion of the former ``Low Arctic population'' of
Peary caribou. Although most entities agree that the Dolphin and Union
population is a valid subspecies, the taxonomic reclassification
process can be slow, and the Dolphin and Union population has not yet
been taxonomically reclassified. For the purpose of this finding, we
consider the Dolphin and Union population of the barren-ground caribou
to be a valid subspecies and treat it as such. Throughout this finding,
we will refer to this subspecies as the Dolphin and Union caribou.
General Habitat Characteristics and Life History
Both subspecies live in an ecological grazing system in which
abiotic factors such as snow, rain, and ice largely determine their
fate (COSEWIC 2004, p. 54). Food shortages can have a significant
effect on caribou populations in these ecosystems. In the winter of
1973-1974, both subspecies experienced a population crash--freezing
rain created sheets of ice, forming a barrier that covered the
caribou's food sources and subsequently caused mass starvation (Miller
et al. 1977a in Miller and Gunn 2003, p. 2). Their nutrition is closely
related to plant phenology (timing of plant blooming based on daylight
and temperature). Seasonal feeding is critical for various life stages
such as lactation and growth during the spring, increasing fat reserves
during the summer, and simply surviving during the winter. Caribou
generally migrate great distances in search of food; some herds travel
significantly greater distances than others. The distance traveled
likely depends on food availability (COSEWIC 2004, pp. 29-30). Caribou
forage by pushing snow off the vegetation with their noses, but when
snowpack is deeper, they will dig small craters in the snow to reach
the vegetation (COSEWIC 2004, p. 35).
Peary Caribou
Description
With an average total body length of 1.7 meters (m) (5.6 feet
(ft)), the Peary caribou is relatively small and short when compared to
other caribou species (COSEWIC 2004, pp. 9-10).
Distribution and Population
Peary caribou are endemic to the Queen Elizabeth Islands in
northeastern Canada, in the provinces of Nunavut and the Northwest
Territories. They exist in the Canadian Arctic Islands and coastal
Greenland, but live mainly on the islands of the Canadian archipelago.
The four populations of Peary caribou are generally delineated as
follows: (1) Queen Elizabeth Islands, (2) Banks
[[Page 18703]]
Island and NW Victoria Island, (3) Prince of Wales and Somerset
Islands, and (4) Boothia Peninsula (COSEWIC 2004, p. 19). This
subspecies is rarely found on the mainland (COSEWIC 2004, pp. 13-14).
Their habitat spans 800,000 km\2\ (308,882 mi \2\) between 20 Queen
Elizabeth islands and the other 3 island groups listed above (COSEWIC
2004, pp. vi, 19). Other than subsistence hunting when allowed, the
Peary subspecies is generally not directly affected by human activities
due to the remoteness of their habitat (COSEWIC 2004, p. 50).
The historical population and population trends are difficult to
estimate due to differences in survey methodology, the remoteness of
their island habitat, and the movements of Peary caribou between
islands, and the taxonomic uncertainty prior to 2004. An assessment
completed in 1991 indicated that between 1961 and 1987 the population
of Peary caribou likely decreased by 86 percent (Miller 1991). COSEWIC
further estimates that in the last 40 years, Peary caribou have
declined 84 percent (COSEWIC 2004, pp. 36-37). In 2004, the total
population estimate for Peary caribou was 7,890 individuals, including
calves (COSEWIC 2004, p. 62). Although population estimates for the
Peary caribou have been typically unreliable, in part due to the
remoteness of the species, the 2004 estimate is believed to be fairly
accurate.
Habitat Characteristics
Peary caribou migrate between the various islands based on
availability of vegetation, and may recolonize islands that were
abandoned in previous years (Ferguson and Messier 2000, p. 173). They
have been documented migrating up to 450 km (280 mi) between islands in
search of food and calving grounds (COSEWIC 2004, pp. 19, 30). Peary
caribou migrate from northwestern Victoria Island to the Minto Inlet
area (Gunn and Fournier 2000, pp. 15-57). However, some caribou remain
faithful to one particular island despite the absence of food sources
(Miller 2002 in COSEWIC 2004, p. 30). It is unclear why some caribou
migrate and others do not, but the majority of caribou engage in some
degree of migration.
Conservation Status
As of 2004, the Peary caribou is assessed as ``endangered'' by the
Canadian Government (COSEWIC 2004, p. 19). Neither subspecies addressed
in this finding is listed on any appendices of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES). Caribou are protected by land claim agreements within Canada,
and hunts are managed by regulatory entities such as the Nunavut
Wildlife Management Board (NWMB) and hunting and trapping associations
(COSEWIC 2004, p. 61). Native tribes who hunt caribou for subsistence
have voluntarily placed moratoriums on hunts in the past; as of 2004, a
moratorium was still in place. Peary caribou have been assessed as
endangered since 1996 by the International Union for Conservation of
Nature (IUCN).
Dolphin and Union Caribou
Description
The Dolphin and Union caribou is generally larger than Peary
caribou but smaller than the mainland population of barren-ground
caribou (R. t. groenlandicus). The pelage (coloring) of Dolphin and
Union caribou is slightly darker than Peary caribou and their antler
velvet is grey (like the Peary caribou) but is distinct from mainland
barren-ground caribou, which do not have grey antler velvet.
Distribution and Population
The Dolphin and Union caribou primarily reside on the southern part
of Victoria Island and its range does not overlap with Peary caribou.
Seasonally, they cross the frozen ice of the Dolphin and Union Strait
to winter on the mainland. Their range consists of the lower part of
Victoria Island (excluding northwestern Victoria Island), and is
estimated to be 195,417 km\2\ (75,451 mi \2\) and Stefansson Island
(4,463 km\2\ (1723 mi \2\)).
A 1922 estimate (Anderson, cited in COSEWIC 2004, p. 41) indicated
that between 100,000 and 200,000 caribou migrated across the Dolphin
and Union Strait to Victoria Island. Using other caribou population
densities as a proxy, Manning (1960), indicated that 100,000 was likely
a more realistic estimate. In 1973, both subspecies experienced a
population crash due to freezing rain and sheets of ice (Miller et al.
1977). In 1980, a survey by Jackimchuck and Carruthers indicated that
there were approximately 3,400 Dolphin and Union caribou on Victoria
Island (COSEWIC 2004, p. 41). Gunn et al. (2000, p. 43) estimated the
southern Victoria Island population to be 14,600 caribou in 1994 and
27,800 caribou in 1997. This herd does not appear to have been surveyed
since then. The 2004 COSEWIC report indicates the population is
estimated to be approximately 25,000 and the population appears to be
stable or increasing (pp. viii and 15).
Conservation Status
As of 2004, the Dolphin and Union caribou is assessed as ``Special
Concern'' (COSEWIC 2004, p. 19) by the Canadian Government. It is not
listed on any CITES appendices. Hunts are managed by boards such as the
NWMB, the Canadian Department of Environment, and hunting associations
(COSEWIC 2004, p. 61). Indigenous tribes who hunt caribou for
subsistence have voluntarily placed moratoriums on hunts in the past.
IUCN in 2008 listed R. tarandus at the species level, as least concern.
The IUCN criteria are designed for global taxon assessments (IUCN 2003,
p. 1). Before assessments of taxa below the species level (subspecies,
variety or subpopulation) can be included on the IUCN Red List, an
assessment of the full species is required. No assessment has been made
of this subspecies by the IUCN.
Evaluation of Information for This Finding
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 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.
Following is a threats assessment in which we evaluate whether any
of these factors threaten or endanger these two subspecies. This
evaluation is specific to each subspecies unless specified that the
evaluation is for both subspecies. In making this 90-day finding, we
evaluated whether information regarding threats to both the Peary and
Dolphin and Union subspecies, as presented in the petition and based on
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.
[[Page 18704]]
Peary Caribou
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of the Peary Caribou's Habitat or Range
The petitioner asserts that global climate change due to global
warming presents the largest threat to the Peary caribou's habitat in
that previously frozen water surrounding the Queen Elizabeth Islands
will become navigable to large ships associated with shipping and oil
exploration and these ships will threaten caribou movement. In this
finding, we will evaluate climate change threats under Factor E. Other
Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued Existence.
Climate change was the only stressor asserted as having an effect on
this subspecies under Factor A by the petitioner. Although we
determined that the petition does not present substantial information
indicating that listing the Peary caribou as endangered or threatened
may be warranted under factor A, we intend to assess the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the Peary
caribou's habitat or range more thoroughly during the status review.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The petitioner does not indicate that overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific or educational purposes is
currently contributing to the decline of the Peary caribou. Nor do we
have other data in our files that this factor is a threat to the Peary
caribou. Therefore, we determine that the petition does not present
substantial information that the petitioned action may be warranted due
to overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes.
C. Disease or Predation
The petitioner acknowledged that disease is not thought to be a
significant factor affecting either subspecies of caribou addressed in
this finding. We concur with the petitioner that, based on the
information provided with the petition and information available in our
files, disease is not currently a threat to either subspecies.
The petitioner asserted that if climate change caused significant
increases in snowfall, caribou could be more susceptible to attacks by
wolves. We acknowledge that caribou are preyed upon by various
predators such as wolves. However, information presented in the
petition and available in our files does not indicate that the effect
of increased predation by predators would increase such that it rises
to the level of a threat to either subspecies (Miller 1998, in COSEWIC
2004, p. 50; Gunn 2005, pp. 10-11, 39-41). Therefore, we determined
that the petition does not present substantial information that the
petitioned action may be warranted due to disease or predation.
However, all factors, including threats from disease or predation, will
be evaluated when we conduct our status review.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The petitioner asserts that the regulatory mechanisms with respect
to climate change are inadequate to protect both the Peary caribou and
the Dolphin and Union caribou. Because this factor is applicable to
both subspecies, this evaluation under Factor D applies to both
subspecies in this finding. The petitioner indicates that the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms with respect to global
climate change is the gravest threat to the long-term survival of these
two subspecies. The petitioner discussed the ineffectiveness of various
regulatory mechanisms associated with climate change such as the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto
Protocol, and United States climate initiatives.
Currently, there are no regulatory mechanisms in place that
effectively address climate change and associated changes in habitat or
sea-ice or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. International efforts to
address climate change began with the UNFCCC, which was adopted in May
1992. The UNFCCC's objective is stabilization of GHG concentrations in
the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system, but it does not impose any
mandatory and enforceable restrictions on GHG emissions. The Kyoto
Protocol became the first agreement to set GHG emissions targets for
signatory counties, but the targets are not mandated. Current
international efforts to regulate GHG emissions are focused on
emissions targets, monitoring requirements, and voluntary actions. None
of these mechanisms establish mandatory requirements limiting the
amount of GHG that may be emitted. For several decades, the surface air
temperatures in the Arctic have warmed at approximately twice the
global rate (Christensen et al. 2007, p. 904). The observed and
projected effects of climate change are most extreme during summer in
northern high-latitude regions, in large part due to the ice-albedo
(reflective property) feedback mechanism, in which melting of snow and
sea ice lowers surface reflectivity, thereby further increasing surface
warming from absorption of solar radiation.
The petitioner provided information with the petition that states
that climate change may result in irregular winter events such as
freezing rain or heavy snow accumulation, which may not allow caribou
access to vegetation (COSEWIC 2004, pp. 51-52). Both subspecies of
caribou forage by pushing snow away from vegetation and by breaking
through hard-packed snow to reach vegetation. If these conditions
occur, both species could suffer widespread starvation (Miller and
Gunn, 2003, p. 6). Energetic costs will increase if they have to travel
greater distances to locate food. Over time, poor body condition could
lead to lower reproductive rates, greater susceptibility to disease or
predation, and possibly higher mortality rates. Currently, there are no
regulatory mechanisms in place that effectively address a warming
climate and its consequences for both subspecies of caribou addressed
in this finding due to associated changes in habitat. Accordingly, we
conclude that there is substantial information presented in the
petition or readily available in our files to indicate that regulatory
mechanisms in place may be inadequate to effectively address changes in
habitat or sea-ice habitat relied upon by these two subspecies of
caribou. We find that the information provided presents substantial
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for
both subspecies due to increased snowfall events and freezing rain
based on the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. We will
evaluate this factor further for each subspecies during the status
review.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Subspecies' Continued
Existence
The petitioner states that global warming due to global climate
change presents the largest threat to both subspecies of caribou. The
petitioner asserts that the Arctic is warming more rapidly than other
areas on the globe. If warming occurs, there may be less sea ice
available for crossing from one island to another in search of
vegetation (COSEWIC 2004, pp. 54-55; Atkinson et al. 2006, pp. 350,
355, 357). The petitioner asserts that climate change will cause Peary
caribou to use more energy in search of food by migrating farther. Some
of the information provided with the petition supports these assertions
(Thomas 1982, pp. 597-
[[Page 18705]]
602; Struzik 1998, pp. 38-44). Both subspecies of caribou forage by
pushing snow away from vegetation and by breaking through hard-packed
snow to reach vegetation. The petitioner provided information with the
petition that states that climate change may result in irregular winter
events such as freezing rain or heavy snow accumulation, which may not
allow caribou access to vegetation (COSEWIC 2004, pp. 51-52). If these
conditions occur, both species could suffer widespread starvation
(Miller and Gunn, 2003, p. 6). This type of starvation has been the
primary cause of decline in the past. The extreme mortality events--
between 1973 and 1974 and between 1994 and 1997--coincided with
extremely heavy snowfall, deep snow packs, and heavy icing in those
same years (Miller and Gunn 2003, pp. 5-6). After reviewing the
information provided in the petition and available in our files, we
find that the information provided presents substantial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for both
subspecies due to increased snowfall events and freezing rain.
Low genetic diversity was an issue raised by the petitioner as a
stressor on the subspecies. We will further evaluate this during the
status review.
Dolphin and Union Caribou
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of the Dolphin and Union Caribou's Habitat or Range
The petitioner states that the waters of the Dolphin and Union
Strait will become navigable to large ships in the near future based on
decreased sea ice due to global warming, and that these ships will
disrupt caribou movement. The petitioner suggested that shipping
traffic has, in the past, interrupted the migration of the Dolphin and
Union caribou. Other than expression of concern, the supporting
information did not indicate that this increase in shipping traffic has
had a negative impact on the subspecies (COSEWIC 2004, pp. 46-47). The
petitioner also suggests that caribou will be adversely affected by the
increasing development associated with shipping and oil exploration.
Although oil development and increased shipping may occur, there is no
evidence that it will have a significant effect on caribou. After
reviewing the information provided in the petition and available in our
files, it does not support the claim that oil exploration, and an
increase in shipping, development, and related human activity will
affect the Dolphin and Union caribou's habitat.
The petitioner provides no other information addressing Factor A,
and we have no information in our files indicating that listing the
subspecies due to the present or threatened destruction, modification,
or curtailment of the Dolphin and Union caribou's habitat or range may
be warranted. Therefore, we find that the petition does not present
substantial information to indicate that the petitioned action may be
warranted based on the present or threatened destruction, modification,
or curtailment of its habitat or range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The petitioner identifies hunting of the Dolphin and Union caribou
as a possible factor in the decline of this subspecies. The petition
reports that this subspecies is hunted by the Inuit for subsistence,
and it is also hunted commercially along the mainland on the north
coast bordering the Dolphin and Union Strait. Various management units
such as the NWMB, the Wildlife Management Advisory Council for the
Inuvialuit Settlement Region in the Northwest Territories, the Canadian
Department of Environment, and the Inuit and Inuvialuit tribes play a
role in the regulation of hunting of the various caribou populations at
the larger scale. At more local scales, committees and trapper
associations are involved in monitoring caribou. Hunting has not been
implicated as a causative factor in any of the major caribou die-offs.
The hunting of this subspecies appears to be sufficiently managed by
the local hunting boards, the local indigenous peoples of Canada such
as the Inuit and Inuvialuit, who are allowed to hunt caribou for
subsistence. Based on the information available in the petition and in
our files, hunting does not appear to be causing a decline in the
Dolphin and Union caribou.
The petitioner did not indicate any other threats under this
factor. After reviewing the information provided in the petition and
available in our files, we find that the information provided does not
present substantial information indicating that the petitioned action
may be warranted due to overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes.
C. Disease or Predation
Refer to the discussion under Factor C above for Peary caribou for
additional information. Based on the information provided in the
petition and available in our files, we find that the petition does not
present substantial information indicating that listing the Dolphin and
Union caribou as endangered or threatened may be warranted due to
disease or predation.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Refer to the discussion under Factor D above for Peary caribou for
additional information. After reviewing the information provided in the
petition and available in our files, we find that the information
provided presents substantial information indicating that listing the
Dolphin and Union caribou as endangered or threatened may be warranted
due to the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued Existence
of Dolphin and Union Caribou
The petitioner states that global climate change presents the
greatest threat to the Dolphin and Union caribou's habitat. We
currently do not know the extent of the subspecies' capacity to adapt
to potential changes in its habitat resulting from climate change.
However, there is an upward trend in temperature which may decrease sea
ice in the Dolphin and Union Strait (refer to discussion above). This
subspecies crosses the sea ice in the Strait seasonally, and this
decrease in sea ice may affect the species' migration patterns and
availability to access food sources. Seasonally, herds congregate at
the edge of the Strait while waiting for the ice to form. Energetic
costs will increase if they have to travel greater distances to locate
food sources, and foraging efficiency is reduced. Over time, poor body
condition could lead to lower reproductive rates, greater
susceptibility to disease or predation, and ultimately higher mortality
rates. The loss of seasonal ice across the Dolphin and Union Strait
could reduce access to traditional foraging areas and it may increase
competition among individuals for food resources in areas close to
staging grounds. After reviewing the information provided in the
petition and available in our files, we find that the information
provided presents substantial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted due to changes in sea ice (also
refer to the discussion under Factor E above for Peary caribou). We
intend to investigate the effects of climate change, particularly the
changes in sea ice, on the Dolphin and Union caribou during the status
review.
[[Page 18706]]
Finding
On the basis of our evaluation under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act,
we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that listing both the Peary and Dolphin and
Union caribou as endangered or threatened may be warranted. This
finding is based on information evaluated under factors D and E for
both subspecies. Because we have found that the petition presents
substantial information indicating that listing these two subspecies
may be warranted, we are initiating a status review to determine
whether listing these two subspecies of caribou as endangered or
threatened under the Act is warranted.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Branch of Foreign
Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the
Branch of Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: March 11, 2011.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-7653 Filed 4-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
