Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for the Dolphin and Union Caribou, 76112-76125 [2022-26652]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 13, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76112-76125]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26652]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2019-0014; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-BD03


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status 
for the Dolphin and Union Caribou

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS), 
determine endangered status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
(Act), as amended, for the Dolphin and Union caribou (Rangifer tarandus 
groenlandicus x peary), a distinct population segment (DPS) of the 
barren-ground caribou (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus). After 
reviewing new survey information received during the public comment 
period that identified significant decline in the population during a 
recent 4-year period, we have reevaluated the status of the DPS. Our 
reassessment concluded that the species is in danger of extinction now. 
Therefore, we are listing this DPS as endangered under the Act. Listing 
this DPS as endangered also means that the proposed rule under section 
4(d) of the Act will not be finalized or put in place. Rather, the 
prohibitions under section 9(a)(1) of the Act and our implementing 
regulations for endangered wildlife will apply to all Dolphin and Union 
caribou specimens. The Dolphin and Union caribou is native only to 
Canada.

DATES: The rule is effective January 12, 2023.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2019-0014. Comments and 
materials we received, as well as supporting documentation we used in 
preparing this rule, are available for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2019-0014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel London, Acting Chief, Branch of 
Delisting and Foreign Species, Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES, Falls Church, VA 
22041; telephone 703-358-2491. Individuals in the United States who are 
deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 
711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay 
services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay 
services offered within their country to make international calls to 
the point-of-contact in the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species may be 
listed as endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range. Listing a species as an endangered or threatened 
species can only be completed by issuing a rule.
    What this document does. This rule revises the List of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
in part 17 (50 CFR 17.11(h)) to add the Dolphin and Union caribou DPS 
as an endangered species. After reviewing new survey information 
received during the public comment period, which identified drastic 
decline in the population of the herd, we have reassessed the status of 
the DPS and determined it to be in danger of extinction.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a 
species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of five 
factors, alone or in combination: (A) The present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence. We have determined that the Dolphin 
and Union caribou DPS is in danger of extinction throughout all of its 
range, meeting the definition of an endangered species. The major 
threats that impacted the Dolphin and Union caribou are the cumulative 
effects of climate change and other changes brought about by climate 
change, such as a long-term decline in sea ice, increase in icing 
events on land, and increases in shipping traffic as a result of 
reduced ice.
    Peer review and public comment. In accordance with our joint policy 
on peer review published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34270), and our August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the 
role of peer review of listing actions under the Act, we solicited the 
expert opinion of five appropriate and independent specialists for peer 
review of the species report that provides the biological basis for 
this listing determination. We received responses from all five peer 
reviewers.

[[Page 76113]]

The purpose of peer review is to ensure that our listing determinations 
are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. 
Their comments and suggestions can be found at https://fws.gov/library/categories/peer-review-plans.

Previous Federal Actions

    On August 31, 2021, we proposed to list the Dolphin and Union 
caribou as a threatened species under the Act (86 FR 48619) with a rule 
issued under section 4(d) of the Act. Please refer to the August 31, 
2021, proposed rule for a detailed description of previous Federal 
actions concerning Dolphin and Union caribou that occurred prior to 
August 31, 2021.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    In preparing this final rule, we reviewed and fully considered 
comments from the public on the proposed rule. During the public 
comment period, we received new survey information that reveal that the 
Dolphin and Union caribou experienced a catastrophic decline during the 
years 2015 to 2018 in which the herd lost 75 percent of its 2015 
population (from 18,000 individuals down to 4,000 individuals) in a 4-
year timespan. While this decline seems to have somewhat stabilized in 
the 2020 survey (3,800 individuals), this survey data means that since 
1997 the Dolphin and Union caribou herd has now declined from 
approximately 34,000 individuals to approximately 3,800 individuals. 
This rapid decline is due to a combination of factors described in both 
the proposed rule and this final rule. These factors include a decline 
in foraging quality due to climate change, changes in sea-ice level, an 
increase in shipping traffic, and parasites. Some population decline 
due to hunting may also be a contributing factor. For these reasons, we 
are finalizing the listing of the Dolphin and Union caribou in 50 CFR 
17.11(h) as an endangered species under the Act. We have also revised 
the proposed listing entry by adding specific geographic information 
about the straits that the Dolphin and Union caribou use when migrating 
between Victoria Island the mainland; however, this revision to the 
``Where listed'' column is not the result of new information.
    Finalizing the listing of the Dolphin and Union caribou as 
endangered means that the proposed rule under section 4(d) of the Act 
will not be finalized or put in place, including the proposed trophy 
import exemption from the prohibition that was provided in the proposed 
rule. Rather, the prohibitions under section 9(a)(1) of the Act and our 
implementing regulations for endangered wildlife will apply to all 
Dolphin and Union caribou specimens. Therefore, for example, when this 
final rule is effective (see DATES, above), all imports and exports 
will be prohibited, with the exception of those accompanied by section 
10(a)(1)(A) permits issued for scientific purposes or to enhance the 
propagation or survival of the species (see Available Conservation 
Measures, below).

Background

    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the 
Dolphin and Union caribou is presented in the species report and the 
proposed rule (86 FR 48619; Service 2021, pp. 4-10; available at 
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2019-0014).
    The Dolphin and Union caribou is found on Victoria Island and the 
Canadian mainland, encompassing the Canadian provinces of Nunavut and 
the Northwest Territories (NWT). The caribou is a migratory species 
with a calving period occurring during the summer months on Victoria 
Island. The herd then crosses the sea ice of the Coronation Gulf, 
Dolphin and Union Strait, and Dease Strait to their wintering grounds 
on the mainland. The primary driver of the Dolphin and Union caribou 
status is climate change and its effect on the formation and breaking 
up of sea ice between Victoria Island and the mainland. As of 2020, the 
herd population was estimated to be 3,815 individuals (Campbell et al. 
2021, p. 70). This number represents a decline of approximately 90 
percent from the population peak of 34,558 individuals in 1997. After 
1997, the population steadily declined to 27,787 individuals in 2007 
and 18,413 individuals in 2015. In 2018, the population was 4,105, a 
decline of over 78 percent from the 2015 population. Possible reasons 
for this decline are the cumulative effects of known stressors such as 
the effects of climate change, disease, and parasites (discussed in 
greater detail below in the Summary of Biological Status and Threats 
(Campbell et al. 2021, p. 15)). The survey conducted in 2020 confirmed 
that the 2015-2018 decline did occur, with an estimated size at that 
time of 3,800 caribou.

Evaluation of the Dolphin and Union Caribou Subpopulation as a Distinct 
Population Segment

    Under section 3(16) of the Act, we may consider for listing any 
species, including subspecies, of fish, wildlife, or plants, or any DPS 
of vertebrate fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 
1532(16)). Those entities are considered eligible for listing under the 
Act (and, therefore, are referred to as listable entities), should we 
determine that they meet the definition of an endangered or threatened 
species.
    Under the Service's DPS Policy (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), 
three elements are considered in the decision concerning the 
determination and classification of a possible DPS as threatened or 
endangered. These elements include are:
    (1) The discreteness of a population in relation to the remainder 
of the species to which it belongs;
    (2) The significance of the population segment to the species to 
which it belongs; and
    (3) The population segment's conservation status in relation to the 
Act's standards for listing, delisting, or reclassification (i.e., 
whether the population segment is endangered or threatened).
    A population segment of a vertebrate taxon may be considered 
discrete under the DPS policy if it satisfies either one of the 
following conditions:
    (1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the same 
taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or 
behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological 
discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation.
    (2) It is delimited by international governmental boundaries within 
which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, 
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are 
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
    If a population segment is considered discrete under one or more of 
the conditions described in the Service's DPS policy, its biological 
and ecological significance will be considered in light of 
congressional guidance that the authority to list DPSs be used 
``sparingly'' (see Senate Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st Session). In 
making this determination, we consider available scientific evidence of 
the DPS's importance to the taxon to which it belongs. Since precise 
circumstances are likely to vary considerably from case to case, the 
DPS policy does not describe all the classes of information that might 
be used in determining the biological and ecological importance of a 
discrete population. However, the DPS policy describes four possible 
classes of information that provide evidence of a population segment's 
biological and ecological importance to the taxon to which it belongs. 
As specified in the

[[Page 76114]]

DPS policy, this consideration of the population segment's significance 
may include, but is not limited to, the following:
    (1) Persistence of the DPS in an ecological setting unusual or 
unique to the taxon;
    (2) Evidence that loss of the DPS would result in a significant gap 
in the range of a taxon;
    (3) Evidence that the DPS represents the only surviving natural 
occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an 
introduced population outside its historical range; or
    (4) Evidence that the DPS differs markedly from other populations 
of the species in its genetic characteristics.
    To be considered significant, a population segment needs to satisfy 
only one of these criteria, or other classes of information that might 
bear on the biological and ecological importance of a discrete 
population segment, as described in the DPS policy. Below, we summarize 
discreteness and significance for the Dolphin and Union caribou.

Discreteness

    Please refer to the proposed rule for a more in-depth evaluation of 
the Dolphin and Union status as a DPS of the barren-ground caribou 
(Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus) (86 FR 48619, August 31, 2021). Below 
is a summary of the analysis and our conclusion.
    The Dolphin and Union caribou is markedly separate from other 
populations of the barren-ground caribou (Rangifer tarandus 
groenlandicus). Behaviorally, the Dolphin and Union caribou is a 
migratory population that calves on Victoria Island in the summer and 
winters on coastal tundra on the mainland. This migratory lifestyle is 
in contrast to the remainder of the subspecies that either spend their 
entire life cycle on the mainland or on an island (McFarlane et al. 
2016, p. 2). In addition to behavioral differences, the Dolphin and 
Union caribou is also geographically isolated from other members of the 
subspecies during part of its life cycle. Although the subpopulation's 
range overlaps with other barren-ground caribou subpopulations during 
the wintering months on the mainland, while on Victoria Island, the 
Dolphin and Union caribou is geographically isolated from other 
subpopulations of the barren-ground caribou on the mainland (McFarlane 
et al. 2016, p. 16).
    Morphological and genetic discontinuities between Dolphin and Union 
caribou and other subpopulations of the barren-ground caribou provide 
further evidence of this separation. Morphologically, the Dolphin and 
Union caribou are smaller and lighter in color than the mainland 
barren-ground caribou (McFarlane et al. 2009, p. 125). Genetically, the 
Dolphin and Union caribou is more closely related to the mainland 
barren-ground caribou than other island caribou with which it shares 
Victoria Island (McFarlane et al. 2009, p. 125). Despite being more 
closely related to mainland subpopulations, the Dolphin and Union 
caribou also maintains genetic distinctness from them (McFarlane et al. 
2016, pp. 8, 14; McFarlane et al. 2009, p. 125, Zittlau 2004, p. 113). 
Phylogenetic analyses conducted on mitochondrial DNA reveals that, 
during the caribou recolonization of the Arctic at the end of the last 
Ice Age, the Dolphin and Union caribou diverged from the other barren-
ground caribou subpopulations approximately 3,000 years ago (McFarlane 
et al. 2016, pp. 15-16).
    In summary, we determine that the Dolphin and Union caribou is 
markedly separated from neighboring caribou subpopulations. At 
different times of the year, the Dolphin and Union caribou is 
physically (geographically) and reproductively isolated from the 
mainland subpopulations. The Dolphin and Union caribou also exhibit 
unique migratory behavior, and genetic data supports the separation of 
the subpopulation from the barren-ground caribou. Therefore, we 
consider the Dolphin and Union caribou subpopulation to be discrete 
under our DPS policy.

Significance

    We found that the Dolphin and Union caribou is significant to the 
Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus taxon because it differs markedly from 
other members in the taxon in its genetic characteristics.
    The barren-ground caribou contains three genetic variants: the 
mainland subpopulations, the Southampton Island subpopulations, and the 
Dolphin and Union caribou subpopulations. A study of allelic frequency 
shows that each subpopulation forms a unique cluster (McFarlane et al. 
2016, p. 9), with the Dolphin and Union caribou being closer 
genetically to the mainland subpopulations than the Southampton 
subpopulation. This conclusion is further supported by a comparison of 
the fixation index (FST value) between the multiple 
subpopulations including the Southampton, Dolphin and Union, and 
different mainland subpopulations that yielded a similar conclusion 
(McFarlane et al. 2016, p. 9; McFarlane et al. 2014, p. 83). The 
FST value for the Southampton subpopulation varies between 
0.436 to 0.527. For the Dolphin and Union caribou, values vary between 
0.059 and 0.067. For the mainland subpopulations, values vary between 
0.004 (a calculation output that can be considered to be a zero) and 
0.038. An FST value of zero means that the two 
subpopulations being compared are genetically identical, while a value 
of one suggests that it is possibly a different species. As can be seen 
here, the Southampton subpopulation has the highest level of genetic 
distinctness relative to the other two. While not as genetically 
distinct, the Dolphin and Union caribou still possess an Fst 
value that is greater than the mainland subpopulations, by a large 
enough margin suggesting genetic distinctness from the rest of the 
subspecies (McFarlane et al. 2016, p. 9). This conclusion is supported 
by other publications that also identified the Dolphin and Union 
caribou as being distinct from all other mainland barren-ground caribou 
subpopulations (McFarlane et al. 2014, p. 83; Zittlau et al. 2009, as 
cited in Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada 
(COSEWIC) 2011, p. 25; Zittlau 2004, p. 113).
    In addition to their allelic differences, a study of the gene flow 
of the Dolphin and Union caribou supports the genetic distinctness of 
the subpopulation. Gene flow of the Dolphin and Union caribou appears 
to flow in a southward direction. That is, there is an outward flow of 
the Dolphin and Union caribou gene into the neighboring mainland 
barren-ground caribou subpopulation located to the south of Victoria 
Island. However, the gene flow of the mainland barren-ground caribou 
into the Dolphin and Union caribou subpopulation is slower (McFarlane 
et al. 2014, p. 88). This phenomenon can be explained by the behavioral 
difference between male and female caribous. While female caribous 
display site fidelity, male caribous tend to wander farther afield. 
Because female Dolphin and Union calve exclusively on Victoria Island, 
they are geographically isolated from the mainland barren-ground 
caribou subpopulation (Nagy et al. 2011, p. 2,335). On the other hand, 
there is greater detection of first- and second-generation male 
migrants among other subpopulations of caribou (McFarlane et al. 2016, 
pp. 11, 14). This result suggests that some male Dolphin and Union 
caribou may migrate to other barren-ground caribou subpopulations 
resulting in outward gene flow. Additionally, in periods of multiple 
years the dispersal rate is zero, meaning

[[Page 76115]]

that no gene flow occurred out of the subpopulation (McFarlane et al. 
2016, p. 14). Overall, the gene flow patterns reinforce the genetic 
data, demonstrating that, while occasionally genetic exchange occurs 
between Dolphin and Union caribou and the mainland barren-ground 
caribou subpopulations, the Dolphin and Union caribou maintains its 
genetic uniqueness.
    This conclusion is supported by other studies that identified the 
genetic distinctness of Dolphin and Union caribou from other caribou 
subpopulations (McFarlane et al. 2014, pp. 82-83; McFarlane et al. 
2009, p. 125; Zittlau 2004, p. 113). Additionally, the Dolphin and 
Union caribou experience geographic isolation on Victoria Island during 
calving season, which contributes to a limited outward gene flow 
between the Dolphin and Union caribou and other populations of Rangifer 
tarandus groenlandicus (Nagy et al. 2011, p. 2,335). Although some 
genetic exchanges with the mainland barren-ground caribou occur through 
the migration of male Dolphin and Union caribou, the subpopulation's 
geographic and genetic isolation likely contributed to its genetic 
uniqueness. Thus, we find that the Dolphin and Union caribou differs 
markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic 
characteristics.

Summary

    Given that both the discreteness and the significance elements of 
the DPS policy are met for the Dolphin and Union caribou, we find that 
the Dolphin and Union caribou constitutes a valid DPS of Rangifer 
tarandus groenlandicus. Because we find the Dolphin and Union caribou 
subpopulation to be both discrete and significant, we evaluated whether 
this DPS is endangered or threatened based on the Act's definitions of 
those terms and a review of the factors listed in section 4(a) of the 
Act.

Conservation Status of the Dolphin and Union Caribou

    In 2004, COSEWIC (2004, entire) evaluated the status of Dolphin and 
Union caribou and assessed them as a special concern. In February 2011, 
Dolphin and Union caribou were added to Canada's Federal Species at 
Risk Act (SARA or S.C.) as a species of special concern (Stock 
Assessment Review Committee (SARC) 2013, p. 97). The recovery plan for 
the Dolphin and Union caribou published in 2018. We discuss the 
recovery plan in greater detail in Status of Existing Regulatory 
Mechanisms (Governments of the NWT and Nunavut 2018, entire; SARC 2013, 
p. 97). In 2017, COSEWIC assessed the Dolphin and Union caribou status 
to be endangered (COSEWIC 2017, p. x). However, as of the publication 
of this final rule, the Dolphin and Union caribou has not been 
reclassified as endangered under SARA.

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing 
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth 
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered 
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for 
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for threatened and 
endangered species. In 2019, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries 
Service, the Service issued final rules that revised the regulations in 
50 CFR parts 17 and 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify 
threatened and endangered species and the criteria for designating 
listed species' critical habitat (84 FR 45020 and 84 FR 44752; August 
27, 2019). At the same time the Service also issued final regulations 
that, for species listed as threatened species after September 26, 
2019, eliminated the Service's general protective regulations 
automatically applying to threatened species the prohibitions that 
section 9 of the Act applies to endangered species (collectively, the 
2019 regulations).
    As with the proposed rule, we are applying the 2019 regulations for 
this final rule because the 2019 regulations are the governing law just 
as they were when we completed the proposed rule. Although there was a 
period in the interim--between July 5, 2022, and September 21, 2022--
when the 2019 regulations became vacated and the pre-2019 regulations 
therefore governed, the 2019 regulations are now in effect and govern 
listing and critical habitat decisions (see Center for Biological 
Diversity v. Haaland, No. 4:19-cv-05206-JST, Doc. 168 (N.D. Cal. July 
5, 2022; vacating the 2019 regulations and thereby reinstating the pre-
2019 regulations) and In re: Cattlemen's Ass'n, No. 22-70194 (9th Cir. 
Sept. 21, 2022; staying the vacatur of the 2019 regulations and thereby 
reinstating the 2019 regulations until a pending motion for 
reconsideration before the district court is resolved)).
    However, given that litigation remains regarding the court's 
vacatur of the 2019 regulations, we also undertook an analysis of 
whether the decision would be different if we were to apply the pre-
2019 regulations. We concluded that the decision would have been the 
same if we had applied the pre-2019 regulations. The analyses under 
both the pre-2019 regulations and the 2019 regulations are included in 
the decision file for this final rule. The Act defines an endangered 
species as a species that is ``in danger of extinction throughout all 
or a significant portion of its range,'' and a threatened species as a 
species that is ``likely to become an endangered species within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' The Act requires that we determine whether any species is an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species'' because of any of 
the following factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could affect a species' continued existence. 
In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for those that may 
have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as well as other 
actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative effects or may 
have positive effects.
    We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or 
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively 
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions 
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct 
impacts), as well as those that indirectly affect individuals such as 
through alteration of their habitat or required resources (stressors). 
The term ``threat'' may encompass--either together or separately--the 
source of the action or condition, or the action or condition itself.
    However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not 
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining 
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all 
identified threats by considering the expected response by the species, 
and the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and 
conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, 
population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected 
effects on the species, then

[[Page 76116]]

analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on the species as a 
whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light 
of those actions and conditions that will have positive effects on the 
species--such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation 
efforts. The Secretary determines whether the species meets the 
definition of an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species'' 
only after conducting this cumulative analysis and describing the 
expected effect on the species now and in the foreseeable future.
    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which 
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for 
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term 
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as the 
Services can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the 
species' responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the 
foreseeable future is the period of time in which we can make reliable 
predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means 
sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the 
prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable if it is reasonable to 
depend on it when making decisions. It is not always possible or 
necessary to define the foreseeable future as a particular number of 
years. Analysis of the foreseeable future uses the best scientific and 
commercial data available and should consider the timeframes applicable 
to the relevant threats and to the species' responses to those threats 
in view of its life-history characteristics. Data that are typically 
relevant to assessing the species' biological response include species-
specific factors such as lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, 
certain behaviors, and other demographic factors.
    The species report documents the results of our comprehensive 
biological status review for the Dolphin and Union caribou, including 
an assessment of the potential threats to the DPS. The report does not 
represent a decision by the Service on whether the species should be 
listed as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. It does, 
however, provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory 
decisions, which involve the further application of standards within 
the Act and its implementing regulations and policies. The following is 
a summary of the key results and conclusions from the report; the full 
report can be found at Docket FWS-HQ-ES-2019-0014 on https://www.regulations.gov.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    In this portion of the preamble, we review the biological condition 
of the species and its resources and factors that affect the species to 
assess the species' overall persistence. The Dolphin and Union caribou 
live in a harsh environment that is sparsely populated with people. 
Ecosystems can be complex, and factors affecting the health and 
viability of species are not always readily apparent. Caribou 
biologists have suggested a number of factors that may have contributed 
to the decline of the Dolphin and Union caribou. In addition to the 
major threats discussed below, we also assessed other threats that we 
concluded have minor effects on the species; those assessments can be 
found in our species report. The minor threats include deterioration of 
the quality and quantity of nutrients available within their habitat, 
predation (primarily by wolves), and outbreak of parasites or disease. 
The major threats that will be discussed below are:
     Sea-ice loss;
     Hindered ability to seasonally migrate due to lack of sea 
ice and possible drowning;
     Hunting;
     Disturbance due to development, oil and gas exploration, 
or shipping.
    A primary factor affecting the Dolphin and Union caribou is the 
timing of freeze-up and sea-ice connectivity; these conditions are 
affected by ships breaking up the gray ice (young ice the thickness of 
which is less than 4-6 inches), other ice-breaking activities for 
tourism and oil and gas industries, and potential loss of sea ice due 
to climate change (Leclerc and Boulanger 2018, pp. 39-40; Dumund and 
Lee 2013, p. 335; Poole et al. 2010, entire). These related factors are 
discussed in two reports: Sea Ice and Migration of the Dolphin and 
Union Caribou Herd in the Canadian Arctic: An Uncertain Future (Poole 
et al. 2010, entire) and the species status report prepared by the 
Species at Risk Committee for the Dolphin and Union Caribou, published 
in December 2013, for the Northwest Territories (SARC 2013, entire). 
Additionally, a draft management plan for the Dolphin and Union caribou 
was made available for public comment in the spring of 2017 after a 
reassessment conducted by COSEWIC in 2015-2016 (Leclerc 2017, pers. 
comm.). We refer readers to these documents, which are available at 
https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2019-0014, for more 
detailed information. Here, we summarize the information.

Climate Change

    Changes in climate and weather patterns are suspected to be a major 
contributor to the decline of this caribou (Hansen et al. 2011, pp. 
1,917, 1,920-1,922; Miller and Barry 2009, p. 176; Prowse et al. 2009a, 
p. 269; Tews et al. 2007a, pp. 95-96; COSEWIC 2004, pp. viii, 55-58). 
The term ``climate change'' thus refers to a change in the mean or 
variability of one or more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or 
precipitation) that persists for an extended period, typically decades 
or longer, whether the change is due to natural variability, human 
activity, or both (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 
2013, p. 1,450).
    The demographic, ecological, and evolutionary responses of caribou 
to threats from climate change are complicated to predict. The 
complexity stems from the species' habitat requirements and resilience 
to the effects of climate change. Current models for the Arctic predict 
deeper snow cover, increasing rainfall, increasing rain-on-snow events, 
warm periods, more thawing-freezing cycles, and a higher risk of ice-
layer formation on the soil within the snowpack during the winters of 
the coming decades (Hansen et al. 2011, p. 1,917; Turunen et al. 2009, 
pp. 813-814; Putkonen and Roe 2003, entire). Caribou populations 
respond negatively to the occurrence of more precipitation, greater 
snowfall, and subsequently more freezing rain events, which makes 
access to food more difficult (COSEWIC 2015, pp. 44-46; Miller et al. 
2007, p. 33). However, other models support a conclusion that caribou 
may experience increases in population numbers if climate change 
results in a 50 percent increase of taller, denser vegetation and woody 
shrubs (Leclerc 2017, pers. comm.; Tews et al. 2007a, p. 95). As 
ecological systems are dynamic, it is complicated to predict how one 
change (such as a rise in temperature) will affect other elements 
within the ecosystem (such as the amount of precipitation that falls as 
freezing rain, rather than snow) (Parrott 2010, p. 1,070; Green and 
Sadedin 2005, pp. 117-118; Burkett et al. 2005, p. 357).
    For the purpose of this assessment, given that the primary threat 
to the Dolphin and Union caribou is considered by caribou researchers 
to be loss of sea ice due to climate change and increase in shipping 
activities, we rely on climate projection models undertaken by the IPCC 
(IPCC 2014a, pp. 8-12). Relevant to our discussion, these models 
discuss future trends for precipitation and air and water temperature, 
which has an impact on

[[Page 76117]]

the condition of the caribou habitat. Projections of sea-ice loss using 
representative concentration pathways (RCP) 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios and 
rain-on-snow events in the Canadian Arctic vary in their time scale 
(Mallory and Boyce 2018, p. 2,192; Jenkins et al. 2016, p. 4; Engler 
and Pelot 2013, p. 21; Stroeve et al. 2012, p. 1,012). While all 
climate models agree that sea-ice loss will occur in the Canadian 
Arctic, there is disagreement on when that loss will take place. Some 
models project the Canadian Arctic will experience ice-free periods as 
early as 2050, while others project that due to the influx of sea ice 
from the Arctic Ocean, sea ice in the Canadian Arctic will persist into 
the 2080s (Li et al. 2019, pp. 1-2; Derksen et al. 2018, p. 198; 
Mallory and Boyce 2018, pp. 2,194-2,195; Johnson et al. 2017, p. 16; 
Jenkins et al. 2016, p. 4). This uncertainty is due in part to the flow 
of sea ice from the Arctic to the east coast of the Canadian Arctic 
Archipelago (Derksen et al. 2018, p. 218).
    In addition to sea-ice loss, the thinning of sea ice can also have 
an impact on the caribou, because if sea ice is too thin, it will not 
be able to support the caribou's weight. We thus take into 
consideration changes in ratio over time between the thinner first-year 
ice versus the thicker, multiyear ice (Li et al. 2019, p. 2) in the 
Dolphin and Union caribou's range. In addition to changes in sea ice, 
because the Dolphin and Union caribou use the Dolphin and Union strait 
as part of its migration route, we also take into account information 
on historical, current, and projected shipping traffic through the 
Dolphin and Union strait. Because of a projected increase in ice-free 
periods, shipping traffic is highly likely to increase (Governments of 
the NWT and Nunavut 2018, p. 41).
    Most models project that portions of the Canadian Arctic will be 
ice free by 2040-2060 (Derksen et al. 2018, pp. 198, 218; Johnson et 
al. 2017, p. 16; Lu et al. 2014, p. 61).

Loss of Sea Ice

    Sea ice is an important component of the seasonal migration of the 
Dolphin and Union caribou. Dolphin and Union caribou migrate across the 
Dolphin and Union Strait using the temporary, annual seasonal ice 
bridge from Victoria Island to the mainland. During the months of 
September and October, Dolphin and Union caribou ``stage'' on the south 
coast of Victoria Island waiting for the ice to form for the herds to 
cross. The caribou may cross at any time during this time period on the 
newly formed gray ice to their winter range on the mainland (Nishi and 
Gunn 2004, as cited in COSEWIC 2004, p. 35). More recently, the 
formation of the sea ice has been delayed, which results in caribou 
waiting a longer period for ice to form. Due to limited food 
availability on Victoria Island during the winter months to support the 
herd during the winter months, longer delays for crossings risk 
reducing the fitness of individuals within the herd. Furthermore, when 
crossings do take place, because of the delay in sea ice formation, the 
sea ice that forms is often too thin to hold the caribou's weight 
resulting in individuals falling through the ice. This likely increases 
energy consumption for the caribou to get out of the water, and 
increases the likelihood of both individual and mass drowning events 
(Poole et al. 2010, p. 414; Gunn 2003, as cited in COSEWIC 2004, p. 
35).
    Since the beginning of monitoring in 1979, record low levels of sea 
ice have occurred in recent years. From 1968 to 2015, sea ice declined 
at a rate of 6.1 percent per decade (Environment and Climate Change 
Canada 2016, p. 8). Multiyear ice, which is thick enough to support the 
caribou's weight, has been declining over time. In the mid-1980s, 
multiyear ice accounted for 75 percent of all ice in the Arctic. By 
2011, it accounted for 45 percent of all ice (Li et al. 2019, p. 2). 
Climate models indicate that the Arctic will continue to experience 
accelerated loss of sea ice (Zhang et al. 2010, as cited in in Meier et 
al. 2011, p. 9-3; Bo[eacute] et al. 2009, p. 1; Wang and Overland 2009, 
pp. 1-3).
    Additionally, landfast ice has also been decreasing. Landfast ice 
is important to the Dolphin and Union caribou as the Dolphin and Union 
strait is a narrow passage that the DPS uses for its migration 
corridors. Over the 10-year intervals starting in 1976, the maximum 
extent of landfast ice throughout the Arctic was: 2.1x10\6\ km\2\ 
(1976-1985), 1.9x10\6\ km\2\ (1986-1995), 1.74x10\6\ km\2\ (1996-2005), 
and 1.66x10\6\ km\2\ (2006-2018) (Li et al. 2019, p. 5).
    A decrease in sea ice has continued to occur with trends 
accelerating since the year 2000 (COSEWIC 2015, p. 46). Sea-ice 
freezing now occurs 8-10 days later in the Dolphin and Union Strait and 
Coronation Gulf than in 1982 (Poole et al. 2010, pp. 414, 419, 425). 
Current and projected decreases in sea ice is negatively affecting and 
is likely to continue to negatively affect the crossings by the Dolphin 
and Union caribou, including the potential of breaking through the ice 
and drowning (Governments of the NWT and Nunavut 2018, pp. 41-42; Poole 
et al. 2010, p. 426). Because the Dolphin and Union strait is located 
at the southernmost point of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, sea-ice 
loss in this region is higher than in other regions farther to the 
north (Pizzolato 2015, p. 28). Additionally, continued increase in 
shipping is expected through the Northwest Passage (Governments of the 
NWT and Nunavut 2018, p. 42). The effects of increasing shipping will 
be especially pronounced for the Dolphin and Union caribou because the 
Dolphin and Union strait is the primary migration route for the caribou 
and is also a major shipping lane through the Northwest Passage 
(Engeler and Pelot 2013, p. 9).
    As the sea-ice season is shortened and the ice thins, it is more 
easily broken by ice-breaking ships. A longer shipping season and an 
increase in ships in the Northwest Passage can fragment the Dolphin and 
Union caribou's summer and wintering ranges while delaying their 
migration. Due to the shorter sea-ice season, the number of ships 
travelling through the Northwest Passage has already increased from 
four per year in the 1980s to 20-30 per year in 2009-2013. The majority 
of these transits are icebreakers with trips primarily occurring in 
August through October, the period of time when the Dolphin and Union 
caribou are preparing for their southward migration to the mainland 
(Governments of the NWT and Nunavut 2018, p. 41). For example, in late 
October 2007, barge ships broke the ice every 12 hours for a few days 
in the Cambridge Bay to keep a channel open. This channel prevented the 
caribou from crossing during this time (Poole et al. 2010, p. 426). As 
stated above, sea-ice freezing in the fall now forms 8-10 days later 
than it did in 1982. Using RCP models 4.5 and 8.5, the annual time 
period where the Arctic is ice-free is projected to increase over the 
course of the 21st century (Governments of the NWT and Nunavut 2018, p. 
43; Poole et al. 2010, p. 425). Given the increases in periods of ice-
free months, it is reasonable to conclude that shipping traffic through 
the strait will increase over the course of the 21st century. 
Therefore, the breaking up of sea ice due to continued increases in 
shipping traffic, combined with projected sea-ice loss due to climate 
change will have a significant negative impact on the species now and 
into the future (Governments of the NWT and Nunavut 2018, pp. 41-44; 
Leclerc and Boulanger 2018, pp. 39-40; Johnson et al. 2017, p. 102.).
    Given the Dolphin and Union caribou's current population, it is 
unlikely that Victoria Island will be able to support the subpopulation 
if

[[Page 76118]]

connection to wintering grounds in the mainland is lost (Johnson et al. 
2017, p. 102; Leclerc and Boulanger 2018, p. 39).

Summary of Climate Change

    Climate change is negatively affecting and likely to continue to 
negatively affect the Dolphin and Union caribou in a number of ways. 
The most significant impact of climate change on the caribou is the 
timing of the formation of sea ice. As part of their life cycle, 
Dolphin and Union caribou migrate between calving ground on Victoria 
Island and wintering ground on the mainland (Nishi and Gunn 2004, as 
cited in COSEWIC 2004, p. 35). However, sea-ice formation has been 
delayed with caribou having to wait for a longer period of time before 
they can cross between Victoria Island and the mainland (Poole et al. 
2010, p. 414; Gunn 2003, as cited in COSEWIC 2004, p. 35). In addition 
to a delay in sea-ice formation, the sea ice that forms tends to be 
thinner, increasing the likelihood of ice breakup and drowning events 
(Poole et al. 2010, p. 426).
    Overall, the Dolphin and Union caribou subpopulation appears to 
continue to decline (Leclerc and Boulanger 2018, p. 36; Gunn et al. 
2000, pp. 42-43).The delay and loss in the formation of sea ice can 
impact the Dolphin and Union caribou's ability to migrate between the 
mainland and Victoria Island thereby increasing the likelihood of mass 
mortality event as a result of drowning and starvation due to 
insufficient food resources on Victoria Island during the winter 
months. Therefore, given the projected impacts of sea-ice loss in the 
Dolphin and Union strait, we conclude that these effects have had a 
negative impact on the Dolphin and Union caribou.

Parasitic Harassment by Botflies

    Caribou serve as host to two oestrid species: warble flies 
(Hypoderma tarandi) and nose botflies (Cephenemyia trompe). In the 
Arctic region, few hosts are available for parasites; warble flies and 
nose botflies are particularly well adapted to survive in the Arctic 
climate using caribou as their host. Although these oestrids are 
widespread throughout the summer range of most caribou herds, their 
populations are considerably smaller in the high Arctic as that is the 
latitudinal extreme of their range due to temperature, hours of 
daylight, and wind conditions (Gunn et al. 2011, pp. 12-14; Kutz et al. 
2004, p. 114). However, some researchers have expressed concern that, 
should warming trends continue, the parasitic rate of development and/
or infectivity timeframes could become altered, which may increase 
energy expenditure of Dolphin and Union caribou through harassment 
(Kutz et al. 2004, p. 114).

Warble Flies

    Temperature and cloud cover are vital factors for harassment of 
caribou by warble flies as these two factors affect the flies' activity 
level (Weladji et al. 2003, p. 80; Nilssen 1997, p. 301). Warble flies 
are most active during warm, sunny days; warble fly activity increases 
with increasing temperature (Weladji et al. 2003, p. 80). Within the 
Arctic, the annual mean surface temperature has increased at a rate of 
0.34 degrees Celsius ([deg]C) (0.61 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) per 
decade from 1982 to 2004 (Wang et al. 2012, p. 1). The duration of the 
melt season has increased by 10-17 days per decade, which is 
representative of these warmer temperatures (Comiso 2003, p. 3,498).
    In Cambridge Bay, Victoria Island, the mean average daily 
temperature in the winter is between -36.2 and -29.8 [deg]C (-33.2 and 
-21.6 [deg]F). In summer, the mean average daily temperature is between 
-6.8 and 10 [deg]C (37.4 and 44.2 [deg]F) (Dumund and Lee 2013, p. 
330). Average annual temperatures may increase by 3-6 [deg]C by 2080 
(Meier et al. 2011, pp. 9-17-9-18; Olsen et al. 2011, p. 112; Dunkley-
Jones et al. 2010, p. 2,411). Based on these anticipated temperatures, 
we calculated the expected temperatures if the temperature was to 
increase by 3 [deg]C (scenario 1) and by 6 [deg]C (scenario 2). The 
climate models used in this table used a previous set of scenarios 
known as the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) to project 
the low-emissions scenario (SRES B1) and high-emissions scenario (SRES 
A2). More recently, a newer set of scenarios (i.e., RCPs) was prepared 
that included a wider range of future conditions and emissions. SRES B1 
is roughly comparable to RCP 4.5 and SRES A2 is similar to RCP 8.5 
(Melillo et al. 2014, p. 821). These similarities between specific RCP 
and SRES scenarios make it possible to compare the results from 
different modeling efforts over time (Melillo et al. 2014, p. 821). See 
table, below.

                            Table--Cambridge Bay, Victoria Island, Nunavut, Canada: Temperature Increase Scenario Up To 2080
                                    [Adapted from Environment Canada 2013, as cited in Dumond and Lee 2013, p. 330.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Month                                      Mean average daily temp........     Current conditions
                                               Scenario 1 (temperature increase by 3
                                                              [deg]C)
                                               Scenario 2 (temperature increase by 6
                                                              [deg]C)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December.................................  Low............................        -36.2        -33.2        -33.2   -26 [deg]F        -30.2   -20 [deg]F
                                                                                 [deg]C       [deg]F       [deg]C                    [deg]C
                                           High...........................        -29.8        -21.6        -26.8        -16.2        -23.8        -10.8
                                                                                 [deg]C       [deg]F       [deg]C       [deg]F       [deg]C       [deg]F
July.....................................  Low............................   6.8 [deg]C  44.2 [deg]F   9.8 [deg]C  49.6 [deg]F  12.8 [deg]C    55 [deg]F
                                           High...........................    10 [deg]C  50.0 [deg]F    13 [deg]C  55.4 [deg]F    16 [deg]C  60.8 [deg]F
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The low-temperature threshold for warble fly activity is around 10 
[deg]C (50 [deg]F) (Vistness et al. 2008, p. 1,312; Weladji et al. 
2003, p. 81; Nilssen 1997, pp. 296, 300; Breyev 1956, 1961, as cited in 
Nilssen and Anderson 1995, p. 1,236). Before pupation, warble fly 
larvae can move at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) per day at 4 [deg]C 
(39.2 [deg]F). At 4 [deg]C (39.2 [deg]F), pupation did not occur, but 
larvae were observed to be alive (crawling) up to 47 days after exit 
from the host (Nilssen 1997, p. 298). The transition of warmer 
temperatures to areas of cooler air creates a barrier north of which 
pupation may not occur. Because parasitic fly harassment is low below 
13 [deg]C (55.4 [deg]F), and no oestrid harassment occurs below 10 
[deg]C (50 [deg]F), this temperature threshold is significant for 
caribou, particularly the Dolphin and Union caribou with respect to 
oestrid harassment. Under both scenarios, summer temperatures are 
projected to increase to a high of 13-16 [deg]C where the Dolphin and 
Union caribou occur, which would result in an increase in warble fly 
harassment.
    Infestations by both warble flies and botflies result in metabolic 
costs, such as behavioral responses (Witter et al. 2012, p. 292; 
Nilssen and Anderson 1995, p. 1,237). Caribou increase and modify their 
movement when harassed by warble flies (Witter et al. 2012, p. 284). 
When warble flies are present, caribou spend a greater proportion of 
time avoiding insects, rather than resting or feeding (Witter et al. 
2012, p. 292; Fauchald et al. 2007, p. 496). Avoidance behaviors 
include jumping, running, leg stomping, and, with respect

[[Page 76119]]

to nose botflies, sudden nose dropping (Fauchald et al. 2007, p. 496; 
Colman et al. 2003, p. 15). Cows were observed temporarily 
disassociating themselves from their calves in an attempt to avoid 
flies (Thomas and Kiliaan 1990, p. 415). Additionally, reduced fitness 
may result in a reduction of available milk for calves in lactating 
females (Weladji et al. 2003, p. 84). The projected increase in 
temperature during the summertime will result in an increase in botfly 
activities, which will likely result in a reduction in fitness for the 
Dolphin and Union caribou.

Nose Botflies

    Caribou experts consider the potential negative effects of nose 
botfly on caribou to be less than warble flies. While the types of 
effects are similar between the two species of flies, such as causing 
avoidance behavior in caribou, the magnitude of those effects are not 
as extreme for the nose botfly as that caused by the warble fly. This 
species enters the caribou through the caribou's nose and lives in the 
caribou's throat for part of its life cycle. The caribou exhibit 
distress from this species--they have been observed to duck their heads 
under water to avoid nose botflies (Witter et al. 2012, p. 284; 
Fauchald et al. 2007, p. 496). An increase in the temperature by more 
than 3 or 6 [deg]C in July could increase harassment of nose botflies 
on the Dolphin and Union caribou, although the severity will not be as 
high as that caused by warble flies.

Summary of Parasitic Harassment

    Currently, oestrids that use caribou as their hosts are at the 
latitudinal extreme of their range due to temperature, hours of 
daylight, and wind conditions (Vistness et al. 2008, p. 1,307). We note 
that a threat to the Dolphin and Union caribou and the caribou's 
response to that threat are not, in general, equally predictable or 
foreseeable. Oestrid flies could expand their range, and they could 
possibly negatively affect the Dolphin and Union caribou if the 
temperature increases by 3 to 6 [deg]C by 2080. The low-temperature 
threshold for warble fly activity has been determined to be around 10 
[deg]C (50 [deg]F) (Vistness et al. 2008, p. 1,312; Weladji et al. 
2003, p. 81; Nilssen 1997, pp. 296, 300; Breyev 1956, 1961, as cited in 
Nilssen and Anderson 1995, p. 1,236). However, a warmer climate is 
likely to increase the distribution and abundance of warble flies and 
will lead to greater impact on the Dolphin and Union caribou.

Conservation Measures: Legal Protection

    Under the Act, we are required to evaluate whether the existing 
regulatory mechanisms are adequate. With respect to existing regulatory 
mechanisms, the Dolphin and Union caribou was listed as special concern 
under SARA in 2011 and the Government of the Northwest Territories 
Species at Risk Act (SARC 2013, p. v). ``Special concern'' means that 
the Northwest Territories (NWT) manage a species on the basis that it 
may become threatened if it is not managed effectively. Species listed 
as of special concern are not protected under prohibitions that apply 
to threatened and endangered species. For these species, conservation 
benefits are provided through a management plan that is prepared after 
the species is listed (S.C. Ch. 65). In 2017, COSEWIC recommended the 
herd be listed as endangered due to population decline within the past 
20 years and continued persistence of threats related to climate change 
(COSEWIC 2017, p. x). However, as of 2022, the Dolphin and Union 
caribou has not yet been changed from a species of special concern to 
endangered under SARA.
    The management plan for the Dolphin and Union caribou was published 
in 2018 (NWT 2018, entire; SARC 2013, p. 97). The management plan 
contains a list of recommended actions, including holding regular 
meetings between management agencies and local communities to make 
recommendation on the management of the Dolphin and Union caribou, 
monitoring changes in the Dolphin and Union caribou's population and 
habitat, and obtaining better harvest data (Governments of the NWT and 
Nunavut 2018, pp. 56-61). However, these recommendations are voluntary 
(Governments of the NWT and Nunavut 2018, p. 3). While the management 
plan does not commit any parties to any actions, the management and 
hunting of the Dolphin and Union caribou is mutually agreed upon by the 
native people (Inuit and Inuvialuit) and the territorial governments 
(NWT and Nunavut). Species experts note that the jurisdictional 
structure of caribou management in Canada is complex (Festa-Bianchet et 
al. 2011, p. 422). Wildlife management in the territories is under a 
co-management structure and falls under the Land Claims Agreement of 
the different indigenous groups. Caribou conservation involves 
legislation at the Federal and Territorial levels, in addition to 
wildlife management boards (COSEWIC 2004, p. 61).

Hunting

    Caribou are an integral element of human society in the high Arctic 
(Taylor 2005, as cited, in Maher et al. 2012, p. 78; Miller and Barry 
2009, p. 176). Under SARA, exceptions to prohibitions enable indigenous 
peoples to exercise their harvesting rights (COSEWIC 2015, p. 52). The 
Dolphin and Union caribou is currently hunted by the Inuit and 
Inuvialuit for subsistence, and this subsistence hunting is managed by 
local governments and the communities. However, concerns about the 
sustainability of hunting exist due to the lack of accurate harvesting 
data, although mandatory reporting has recently been implemented for 
indigenous communities (Governments of the NWT and Nunavut 2021, p. 2; 
Governments of the NWT and Nunavut 2018, pp. 20, 67; Governments of 
Nunavut and the NWT 2011, p. 18). Caribou are protected by land claim 
agreements, and hunts are co-managed by boards such as the Nunavut 
Wildlife Management Board, the Government of Nunavut, Department of 
Environment (GN-DOE), and hunting associations (COSEWIC 2004, p. 61). 
The Wildlife Management Advisory Council for the Inuvialuit Settlement 
Region in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut Wildlife Management Board 
for the Nunavut Territory, the GN-DOE, and the Inuit and Inuvialuit 
native people all play a role in the regulation of hunting of the 
Dolphin and Union caribou population.
    Although there are no harvest limitations of the Dolphin and Union 
caribou for indigenous communities, Inuit hunters who hunt caribou for 
subsistence have voluntarily placed moratoriums on hunts in the past 
(Governments of the NWT and Nunavut 2018, pp. 20-21). Based on 
extrapolations of harvest between 1996 and 2001 of the communities of 
Kugluktuk, Cambridge Bay, Umingmaktok, and Bathurst Inlet, subsistence 
harvest of the ``island'' caribou (which may include individuals not 
from the Dolphin and Union herd) in Nunavut was estimated to be from 
2,000 to 3,000 annually for those years (Schneidmiller 2011, p. 1). 
From 1988 to 1997, annual harvest of Dolphin and Union caribous by the 
community of Ulukhaktok varied between 178 and 509 per year 
(Governments of the NWT and Nunavut 2018, p. 20). Since then, local 
communities have tried to reduce the annual harvests of the caribou 
through the implementation of a quota system (Governments of the NWT 
and Nunavut 2021, in litt.). Data for 2010-2014 reveal a decline of 
annual harvest to 10-80

[[Page 76120]]

caribou per year (Governments of the NWT and Nunavut 2018, p. 20). In 
2021, as a result of the decline of the herd in the past few years, 
harvest quota was reduced to 50 animals (Governments of the NWT and 
Nunavut 2021, in litt.). While the reporting of this data is voluntary, 
the reduction in annual harvest since the 1990s indicate that local 
communities have regulated hunting by its members as the Dolphin and 
Union caribou population has declined.
    In contrast to indigenous communities, Canadian citizens and 
resident immigrants are limited to a specific number of caribou they 
can hunt per year. Non-subsistence hunting including sport-hunting by 
nonindigenous residents and nonresidents is managed through an annual 
quota system (Governments of the NWT and Nunavut 2018, pp. 68-69). In 
the NWT, Canadian citizens and residents are allowed to take up to two 
bulls per year during the hunting season (August 15-November 15). 
Nonresident and non-Canadian citizens are allowed the same number but 
need to be accompanied by a guide. In Nunuvut, residents can hunt up to 
five caribou per year (Governments of the NWT and Nunavut 2018, pp. 68-
69). Despite the availability of hunting tags, in the past several 
years, no tag-based sport-hunting of Dolphin and Union caribou has 
occurred in Nunavut (Governments of the NWT and Nunavut 2018, p. 69; 
Leclerc 2017, pers. comm.; Governments of Nunavut and the NWT 2011, p. 
18). Hunting is now currently restricted to indigenous hunters 
(Governments of the NWT and Nunavut 2021, in litt.).
    In the NWT, the governments reported that 25 tags are available 
annually for outfitted sport-hunting on Dolphin and Union caribou, but 
no such hunts have occurred in more than 20 years (Governments of NWT 
and Nunavut 2011, p. 10). At a more local scale, committees and trapper 
associations are involved in monitoring caribou. In 2007, nonbinding 
management recommendations were made to maintain a balanced harvest for 
subsistence (i.e., harvest different age classes and sexes of animals 
depending on the season and avoid shooting pregnant cows during the 
spring) (Dumund 2007, p. 44).
    With respect to imports into the United States, as noted above, no 
tag-based non-subsistence hunting (sport-hunting) has occurred in 
Nunavut or NWT in recent years, and no trade data indicates that 
Dolphin and Union caribou are hunted and subsequently imported into the 
United States. This caribou entity is not listed in the Appendices of 
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 
Fauna and Flora (CITES) (https://www.cites.org; also see Conservation 
Status of the Dolphin and Union Caribou). CITES is an international 
agreement between governments with the purpose of ensuring that 
international commercial and noncommercial trade in wild animals and 
plants does not threaten their survival. CITES entered into force in 
1975 and is an international treaty among 184 parties, including Canada 
and the United States. A review of the Service's Law Enforcement 
Management Information System (LEMIS) database indicated that caribou 
are not currently tracked by subspecies (LEMIS contains information on 
caribou at the species level), so we do not currently have data on the 
import of the Dolphin and Union caribou.
    Hunting has not been implicated as a current threat to Dolphin and 
Union caribou. While unsustainable hunting may have contributed to a 
historical decline in the Dolphin and Union caribou, currently 
subsistence hunting is managed, and sport hunting is not taking place. 
(Dumond and Lee 2013, p. 329; SARC 2013, p. ix; Dumund 2012, 
unpaginated). The Dolphin and Union caribou is being monitored closely 
by the Government of Nunavut, the Government of the Northwest 
Territories, and the Government of Canada. In summary, hunting may have 
played a role in the decline of the Dolphin and Union caribou in the 
past; however, management of the Dolphin and Union caribou has reduced 
the impact of hunting.

Protected Areas

    The southwestern portion of the Dolphin and Union caribou range 
lies within the boundaries of Tuktut Nogait National Park (COSEWIC 
2017, p. 4). While protected, this area constitutes a small portion of 
the DPS's overall range. On the other hand, the calving ground for the 
Dolphin and Union caribou on Victoria Island is not protected. Studies 
are currently under way to define a calving strategy and determine 
suitable habitat (Leclerc and Boulanger 2018, pp. 37-38). Caribou 
biologists indicate that areas that are suitable for calving but are 
currently unused should be anticipated and managed for potential future 
use (Nagy 2011, p. 35). The best available information suggests that 
current protected areas are well managed.

Shipping, Exploration, and Developmental Activities

    The Northwest Passage, which includes the Dolphin and Union Strait, 
is likely to become more navigable to large ships in the near future 
due to decreased ice in the passage, and thus could be exposed to 
increased exploration activities. Ships traveling through the Northwest 
Passage could be routed through the Dolphin and Union Strait as 
temperatures become substantially warmer. In recent years, the strait 
has been ice free for 2 months during the summer, leading to increased 
maritime traffic with heavy ship traffic concentrating around the 
strait used by the Dolphin and Union caribou (Leclerc 2017, pers. 
comm.; Pizzolato et al. 2016, pp. 12,148-12,149). Given that ice levels 
in the 2010-2012 periods have been the lowest since 1968, it is very 
likely that shipping traffic through the strait will increase (Howell 
et al. 2013, as cited in Pizzolato et al. 2016, p. 12,152). Currently, 
traffic to the Beaufort Sea is the second highest in the Northwest 
Passage after the Hudson Bay (Pizzolato et al. 2016, p. 12,149; SARC 
2013, p. 94). Shipping traffic through the strait increases in years 
where multiyear-ice levels, which present significant impediment to 
ship traffic, are low (Pizzolato et al. 2016, p. 12,152). In the 
Victoria Strait region (located at the opposite end of the channel to 
the Dolphin and Union strait), shipping activity tripled during the 
2006-2013 period (Pizzolato et al. 2016, p. 12,152). Shipping traffic 
negatively affects the migration of the Dolphin and Union caribou by 
causing ice breakup during the winter (SARC 2013, p. 47).
    If the warming trend continues in this region as climate models 
indicate, conditions for offshore oil and gas exploration and 
production will likely improve, increasing the likelihood of shipping 
traffic (Pizzolato et al. 2016, p. 12,152; Barber et al. 2008, p. 17). 
The potential increase in mining and shipping traffic in the Dolphin 
and Union Strait could have demographic and ecological consequences for 
the Dolphin and Union caribou. A larger number of Dolphin and Union 
caribou on the mainland have been sighted with thicker coats of fur, 
suggesting that more of them are falling through the ice (Poole et al. 
2010, p. 416). While increasing shipping traffic will lead to the 
breakup of the ice, some Inuit have indicated ships run through the 
straits during the summer months, which is outside of the primary 
migration months (SARC 2013, p. 47). However, the reduction in 
multiyear ice in the strait over time will result in greater shipping 
traffic even during the winter (Pizzolato et al. 2016, p. 12,152; SARC 
2013, p. 94).
    Compounding the increasing trend of shipping traffic is a 
complicated

[[Page 76121]]

regulatory environment. Shipping traffic through the Artic is governed 
by a complex set of international agreements, national regulations, and 
territorial laws that affects different types of shipping (Porta et al. 
2017, p. 66). At the international scale, the basic legal framework of 
shipping is organized under the United Nations Convention on the Law of 
the Sea (UNCLOS) which identify maritime zones and the rights and 
obligations states have within that zone (Porta et al. 2017, p. 69). At 
the national scale, Canadian shipping is regulated through the Arctic 
Waters Pollution Prevention Act of 1969 and the Arctic Shipping 
Pollution Prevention Regulation of 1978 (Grove 2017, pp. 65, 68). These 
regulations sought to balance the commercial interest of shipping 
companies and the potential effects of shipping on local indigenous 
communities and the environment (Porta et al. 2017, p. 77). While the 
preamble to the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act underscores 
Canada's commitment to Arctic development to occurs in lockstep with 
environmental stewardship and protection, exploitation of natural 
resources of the Canadian Arctic is occurring at greater scale than in 
the past with larger and more frequent shipping vessels travelling 
through the area (Porta et al. 2017, p. 77). Furthermore, current 
shipping routes pass through areas that have been considered to be 
environmentally sensitive areas (Porta et al. 2017, p. 78).
    In an attempt to better coordinate these different regulations and 
protect environmentally sensitive areas, Canada began to implement the 
Northern Marine Transportation Corridors (NMTC) Initiative in 2017. 
This initiative involves multiple governing agencies including the 
Canadian Coast Guard, Transport Canada and the Canadian Hydrographical 
Service. The initiative sought to limit the ecological impact of 
shipping by identifying routes where service levels and supporting 
infrastructure are available at the highest level. One of the routes 
identified would pass through the Dolphin and Union strait. While local 
communities and civil society has expressed general support for the 
initiative, concerns remain regarding the integration and creation of 
protection for environmentally and culturally sensitive areas (Porta et 
al. 2017, p. 67). This suggest that more efforts and coordination need 
to take place between governing agencies, the shipping industry, and 
local communities to better manage and mitigate the effects of shipping 
on the environment. Overall, while Canada has undertaken efforts to 
better manage environmentally sensitive areas, in light of increasing 
shipping traffic as a result of loss of sea ice, more coordination will 
likely be needed to mitigate the effects of shipping on the local 
ecosystem.

Stochastic (Random) Events and Processes

    Species endemic to small regions, or known from few, widely 
dispersed locations, are inherently more vulnerable to extinction than 
widespread species because of the higher risks from localized 
stochastic (random) events and processes, such as industrial spills and 
drought. Those species face an increased likelihood of stochastic 
extinction due to changes in demography, the environment, genetics, or 
other factors, in a process described as an extinction vortex (a mutual 
reinforcement that occurs among biotic and abiotic processes that 
drives population size downward to extinction) (Courtois et al. 2003, 
pp. 394, 402). The negative impacts associated with vulnerability to 
random demographic fluctuations or natural catastrophes can be further 
magnified by synergistic interactions with other threats.
    The Dolphin and Union caribou is known from a single geographic 
population that migrates between Victoria Island and the Canadian 
mainland (SARC 2013, p. xiv; Governments of NWT and Nunavut 2011, p. 2; 
Poole et al. 2009, p. 415). As a result, the Dolphin and Union caribou 
is vulnerable to stochastic processes and is highly likely to be 
negatively affected by these processes. Year-to-year variation in the 
timing of sea-ice formation, shipping traffic, and usage of 
icebreakers, in combination with other threats, could impact the 
migration of the Dolphin and Union caribou (Poole et al. 2010, pp. 414, 
419, 425; Sharma et al. 2009, p. 2,559). Therefore, it is likely that 
stochastic processes have negative impacts on the species in 
combination with other factors such as sea-ice loss and shipping. Given 
the recent, significant decline in the Dolphin and Union caribou, the 
effects of stochastic events on the herd will be magnified resulting in 
greater vulnerability.

Synergistic Interactions Between Threat Factors

    We have evaluated the individual threats to the Dolphin and Union 
caribou throughout its range. The primary threat affecting the Dolphin 
and Union caribou is the loss of sea ice due to climate change and 
increased shipping through the straits. Other factors, though not as 
severe as loss of sea ice and shipping, can become threats in the 
future due to the cumulative effects they will have on the Dolphin and 
Union caribou. For the Dolphin and Union caribou DPS, warble fly and 
nose botfly harassment, disease, and predation are threats that, 
synergistically, could have an impact on the Dolphin and Union caribou.
    As discussed above in this document, the Dolphin and Union caribou 
population continues to decline from its recent peak in 1997 (Dumond 
and Lee 2013, p. 334). While the exact cause of the decline is not 
known, a number of factors acting synergistically can put additional 
pressure on the population. Botfly harassment has the potential to 
increase if surface temperature increases by more than 3-6 [deg]C 
(Dumund and Lee 2013, p. 330). One recent climate-projection model 
points toward an increase in botfly activity, which will increase the 
energy expenditure of caribou (Witter et al. 2012, p. 284). Although 
these factors individually do not amount to a significant threat to the 
Dolphin and Union caribou, acting synergistically with major threats of 
sea-ice loss and shipping, they can have a detrimental impact.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In our August 31, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR 48619), we requested 
that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by 
November 1, 2021. We also contacted appropriate Federal agencies, 
scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and 
invited them to comment on the proposed rule. We did not receive any 
requests for a public hearing. All substantive information provided 
during the comment period either has been incorporated directly into 
the final rule or is addressed below.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of 
listing actions under the Act, we sought the expert opinions of five 
appropriate specialists regarding the species report. The peer 
reviewers have expertise that includes familiarity with Dolphin and 
Union caribou and its habitat, biological needs, and threats. We 
received five responses, which informed the species report and proposed 
rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that our listing 
determination is based on scientifically sound data, conclusions, and 
analyses.

[[Page 76122]]

The comments we received helped inform the status of the DPS. Peer 
reviewer comments and expert opinions were incorporated into the 
species report (USFWS 2022, entire).

Public Comments

    We received 12 public comments in response to the proposed rule. We 
reviewed all comments we received during the public comment period for 
substantive issues and new information regarding the proposed rule. Two 
commenters provided substantive comments or new information concerning 
the proposed listing and 4(d) rule for Dolphin and Union caribou. 
Below, we provide a summary of the two substantive issues raised in the 
public comments we received. Comments outside the scope of the proposed 
rule, and those without supporting information, did not warrant an 
explicit response and, thus, are not presented here. Similar comments 
have been consolidated.
    (1) The Governments of Nunavut and the Northwest Territories 
provided additional information on the hunting program currently 
implemented in Canada. Specifically, the comment identified current 
harvesting quotas and types of individuals who are allowed to hunt.
    Response: We have incorporated the new information on hunting 
quotas for the Dolphin and Union caribou in Canada into this rule and 
the species report.
    (2) Two comments, one from the Governments of Nunavut and the 
Northwest Territories, provided updated information resulting from 
surveys conducted in 2018 and 2020. As noted above, these new surveys 
identified significant decline in the herd after 2015.
    Response: The new information presented indicated that the herd is 
in more serious decline than we were aware of when we proposed to list 
the Dolphin and Union caribou as a threatened DPS. The decline is due 
to a combination of threats mentioned in this rule, including the 
effects of climate change on sea ice and icing events, shipping traffic 
through the straits, and parasites. After reviewing the new information 
and consulting with species experts in Canada, we conclude that the DPS 
is in danger of extinction now. As such, we are finalizing the listing 
of this DPS as endangered under the Act.

Determination of Dolphin and Union Caribou Status

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or 
``threatened species.'' The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a 
species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is 
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires 
that we determine whether a species meets the definition of 
``endangered species'' or ``threatened species'' because of any of the 
following factors: (A) the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence. For a more detailed discussion on 
the factors considered when determining whether a species meets the 
definition of ``endangered species'' or ``threatened species'' and our 
analysis on how we determine the foreseeable future in making these 
decisions, please see Regulatory and Analytical Framework, above.

Status Throughout All of Its Range

    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to the Dolphin and Union caribou. In section 3(6), the Act defines an 
``endangered species'' as any species that is in danger of extinction 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range and in section 
3(20), defines a ``threatened species'' as any species that is likely 
to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The best 
available information indicates that the Dolphin and Union caribou has 
experienced a steep decline (Leclerc and Boulanger 2018, p. 36). A 
number of threats including sea ice loss, icing events, and parasitic 
harassment, acting synergistically likely played a role in reducing the 
population. We have concluded that the decline was primarily as a 
result of loss of sea ice due to climate change and an increase in 
shipping traffic (Factor A). Other threats, including parasitism 
(Factor C), predation (Factor C), and hunting (Factor B), have a 
limited or unknown impact at this time, but could become more serious 
threats in the future.
    Although the herd has changed its migration patterns and its 
resource use in the past, access to the wintering ground on the 
mainland played an important role in the historical recovery of the 
species (Leclerc and Boulanger 2018, p. 37; Nishi and Gunn 2004, as 
cited in COSEWIC 2004, p. 35). Current trends indicate sea-ice loss in 
the Dolphin and Union caribou's range will continue through the end of 
the 21st century (Meier et al. 2011, pp. 9-2-9-3; Wang and Overland 
2009, p. L07502; Bo[eacute] et al. 2009, p. 1). While crossings are 
still taking place suggesting that current sea-ice thickness is 
sufficient for crossing (Governments of the NWT and Nunavut 2018, p. 
30), the continued decline in the DPS population suggests that other 
stressors are having a larger effect in negatively affecting the 
Dolphin and Union caribou's current overall resilience.
    One such factor in addition to sea-ice loss from climate change is 
the increase in shipping traffic through the Dolphin and Union 
caribou's habitat, which delays the formation of sea ice. Sea ice 
between Victoria Island and the mainland now forms 8-10 days later than 
it did in 1982, a trend that will continue to accelerate (Poole et al. 
2010, p. 414). Additionally, because the Dolphin and Union strait 
occurs at the southernmost point of the Northwest Passage, shipping 
traffic is more concentrated in this region than in other portions of 
the Canadian Archipelago (Pizzolato et al. 2016, pp. 12,148-12,149). 
The continued increase in shipping traffic combined with projected ice 
loss in this region will have a significant effect on the Dolphin and 
Union caribou by delaying or preventing the migration to wintering 
grounds on the mainland (Poole et al. 2010, p. 414). Additionally, the 
breaking up of the sea ice can result in caribous falling through the 
thinner ice and increases the likelihood of mass drowning events.
    Although the Dolphin and Union caribou was able to adapt in the 
past after the caribou ceased migration to the mainland during the 
early 1900s due to introduction of firearms (USFWS 2021, pp. 9-10), the 
trend since 1997 suggests a steady decline. Furthermore, given the 
decline in the DPS population, it is unlikely that Victoria Island will 
be able to support the Dolphin and Union caribou (Leclerc and Boulanger 
2018, p. 39). Additionally, with only one extant population, the 
Dolphin and Union caribou possess very limited redundancy making it 
highly susceptible to stochastic events. The Dolphin and Union caribou 
representation is also limited as little to no genetic exchange occurs 
with adjacent caribou subspecies. As noted in Significance, above, 
while genetic outflow occurs from the Dolphin and

[[Page 76123]]

Union caribou herd into other barren-ground caribou subpopulations on 
the mainland, very little genetic inflow occurs from the other barren-
ground caribou subpopulations. Overall, given the decline in the 
population and its restricted range and population, we assessed the 
Dolphin and Union caribou to currently possess low resiliency, 
redundancy, and representation.
    In addition to the potential loss of connectivity between Victoria 
Island and the mainland, the Dolphin and Union caribou also experience 
impacts from other threats. The impacts of these other threats, 
however, are more uncertain. Insect harassment from warble flies 
increases the energy expenditure of affected animals (Scheer 2004, pp. 
10-11). With regard to disease, although local communities have 
identified affected individuals, the impact on the overall 
subpopulation is unknown (SARC 201, p. 80). Predation could have an 
impact on the Dolphin and Union caribou. Earlier reports suggest that 
predation does not represent a major threat, but lingering concerns 
remain (COSEWIC 2017, p. 27; Gunn 2005, pp. 10-11, 39-41). Lastly, 
while unregulated hunting played an important role in the historical 
decline of the Dolphin and Union caribou, current management efforts in 
place regulate hunting, and sport hunting is not currently taking 
place. However, the DPS continues to decline (Dumond and Lee 2013, p. 
329; SARC 2013, p. ix; Dumond 2012, unpaginated). As noted elsewhere, 
the Dolphin and Union caribou has consistently declined within the past 
20 years to around 3,800 individuals from 34,000 individuals, and the 
resiliency of the DPS has been significantly compromised, affecting its 
ability to withstand stochastic events (Campbell et al. 2021, p. 2). 
Furthermore, with only one extant population, the Dolphin and Union 
caribou has very limited redundancy and representation.
    In summary, the Dolphin and Union caribou has experienced 
significant population change over the past century. The Dolphin and 
Union caribou experienced a significant decline in the early 20th 
century due to the introduction of firearms and excessive hunting 
(COSEWIC 2004, p. 41; Gunn et al. 2011, p. 37; Manning 1960, pp. 9-10). 
The population rebounded in the latter half of the 20th century 
reaching its maximum size in 1997. Since then, however, the single 
population of the Dolphin and Union caribou has declined once more. 
Surveys conducted in 2007 revealed a modest decline of the species 
(Dumond and Lee 2013, p. 334). A survey in 2015 revealed that the 
decline continues (Governments of the NWT and Nunavut 2018, p. 36; 
Leclerc and Boulanger 2018, p. 36). Additionally, recent survey data in 
2018 and 2020 documented continued, major decline from approximately 
18,000 individuals in 2015 to about 3,800 individuals in 2020 (Campbell 
et al. 2021, p. 2). We find that a number of threats, including 
primarily sea-ice loss due to climate change and shipping, and to a 
lesser extent insect harassment, predation, and hunting, acting in 
tandem and synergistically, has negatively impacted the species to such 
a degree that is in danger of extinction.
    Given the new information regarding the continued decline and 
current population size of the species, we have reevaluated the status 
of the species. In the proposed rule, we concluded that continuation of 
the current trends would likely result in the species becoming in 
danger of extinction within the foreseeable future. We now find that a 
number of threats, including primarily sea-ice loss due to climate 
change and shipping, and to a lesser extent insect harassment, 
predation, and hunting, acting in tandem and synergistically, has 
negatively impacted the species to such a degree that it is already in 
danger of extinction, even in the absence of future intensification of 
the threats.
    Therefore, after evaluating threats to the species and assessing 
the cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, 
we conclude that the Dolphin and Union caribou is currently in danger 
of extinction throughout all of its range as a result of the ongoing 
and projected decline caused by the increase in threats described above 
that has already occurred.

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range. We have determined that the Dolphin and Union caribou is in 
danger of extinction throughout all of its range and accordingly did 
not undertake an analysis of any significant portion of its range. 
Because the Dolphin and Union caribou warrants listing as endangered 
throughout all of its range, our determination is consistent with the 
decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020 WL 437289 
(D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020), in which the court vacated the aspect of the 
Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of 
Its Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered 
Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014) that 
provided the Service does not undertake an analysis of significant 
portions of a species' range if the species warrants listing as 
threatened throughout all of its range.

Determination of Status

    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information indicates that the Dolphin and Union caribou DPS meets the 
definition of an endangered species. Therefore, we are listing the 
Dolphin and Union caribou DPS as an endangered species in accordance 
with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

Available Conservation Measures

    The purposes of the Act are to provide a means whereby the 
ecosystems upon which endangered species and 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 the Act. Under the Act there are a number of 
tools available to advance the conservation of species listed as 
endangered or threatened species under the Act. As explained further 
below, these conservation measures include: (1) recognition, (2) 
recovery actions, (3) requirements for Federal protection, (4) 
financial assistance for conservation programs, (5) prohibitions 
against certain activities.
    Recognition through listing results in public awareness, as well as 
in conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, foreign 
governments, private organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages 
cooperation with the States and other countries and calls for recovery 
actions to be carried out for listed species.
    Our regulations at 50 CFR part 402 implement the interagency 
cooperation provisions found under section 7 of the Act. Under section 
7(a)(1) of the Act, Federal agencies are to use, in consultation with 
and with the assistance of the Service, their authorities in 
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act, as 
amended, requires Federal agencies to ensure, in consultation with the 
Service, that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such 
agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed 
species or result in destruction or adverse modification of its 
critical habitat.

[[Page 76124]]

    A Federal ``action'' that is subject to the consultation provisions 
of section 7(a)(2) is defined in our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 
402.02 as all activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or 
carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal agencies in the United 
States or upon the high seas. With respect to the Dolphin and Union 
caribou, actions that may require consultation under section 7(a)(2) of 
the Act include incidental take of the caribou on the high seas. 
Additionally, no critical habitat will be designated for this species 
because, under 50 CFR 424.12(g), we will not designate critical habitat 
within foreign countries or in other areas outside of the jurisdiction 
of the United States.
    Section 8(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1537(a)) authorizes the 
provision of limited financial assistance for the development and 
management of programs that the Secretary of the Interior determines to 
be necessary or useful for the conservation of endangered or threatened 
species in foreign countries. Sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the Act (16 
U.S.C. 1537(b) and (c)) authorize the Secretary to encourage 
conservation programs for foreign listed species, and to provide 
assistance for such programs, in the form of personnel and the training 
of personnel.
    The Act puts in place prohibitions against certain actions with 
listed species. The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a 
series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all 
endangered wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, 
codified at 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for any person subject to the 
jurisdiction of the United States to import; export; deliver, receive, 
carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any 
means whatsoever and in the course of commercial activity; or sell or 
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any species listed as 
an endangered species. In addition, it is unlawful to take (which 
includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, 
or collect; or to attempt any of these) endangered wildlife within the 
United States or on the high seas. It is also illegal to possess, sell, 
deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever any such 
wildlife that has been taken illegally. Under section 9(g) of the Act 
it is also unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the 
United States to attempt to commit, solicit another to commit, or cause 
to be committed, any of these prohibited acts. Certain exceptions apply 
to employees of the Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, 
other Federal land management agencies, and State conservation agencies
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations 
governing permits for endangered wildlife are codified at 50 CFR 17.22, 
and general Service permitting regulations are codified at 50 CFR part 
13. With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for the 
following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation 
or survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with 
otherwise lawful activities. The Service may also register persons 
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States through its captive-
bred-wildlife (CBW) program if certain established requirements are met 
under the CBW regulations (50 CFR 17.21(g)). Through a CBW 
registration, the Service may allow a registrant to conduct certain 
otherwise prohibited activities under certain circumstances to enhance 
the propagation or survival of the affected species: take; export or 
re-import; deliver, receive, carry, transport or ship in interstate or 
foreign commerce, in the course of a commercial activity; or sell or 
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce. A CBW registration 
may authorize interstate purchase and sale only between entities that 
both hold a registration for the taxon concerned. The CBW program is 
available for species having a natural geographic distribution not 
including any part of the United States and other species that the 
Director has determined to be eligible by regulation. The individual 
specimens must have been born in captivity in the United States. 
Sections 9 and 10 of the Act also contain certain statutory exemptions 
from the prohibitions for certain qualifying specimens and activities.
    It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at 
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not 
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a final listing 
on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of a listed 
species. Based on the best available information, the following actions 
are unlikely to result in a violation of section 9, if these activities 
are carried out in accordance with existing regulations and permit 
requirements; this list is not comprehensive:
    (1) Take of the Dolphin and Union caribou in its native range in 
Canada; and
    (2) Trade in the Dolphin and Union caribou and its products that is 
both outside the United States and conducted by persons not subject to 
U.S. jurisdiction.
    Based on the best available information, the following activities 
may potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act if they 
are not authorized in accordance with permits or exemptions under the 
Act; this list is not comprehensive:
    (1) Import into the United States of the Dolphin and Union caribou 
and its products, without obtaining permits required under section 10 
of the Act.
    (2) Export of the Dolphin and Union caribou and its products from 
the United States without obtaining permits required under section 10 
of the Act.
    (3) Take of the Dolphin and Union caribou within the United States 
or on the high seas, or possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or 
ship, by any means whatsoever any such wildlife and its products that 
has been taken illegally.
    (4) Deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or 
foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course of 
commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign 
commerce the Dolphin and Union caribou and its products.
    (5) Attempt to commit, solicit another to commit, or cause to be 
committed, any of these prohibited acts with Dolphin and Union caribou 
and its products.
    Separate from its listing as an endangered species, applicable 
wildlife import/export requirements established under section 9(d)-(f) 
of the Act, the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3371, et seq.), 
and 50 CFR part 14 must also be met for Dolphin and Union caribou 
imports and exports. Questions regarding whether specific activities 
would constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act should be sent to 
the Division of Management Authority of the Service's International 
Affairs Program ([email protected]; 703-358-2104).

Required Determinations

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    We have determined that we do not need to prepare environmental 
analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 
4321 et seq.) in connection with listing a species under the Act. We 
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the

[[Page 76125]]

Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket Number FWS-HQ-ES-2019-0014.

Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Authors

    The primary authors of this rule are the staff members of the 
Branch of Delisting and Foreign Species, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we hereby amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, 
title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless 
otherwise noted.


0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11 in paragraph (h) by adding an entry for ``Caribou, 
barren-ground [Dolphin and Union caribou DPS]'' in alphabetical order 
under Mammals to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to read 
as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Listing citations
           Common name               Scientific name        Where listed         Status         and applicable
                                                                                                    rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Mammals
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Caribou, barren-ground [Dolphin    Rangifer tarandus    Canada (Victoria     E               87 FR [Insert
 and Union caribou DPS].            groenlandicus.       Island, Coronation                   Federal Register
                                                         Gulf, Dolphin and                    page where the
                                                         Union Strait,                        document begins],
                                                         Dease Strait, and                    12/13/2022.
                                                         Canadian Mainland
                                                         in Nunavut and
                                                         Northwest
                                                         Territories).
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-26652 Filed 12-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P