Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 18701 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and upon request 

from the Montana Field Office (see 

ADDRESSES section). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff members of the Montana Field 

Office. 

Authority 

The authority for this section is 

section 4 of the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). 

Dated: March 21, 2011. 

Gregory E. Siekaniec, 

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7827 Filed 4–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS–R9–ES–2010–0001; MO 92210–0–0010 

B6] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To List the Peary Caribou and 

Dolphin and Union Population of the 

Barren-Ground Caribou as Endangered 

or Threatened 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of petition finding and 

initiation of status review. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, announce a 90-day 

finding on a petition to list the Peary 

(Rangifer tarandus pearyi) and the 

Dolphin and Union population of the 

barren-ground (R. t. groenlandicus x 

pearyi) caribou as endangered or 

threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

Based on our review, we find that the 

petition presents substantial scientific 

and commercial information indicating 

that the petitioned action may be 

warranted. Therefore, with the 

publication of this notice, we are 

initiating a review of the status of these 

two subspecies to determine if listing 

these two subspecies is warranted. To 

ensure that this status review is 

comprehensive, we request scientific 

and commercial data and other 

information regarding these two 

subspecies. At the conclusion of this 

review, we will issue a 12-month 

finding on the petition, which will 

address whether the petitioned action is 

warranted, as provided in section 

4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. 

DATES: To allow us adequate time to 

conduct this review, we request that we 

receive information on or before June 6, 

2011. After this date, you must submit 

information directly to the office listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section below. Please note that 

we may not be able to address or 

incorporate information that we receive 

after the above requested date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit 

information by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Search for docket 

FWS–R9–ES–2010–0001 and then 

follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R9– 

ES–2010–0001; Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

MS 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will post all information received 

on http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Information Requested section 

below for more details). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of 

Foreign Species, Endangered Species 

Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420, 

Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703– 

358–2171; facsimile 703–358–1735. If 

you use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Information Requested 

When we make a finding that a 

petition presents substantial 

information indicating that listing a 

species or subspecies may be warranted, 

we are required to promptly review the 

status of the species (conduct a status 

review). For the status review to be 

complete and based on the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we request information on 

these two subspecies from governmental 

agencies (including Canadian national 

and provincial governments), local 

indigenous people of Canada (who also 

may be acknowledged as Native 

American or Aboriginal tribes), the 

scientific community, industry, and any 

other interested parties. We seek 

information on: 

(1) Each subspecies’ biology, range, 

and population trends, including: 

(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, 

breeding, and sheltering; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(c) Historical and current range 

including distribution patterns, 

particularly regarding their seasonal 

migrations; 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected 

population trends; 

(e) Potential threats to each 

subspecies such as mining, resource 

extraction, or other threats not 

identified; and 

(f) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for each subspecies or their 

habitat. 

(2) The factors that are the basis for 

making a listing determination for a 

species or subspecies under section 4(a) 

of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 

which are: 

(a) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of their habitat or range; 

(b) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes, particularly data on hunting; 

(c) Disease or predation; 

(d) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(e) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting their continued existence. 

(3) The potential effects of climate 

change on each subspecies and its 

habitat. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as full 

references) to allow us to verify any 

scientific or commercial information 

you include. Submissions merely stating 

support for or opposition to the action 

under consideration without providing 

supporting information, although noted, 

will not be considered in making a 

determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the 

Act directs that determinations as to 

whether any species is an endangered or 

threatened species must be made ‘‘solely 

on the basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available.’’ 

You may submit your information 

concerning this status review by one of 

the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. If you submit information via 

http://www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the Web site. If you submit a 

hardcopy that includes personal 

identifying information, you may 

request at the top of your document that 

we withhold this personal identifying 

information from public review. 

However, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. We will post all 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

18702 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

hardcopy submissions on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Information and supporting 

documentation that we received and 

used in preparing this finding, will be 

available for you to review at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or you may make 

an appointment during normal business 

hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Endangered Species Program, 

Branch of Foreign Species (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Background 

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

that we make a finding on whether a 

petition to list, delist, or reclassify a 

species presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

We are to base this finding on 

information provided in the petition, 

supporting information submitted with 

the petition, and information otherwise 

available in our files. To the maximum 

extent practicable, we are to make this 

finding within 90 days of our receipt of 

the petition and publish our notice of 

the finding promptly in the Federal 

Register. 

Our standard for substantial scientific 

or commercial information within the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with 

regard to a 90-day petition finding is 

‘‘that amount of information that would 

lead a reasonable person to believe that 

the measure proposed in the petition 

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

If we find that substantial scientific or 

commercial information was presented, 

we are required to promptly review the 

status of the species, which is 

subsequently summarized in our 12- 

month finding. 

In considering what factors might 

constitute threats, we look beyond the 

exposure of the species to determine 

whether the species responds to the 

factor in a way that causes actual 

impacts to the species and we look at 

the magnitude of the effect. If there is 

exposure to a factor, but no response, or 

only a beneficial response, that factor is 

not a threat. If there is exposure and the 

species responds negatively, the factor 

may be a threat and we then attempt to 

determine how significant the factor is. 

If the factor is significant, it may drive 

or contribute to the risk of extinction of 

the species such that the species 

warrants listing as threatened or 

endangered as those terms are defined 

by the Act. However, the identification 

of factors that could impact a species 

negatively may not be sufficient to 

compel a finding that the information in 

the petition is substantial. The 

information must include evidence 

sufficient to suggest that these factors 

may be operative threats that act on the 

species to the point that the species may 

meet the definition of endangered or 

threatened under the Act. 

Petition History 

On September 15, 2009, we received 

a petition (also dated September 15, 

2009), from the International Fund for 

Animal Welfare (hereafter referred to as 

petitioner) requesting that two 

subspecies of barren-ground caribou 

(Rangifer tarandus) be listed as 

endangered or threatened under the Act. 

These two subspecies are the Peary 

caribou (R. t. pearyi) and the Dolphin 

and Union population of the barrenground caribou (R. t. groenlandicus x 

pearyi). The petition clearly identified 

itself as such and included the requisite 

identification information as required 

by 50 CFR 424.14(a). The petition was 

amended on May 14, 2010, and the 

petitioner provided supplemental 

information to the original petition. We 

consider this amended petition, along 

with the previously submitted 

information, to be a new petition and 

the statutory timeframes to begin on 

May 14, 2010. This finding addresses 

the petition. 

Species Information 

Taxonomic Background 

Banfield’s 1961 taxonomic 

characterization listed nine subspecies 

of caribou (R. tarandus), two of which 

are now extinct. Peary caribou was first 

taxonomically described by J. A. Allen 

in 1902. The Dolphin and Union 

caribou was described in 1960 as R. t. 

groenlandicus x pearyi by Manning. 

Prior to 1979, Peary caribou (R. t. 

pearyi) and the Dolphin and Union 

caribou (R. t. groenlandicus x pearyi) 

were considered the same subspecies. In 

1991, three populations of R. t. pearyi 

were recognized; Banks Island, High 

Arctic, and Low Arctic. In 2003, Zittlau 

et al. found (pp. 593–598) that the 

Dolphin and Union population of 

barren-ground caribou is genetically 

distinct from both Peary and mainland 

barren-ground caribou (R. t. 

groenlandicus). In 2004, the Committee 

on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in 

Canada (COSEWIC) recognized four 

populations of Peary caribou. We accept 

Peary caribou as a subspecies because of 

the genotypic and phenotypic evidence 

presented by COSEWIC (2004, p. 17). 

Also in 2004, COSEWIC clarified that 

the Dolphin and Union population of 

the barren-ground caribou (R. t. 

groenlandicus x pearyi) is comprised of 

a portion of the former ‘‘Low Arctic 

population’’ of Peary caribou. Although 

most entities agree that the Dolphin and 

Union population is a valid subspecies, 

the taxonomic reclassification process 

can be slow, and the Dolphin and Union 

population has not yet been 

taxonomically reclassified. For the 

purpose of this finding, we consider the 

Dolphin and Union population of the 

barren-ground caribou to be a valid 

subspecies and treat it as such. 

Throughout this finding, we will refer to 

this subspecies as the Dolphin and 

Union caribou. 

General Habitat Characteristics and Life 

History 

Both subspecies live in an ecological 

grazing system in which abiotic factors 

such as snow, rain, and ice largely 

determine their fate (COSEWIC 2004, p. 

54). Food shortages can have a 

significant effect on caribou populations 

in these ecosystems. In the winter of 

1973–1974, both subspecies 

experienced a population crash— 

freezing rain created sheets of ice, 

forming a barrier that covered the 

caribou’s food sources and subsequently 

caused mass starvation (Miller et al. 

1977a in Miller and Gunn 2003, p. 2). 

Their nutrition is closely related to 

plant phenology (timing of plant 

blooming based on daylight and 

temperature). Seasonal feeding is 

critical for various life stages such as 

lactation and growth during the spring, 

increasing fat reserves during the 

summer, and simply surviving during 

the winter. Caribou generally migrate 

great distances in search of food; some 

herds travel significantly greater 

distances than others. The distance 

traveled likely depends on food 

availability (COSEWIC 2004, pp. 29–30). 

Caribou forage by pushing snow off the 

vegetation with their noses, but when 

snowpack is deeper, they will dig small 

craters in the snow to reach the 

vegetation (COSEWIC 2004, p. 35). 

Peary Caribou 

Description 

With an average total body length of 

1.7 meters (m) (5.6 feet (ft)), the Peary 

caribou is relatively small and short 

when compared to other caribou species 

(COSEWIC 2004, pp. 9–10). 

Distribution and Population 

Peary caribou are endemic to the 

Queen Elizabeth Islands in northeastern 

Canada, in the provinces of Nunavut 

and the Northwest Territories. They 

exist in the Canadian Arctic Islands and 

coastal Greenland, but live mainly on 

the islands of the Canadian archipelago. 

The four populations of Peary caribou 

are generally delineated as follows: 

(1) Queen Elizabeth Islands, (2) Banks 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 18703 

Island and NW Victoria Island, (3) 

Prince of Wales and Somerset Islands, 

and (4) Boothia Peninsula (COSEWIC 

2004, p. 19). This subspecies is rarely 

found on the mainland (COSEWIC 2004, 

pp. 13–14). Their habitat spans 800,000 

km2 (308,882 mi 2) between 20 Queen 

Elizabeth islands and the other 3 island 

groups listed above (COSEWIC 2004, 

pp. vi, 19). Other than subsistence 

hunting when allowed, the Peary 

subspecies is generally not directly 

affected by human activities due to the 

remoteness of their habitat (COSEWIC 

2004, p. 50). 

The historical population and 

population trends are difficult to 

estimate due to differences in survey 

methodology, the remoteness of their 

island habitat, and the movements of 

Peary caribou between islands, and the 

taxonomic uncertainty prior to 2004. An 

assessment completed in 1991 indicated 

that between 1961 and 1987 the 

population of Peary caribou likely 

decreased by 86 percent (Miller 1991). 

COSEWIC further estimates that in the 

last 40 years, Peary caribou have 

declined 84 percent (COSEWIC 2004, 

pp. 36–37). In 2004, the total population 

estimate for Peary caribou was 7,890 

individuals, including calves (COSEWIC 

2004, p. 62). Although population 

estimates for the Peary caribou have 

been typically unreliable, in part due to 

the remoteness of the species, the 2004 

estimate is believed to be fairly accurate. 

Habitat Characteristics 

Peary caribou migrate between the 

various islands based on availability of 

vegetation, and may recolonize islands 

that were abandoned in previous years 

(Ferguson and Messier 2000, p. 173). 

They have been documented migrating 

up to 450 km (280 mi) between islands 

in search of food and calving grounds 

(COSEWIC 2004, pp. 19, 30). Peary 

caribou migrate from northwestern 

Victoria Island to the Minto Inlet area 

(Gunn and Fournier 2000, pp. 15–57). 

However, some caribou remain faithful 

to one particular island despite the 

absence of food sources (Miller 2002 in 

COSEWIC 2004, p. 30). It is unclear why 

some caribou migrate and others do not, 

but the majority of caribou engage in 

some degree of migration. 

Conservation Status 

As of 2004, the Peary caribou is 

assessed as ‘‘endangered’’ by the 

Canadian Government (COSEWIC 2004, 

p. 19). Neither subspecies addressed in 

this finding is listed on any appendices 

of the Convention on International 

Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 

Fauna and Flora (CITES). Caribou are 

protected by land claim agreements 

within Canada, and hunts are managed 

by regulatory entities such as the 

Nunavut Wildlife Management Board 

(NWMB) and hunting and trapping 

associations (COSEWIC 2004, p. 61). 

Native tribes who hunt caribou for 

subsistence have voluntarily placed 

moratoriums on hunts in the past; as of 

2004, a moratorium was still in place. 

Peary caribou have been assessed as 

endangered since 1996 by the 

International Union for Conservation of 

Nature (IUCN). 

Dolphin and Union Caribou 

Description 

The Dolphin and Union caribou is 

generally larger than Peary caribou but 

smaller than the mainland population of 

barren-ground caribou (R. t. 

groenlandicus). The pelage (coloring) of 

Dolphin and Union caribou is slightly 

darker than Peary caribou and their 

antler velvet is grey (like the Peary 

caribou) but is distinct from mainland 

barren-ground caribou, which do not 

have grey antler velvet. 

Distribution and Population 

The Dolphin and Union caribou 

primarily reside on the southern part of 

Victoria Island and its range does not 

overlap with Peary caribou. Seasonally, 

they cross the frozen ice of the Dolphin 

and Union Strait to winter on the 

mainland. Their range consists of the 

lower part of Victoria Island (excluding 

northwestern Victoria Island), and is 

estimated to be 195,417 km2 (75,451 

mi 2) and Stefansson Island (4,463 km2

(1723 mi 2)). 

A 1922 estimate (Anderson, cited in 

COSEWIC 2004, p. 41) indicated that 

between 100,000 and 200,000 caribou 

migrated across the Dolphin and Union 

Strait to Victoria Island. Using other 

caribou population densities as a proxy, 

Manning (1960), indicated that 100,000 

was likely a more realistic estimate. In 

1973, both subspecies experienced a 

population crash due to freezing rain 

and sheets of ice (Miller et al. 1977). In 

1980, a survey by Jackimchuck and 

Carruthers indicated that there were 

approximately 3,400 Dolphin and Union 

caribou on Victoria Island (COSEWIC 

2004, p. 41). Gunn et al. (2000, p. 43) 

estimated the southern Victoria Island 

population to be 14,600 caribou in 1994 

and 27,800 caribou in 1997. This herd 

does not appear to have been surveyed 

since then. The 2004 COSEWIC report 

indicates the population is estimated to 

be approximately 25,000 and the 

population appears to be stable or 

increasing (pp. viii and 15). 

Conservation Status 

As of 2004, the Dolphin and Union 

caribou is assessed as ‘‘Special Concern’’ 

(COSEWIC 2004, p. 19) by the Canadian 

Government. It is not listed on any 

CITES appendices. Hunts are managed 

by boards such as the NWMB, the 

Canadian Department of Environment, 

and hunting associations (COSEWIC 

2004, p. 61). Indigenous tribes who hunt 

caribou for subsistence have voluntarily 

placed moratoriums on hunts in the 

past. IUCN in 2008 listed R. tarandus at 

the species level, as least concern. The 

IUCN criteria are designed for global 

taxon assessments (IUCN 2003, p. 1). 

Before assessments of taxa below the 

species level (subspecies, variety or 

subpopulation) can be included on the 

IUCN Red List, an assessment of the full 

species is required. No assessment has 

been made of this subspecies by the 

IUCN. 

Evaluation of Information for This 

Finding 

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

and its implementing regulations at 50 

CFR 424 set forth the procedures for 

adding a species to, or removing a 

species from, the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. A species may be 

determined to be an endangered or 

threatened species due to one or more 

of the five factors described in section 

4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. 

Following is a threats assessment in 

which we evaluate whether any of these 

factors threaten or endanger these two 

subspecies. This evaluation is specific 

to each subspecies unless specified that 

the evaluation is for both subspecies. In 

making this 90-day finding, we 

evaluated whether information 

regarding threats to both the Peary and 

Dolphin and Union subspecies, as 

presented in the petition and based on 

other information available in our files, 

is substantial, thereby indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

Our evaluation of this information is 

presented below. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

18704 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Peary Caribou 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of the Peary Caribou’s 

Habitat or Range 

The petitioner asserts that global 

climate change due to global warming 

presents the largest threat to the Peary 

caribou’s habitat in that previously 

frozen water surrounding the Queen 

Elizabeth Islands will become navigable 

to large ships associated with shipping 

and oil exploration and these ships will 

threaten caribou movement. In this 

finding, we will evaluate climate change 

threats under Factor E. Other Natural or 

Manmade Factors Affecting the Species’ 

Continued Existence. Climate change 

was the only stressor asserted as having 

an effect on this subspecies under 

Factor A by the petitioner. Although we 

determined that the petition does not 

present substantial information 

indicating that listing the Peary caribou 

as endangered or threatened may be 

warranted under factor A, we intend to 

assess the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the Peary caribou’s 

habitat or range more thoroughly during 

the status review. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

The petitioner does not indicate that 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific or educational 

purposes is currently contributing to the 

decline of the Peary caribou. Nor do we 

have other data in our files that this 

factor is a threat to the Peary caribou. 

Therefore, we determine that the 

petition does not present substantial 

information that the petitioned action 

may be warranted due to overutilization 

for commercial, recreational, scientific, 

or educational purposes. 

C. Disease or Predation 

The petitioner acknowledged that 

disease is not thought to be a significant 

factor affecting either subspecies of 

caribou addressed in this finding. We 

concur with the petitioner that, based 

on the information provided with the 

petition and information available in 

our files, disease is not currently a 

threat to either subspecies. 

The petitioner asserted that if climate 

change caused significant increases in 

snowfall, caribou could be more 

susceptible to attacks by wolves. We 

acknowledge that caribou are preyed 

upon by various predators such as 

wolves. However, information presented 

in the petition and available in our files 

does not indicate that the effect of 

increased predation by predators would 

increase such that it rises to the level of 

a threat to either subspecies (Miller 

1998, in COSEWIC 2004, p. 50; Gunn 

2005, pp. 10–11, 39–41). Therefore, we 

determined that the petition does not 

present substantial information that the 

petitioned action may be warranted due 

to disease or predation. However, all 

factors, including threats from disease 

or predation, will be evaluated when we 

conduct our status review. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

The petitioner asserts that the 

regulatory mechanisms with respect to 

climate change are inadequate to protect 

both the Peary caribou and the Dolphin 

and Union caribou. Because this factor 

is applicable to both subspecies, this 

evaluation under Factor D applies to 

both subspecies in this finding. The 

petitioner indicates that the inadequacy 

of existing regulatory mechanisms with 

respect to global climate change is the 

gravest threat to the long-term survival 

of these two subspecies. The petitioner 

discussed the ineffectiveness of various 

regulatory mechanisms associated with 

climate change such as the United 

Nations Framework Convention on 

Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto 

Protocol, and United States climate 

initiatives. 

Currently, there are no regulatory 

mechanisms in place that effectively 

address climate change and associated 

changes in habitat or sea-ice or 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. 

International efforts to address climate 

change began with the UNFCCC, which 

was adopted in May 1992. The 

UNFCCC’s objective is stabilization of 

GHG concentrations in the atmosphere 

at a level that would prevent dangerous 

anthropogenic interference with the 

climate system, but it does not impose 

any mandatory and enforceable 

restrictions on GHG emissions. The 

Kyoto Protocol became the first 

agreement to set GHG emissions targets 

for signatory counties, but the targets are 

not mandated. Current international 

efforts to regulate GHG emissions are 

focused on emissions targets, 

monitoring requirements, and voluntary 

actions. None of these mechanisms 

establish mandatory requirements 

limiting the amount of GHG that may be 

emitted. For several decades, the surface 

air temperatures in the Arctic have 

warmed at approximately twice the 

global rate (Christensen et al. 2007, p. 

904). The observed and projected effects 

of climate change are most extreme 

during summer in northern highlatitude regions, in large part due to the 

ice-albedo (reflective property) feedback 

mechanism, in which melting of snow 

and sea ice lowers surface reflectivity, 

thereby further increasing surface 

warming from absorption of solar 

radiation. 

The petitioner provided information 

with the petition that states that climate 

change may result in irregular winter 

events such as freezing rain or heavy 

snow accumulation, which may not 

allow caribou access to vegetation 

(COSEWIC 2004, pp. 51–52). Both 

subspecies of caribou forage by pushing 

snow away from vegetation and by 

breaking through hard-packed snow to 

reach vegetation. If these conditions 

occur, both species could suffer 

widespread starvation (Miller and 

Gunn, 2003, p. 6). Energetic costs will 

increase if they have to travel greater 

distances to locate food. Over time, poor 

body condition could lead to lower 

reproductive rates, greater susceptibility 

to disease or predation, and possibly 

higher mortality rates. Currently, there 

are no regulatory mechanisms in place 

that effectively address a warming 

climate and its consequences for both 

subspecies of caribou addressed in this 

finding due to associated changes in 

habitat. Accordingly, we conclude that 

there is substantial information 

presented in the petition or readily 

available in our files to indicate that 

regulatory mechanisms in place may be 

inadequate to effectively address 

changes in habitat or sea-ice habitat 

relied upon by these two subspecies of 

caribou. We find that the information 

provided presents substantial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted for 

both subspecies due to increased 

snowfall events and freezing rain based 

on the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms. We will evaluate this 

factor further for each subspecies during 

the status review. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Subspecies’ Continued 

Existence 

The petitioner states that global 

warming due to global climate change 

presents the largest threat to both 

subspecies of caribou. The petitioner 

asserts that the Arctic is warming more 

rapidly than other areas on the globe. If 

warming occurs, there may be less sea 

ice available for crossing from one 

island to another in search of vegetation 

(COSEWIC 2004, pp. 54–55; Atkinson et 

al. 2006, pp. 350, 355, 357). The 

petitioner asserts that climate change 

will cause Peary caribou to use more 

energy in search of food by migrating 

farther. Some of the information 

provided with the petition supports 

these assertions (Thomas 1982, pp. 597– 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 18705 

602; Struzik 1998, pp. 38–44). Both 

subspecies of caribou forage by pushing 

snow away from vegetation and by 

breaking through hard-packed snow to 

reach vegetation. The petitioner 

provided information with the petition 

that states that climate change may 

result in irregular winter events such as 

freezing rain or heavy snow 

accumulation, which may not allow 

caribou access to vegetation (COSEWIC 

2004, pp. 51–52). If these conditions 

occur, both species could suffer 

widespread starvation (Miller and 

Gunn, 2003, p. 6). This type of 

starvation has been the primary cause of 

decline in the past. The extreme 

mortality events—between 1973 and 

1974 and between 1994 and 1997— 

coincided with extremely heavy 

snowfall, deep snow packs, and heavy 

icing in those same years (Miller and 

Gunn 2003, pp. 5–6). After reviewing 

the information provided in the petition 

and available in our files, we find that 

the information provided presents 

substantial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted 

for both subspecies due to increased 

snowfall events and freezing rain. 

Low genetic diversity was an issue 

raised by the petitioner as a stressor on 

the subspecies. We will further evaluate 

this during the status review. 

Dolphin and Union Caribou 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of the Dolphin and Union 

Caribou’s Habitat or Range 

The petitioner states that the waters of 

the Dolphin and Union Strait will 

become navigable to large ships in the 

near future based on decreased sea ice 

due to global warming, and that these 

ships will disrupt caribou movement. 

The petitioner suggested that shipping 

traffic has, in the past, interrupted the 

migration of the Dolphin and Union 

caribou. Other than expression of 

concern, the supporting information did 

not indicate that this increase in 

shipping traffic has had a negative 

impact on the subspecies (COSEWIC 

2004, pp. 46–47). The petitioner also 

suggests that caribou will be adversely 

affected by the increasing development 

associated with shipping and oil 

exploration. Although oil development 

and increased shipping may occur, there 

is no evidence that it will have a 

significant effect on caribou. After 

reviewing the information provided in 

the petition and available in our files, it 

does not support the claim that oil 

exploration, and an increase in 

shipping, development, and related 

human activity will affect the Dolphin 

and Union caribou’s habitat. 

The petitioner provides no other 

information addressing Factor A, and 

we have no information in our files 

indicating that listing the subspecies 

due to the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the Dolphin and Union 

caribou’s habitat or range may be 

warranted. Therefore, we find that the 

petition does not present substantial 

information to indicate that the 

petitioned action may be warranted 

based on the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

The petitioner identifies hunting of 

the Dolphin and Union caribou as a 

possible factor in the decline of this 

subspecies. The petition reports that 

this subspecies is hunted by the Inuit 

for subsistence, and it is also hunted 

commercially along the mainland on the 

north coast bordering the Dolphin and 

Union Strait. Various management units 

such as the NWMB, the Wildlife 

Management Advisory Council for the 

Inuvialuit Settlement Region in the 

Northwest Territories, the Canadian 

Department of Environment, and the 

Inuit and Inuvialuit tribes play a role in 

the regulation of hunting of the various 

caribou populations at the larger scale. 

At more local scales, committees and 

trapper associations are involved in 

monitoring caribou. Hunting has not 

been implicated as a causative factor in 

any of the major caribou die-offs. The 

hunting of this subspecies appears to be 

sufficiently managed by the local 

hunting boards, the local indigenous 

peoples of Canada such as the Inuit and 

Inuvialuit, who are allowed to hunt 

caribou for subsistence. Based on the 

information available in the petition and 

in our files, hunting does not appear to 

be causing a decline in the Dolphin and 

Union caribou. 

The petitioner did not indicate any 

other threats under this factor. After 

reviewing the information provided in 

the petition and available in our files, 

we find that the information provided 

does not present substantial information 

indicating that the petitioned action 

may be warranted due to overutilization 

for commercial, recreational, scientific, 

or educational purposes. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Refer to the discussion under Factor 

C above for Peary caribou for additional 

information. Based on the information 

provided in the petition and available in 

our files, we find that the petition does 

not present substantial information 

indicating that listing the Dolphin and 

Union caribou as endangered or 

threatened may be warranted due to 

disease or predation. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Refer to the discussion under Factor 

D above for Peary caribou for additional 

information. After reviewing the 

information provided in the petition 

and available in our files, we find that 

the information provided presents 

substantial information indicating that 

listing the Dolphin and Union caribou 

as endangered or threatened may be 

warranted due to the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Continued Existence of 

Dolphin and Union Caribou 

The petitioner states that global 

climate change presents the greatest 

threat to the Dolphin and Union 

caribou’s habitat. We currently do not 

know the extent of the subspecies’ 

capacity to adapt to potential changes in 

its habitat resulting from climate 

change. However, there is an upward 

trend in temperature which may 

decrease sea ice in the Dolphin and 

Union Strait (refer to discussion above). 

This subspecies crosses the sea ice in 

the Strait seasonally, and this decrease 

in sea ice may affect the species’ 

migration patterns and availability to 

access food sources. Seasonally, herds 

congregate at the edge of the Strait while 

waiting for the ice to form. Energetic 

costs will increase if they have to travel 

greater distances to locate food sources, 

and foraging efficiency is reduced. Over 

time, poor body condition could lead to 

lower reproductive rates, greater 

susceptibility to disease or predation, 

and ultimately higher mortality rates. 

The loss of seasonal ice across the 

Dolphin and Union Strait could reduce 

access to traditional foraging areas and 

it may increase competition among 

individuals for food resources in areas 

close to staging grounds. After 

reviewing the information provided in 

the petition and available in our files, 

we find that the information provided 

presents substantial information 

indicating that the petitioned action 

may be warranted due to changes in sea 

ice (also refer to the discussion under 

Factor E above for Peary caribou). We 

intend to investigate the effects of 

climate change, particularly the changes 

in sea ice, on the Dolphin and Union 

caribou during the status review. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

18706 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Finding 

On the basis of our evaluation under 

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

that the petition presents substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that listing both the Peary 

and Dolphin and Union caribou as 

endangered or threatened may be 

warranted. This finding is based on 

information evaluated under factors D 

and E for both subspecies. Because we 

have found that the petition presents 

substantial information indicating that 

listing these two subspecies may be 

warranted, we are initiating a status 

review to determine whether listing 

these two subspecies of caribou as 

endangered or threatened under the Act 

is warranted. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and upon request 

from the Branch of Foreign Species, 

Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff members of the Branch of 

Foreign Species, Endangered Species 

Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authority: The authority for this action is 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

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

Dated: March 11, 2011. 

Rowan W. Gould, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7653 Filed 4–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 300 and 660 

[Docket No. 110218143–1209–01] 

RIN 0648–BA49 

Fisheries in the Eastern Pacific Ocean; 

Pelagic Fisheries; Vessel Identification 

Requirements 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to revise 

vessel identification requirements for 

U.S. vessels based out of the U.S. West 

Coast that fish for highly migratory 

species. The new measures would allow 

these vessels to be marked in 

accordance with the international 

standards that were implemented by 

NMFS for vessels fishing on the high 

seas in the Area of the Convention on 

the Conservation and Management of 

Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the 

Western and Central Pacific Ocean 

(Convention Area) in early 2010. 

Currently, the domestic marking 

requirements for some U.S. West Coast 

vessels do not comport with these 

international standards. The new 

measures would require vessels that fish 

in the Convention Area to display their 

International Telecommunication Union 

Radio Call Sign (IRCS), or if an IRCS has 

not been assigned to the vessel, the 

vessel would be required to display its 

official number, preceded by the 

characters ‘‘USA–’’. The intent of the 

proposed action is to bring the existing 

vessel identification requirements into 

conformity with the binding vessel 

identification requirements adopted by 

the Western and Central Pacific 

Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

5 p.m., local time, on May 5, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by 0648–BA49, by any one of 

the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Fax: 562–980–4047, Attn: Heidi 

Hermsmeyer. 

• Mail: Rodney R. McInnis, Regional 

Administrator, NMFS Southwest 

Regional Office (SWR), 501 W. Ocean 

Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 

90802. Include the identifier ‘‘0648– 

BA49’’ in the comments. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

NMFS will accept anonymous 

comments (enter N/A in the required 

fields, if you wish to remain 

anonymous). You may submit 

attachments to electronic comments in 

Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or 

Adobe PDF file formats only. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule may be submitted to NMFS SWR at 

the address above, and by e-mail to 

OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax 

to (202) 395–7285. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Heidi Hermsmeyer, NMFS SWR, 562– 

980–4036. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

WCPFC was established under the 

Convention on the Conservation and 

Management of Highly Migratory Fish 

Stocks in the Western and Central 

Pacific Ocean (Convention). The 

Convention’s objective is to ensure, 

through effective management, the longterm conservation and sustainable use 

of highly migratory fish stocks in the 

western and central Pacific Ocean, 

including measures to manage and 

conserve tunas and to minimize impacts 

on protected resources, such as sea 

turtles and seabirds. Figure 1 is a map 

of the Convention Area. The Convention 

Area includes the operational areas of 

U.S. troll, pole-and-line, tuna purse 

seine, and pelagic longline fisheries. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS