[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18701-18706]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7653]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R9-ES-2010-0001; MO 92210-0-0010 B6]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on 
a Petition To List the Peary Caribou and Dolphin and Union Population 
of the Barren-Ground Caribou as Endangered or Threatened

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of petition finding and initiation of status review.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a 90-day 
finding on a petition to list the Peary (Rangifer tarandus pearyi) and 
the Dolphin and Union population of the barren-ground (R. t. 
groenlandicus x pearyi) caribou as endangered or threatened under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review, 
we find that the petition presents substantial scientific and 
commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be 
warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are 
initiating a review of the status of these two subspecies to determine 
if listing these two subspecies is warranted. To ensure that this 
status review is comprehensive, we request scientific and commercial 
data and other information regarding these two subspecies. At the 
conclusion of this review, we will issue a 12-month finding on the 
petition, which will address whether the petitioned action is 
warranted, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.

DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request 
that we receive information on or before June 6, 2011. After this date, 
you must submit information directly to the office listed in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below. Please note that we may not 
be able to address or incorporate information that we receive after the 
above requested date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Search for docket FWS-R9-ES-2010-0001 and then follow the instructions 
for submitting comments.
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 18702]]

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 barren-
ground caribou (R. t. groenlandicus x pearyi). The petition clearly 
identified itself as such and included the requisite identification 
information as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). The petition was amended 
on May 14, 2010, and the petitioner provided supplemental information 
to the original petition. We consider this amended petition, along with 
the previously submitted information, to be a new petition and the 
statutory timeframes to begin on May 14, 2010. This finding addresses 
the petition.

Species Information

Taxonomic Background

    Banfield's 1961 taxonomic characterization listed nine subspecies 
of caribou (R. tarandus), two of which are now extinct. Peary caribou 
was first taxonomically described by J. A. Allen in 1902. The Dolphin 
and Union caribou was described in 1960 as R. t. groenlandicus x pearyi 
by Manning. Prior to 1979, Peary caribou (R. t. pearyi) and the Dolphin 
and Union caribou (R. t. groenlandicus x pearyi) were considered the 
same subspecies. In 1991, three populations of R. t. pearyi were 
recognized; Banks Island, High Arctic, and Low Arctic. In 2003, Zittlau 
et al. found (pp. 593-598) that the Dolphin and Union population of 
barren-ground caribou is genetically distinct from both Peary and 
mainland barren-ground caribou (R. t. groenlandicus). In 2004, the 
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) 
recognized four populations of Peary caribou. We accept Peary caribou 
as a subspecies because of the genotypic and phenotypic evidence 
presented by COSEWIC (2004, p. 17).
    Also in 2004, COSEWIC clarified that the Dolphin and Union 
population of the barren-ground caribou (R. t. groenlandicus x pearyi) 
is comprised of a portion of the former ``Low Arctic population'' of 
Peary caribou. Although most entities agree that the Dolphin and Union 
population is a valid subspecies, the taxonomic reclassification 
process can be slow, and the Dolphin and Union population has not yet 
been taxonomically reclassified. For the purpose of this finding, we 
consider the Dolphin and Union population of the barren-ground caribou 
to be a valid subspecies and treat it as such. Throughout this finding, 
we will refer to this subspecies as the Dolphin and Union caribou.

General Habitat Characteristics and Life History

    Both subspecies live in an ecological grazing system in which 
abiotic factors such as snow, rain, and ice largely determine their 
fate (COSEWIC 2004, p. 54). Food shortages can have a significant 
effect on caribou populations in these ecosystems. In the winter of 
1973-1974, both subspecies experienced a population crash--freezing 
rain created sheets of ice, forming a barrier that covered the 
caribou's food sources and subsequently caused mass starvation (Miller 
et al. 1977a in Miller and Gunn 2003, p. 2). Their nutrition is closely 
related to plant phenology (timing of plant blooming based on daylight 
and temperature). Seasonal feeding is critical for various life stages 
such as lactation and growth during the spring, increasing fat reserves 
during the summer, and simply surviving during the winter. Caribou 
generally migrate great distances in search of food; some herds travel 
significantly greater distances than others. The distance traveled 
likely depends on food availability (COSEWIC 2004, pp. 29-30). Caribou 
forage by pushing snow off the vegetation with their noses, but when 
snowpack is deeper, they will dig small craters in the snow to reach 
the vegetation (COSEWIC 2004, p. 35).

Peary Caribou

Description

    With an average total body length of 1.7 meters (m) (5.6 feet 
(ft)), the Peary caribou is relatively small and short when compared to 
other caribou species (COSEWIC 2004, pp. 9-10).

Distribution and Population

    Peary caribou are endemic to the Queen Elizabeth Islands in 
northeastern Canada, in the provinces of Nunavut and the Northwest 
Territories. They exist in the Canadian Arctic Islands and coastal 
Greenland, but live mainly on the islands of the Canadian archipelago. 
The four populations of Peary caribou are generally delineated as 
follows: (1) Queen Elizabeth Islands, (2) Banks

[[Page 18703]]

Island and NW Victoria Island, (3) Prince of Wales and Somerset 
Islands, and (4) Boothia Peninsula (COSEWIC 2004, p. 19). This 
subspecies is rarely found on the mainland (COSEWIC 2004, pp. 13-14). 
Their habitat spans 800,000 km\2\ (308,882 mi \2\) between 20 Queen 
Elizabeth islands and the other 3 island groups listed above (COSEWIC 
2004, pp. vi, 19). Other than subsistence hunting when allowed, the 
Peary subspecies is generally not directly affected by human activities 
due to the remoteness of their habitat (COSEWIC 2004, p. 50).
    The historical population and population trends are difficult to 
estimate due to differences in survey methodology, the remoteness of 
their island habitat, and the movements of Peary caribou between 
islands, and the taxonomic uncertainty prior to 2004. An assessment 
completed in 1991 indicated that between 1961 and 1987 the population 
of Peary caribou likely decreased by 86 percent (Miller 1991). COSEWIC 
further estimates that in the last 40 years, Peary caribou have 
declined 84 percent (COSEWIC 2004, pp. 36-37). In 2004, the total 
population estimate for Peary caribou was 7,890 individuals, including 
calves (COSEWIC 2004, p. 62). Although population estimates for the 
Peary caribou have been typically unreliable, in part due to the 
remoteness of the species, the 2004 estimate is believed to be fairly 
accurate.

Habitat Characteristics

    Peary caribou migrate between the various islands based on 
availability of vegetation, and may recolonize islands that were 
abandoned in previous years (Ferguson and Messier 2000, p. 173). They 
have been documented migrating up to 450 km (280 mi) between islands in 
search of food and calving grounds (COSEWIC 2004, pp. 19, 30). Peary 
caribou migrate from northwestern Victoria Island to the Minto Inlet 
area (Gunn and Fournier 2000, pp. 15-57). However, some caribou remain 
faithful to one particular island despite the absence of food sources 
(Miller 2002 in COSEWIC 2004, p. 30). It is unclear why some caribou 
migrate and others do not, but the majority of caribou engage in some 
degree of migration.

Conservation Status

    As of 2004, the Peary caribou is assessed as ``endangered'' by the 
Canadian Government (COSEWIC 2004, p. 19). Neither subspecies addressed 
in this finding is listed on any appendices of the Convention on 
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 
(CITES). Caribou are protected by land claim agreements within Canada, 
and hunts are managed by regulatory entities such as the Nunavut 
Wildlife Management Board (NWMB) and hunting and trapping associations 
(COSEWIC 2004, p. 61). Native tribes who hunt caribou for subsistence 
have voluntarily placed moratoriums on hunts in the past; as of 2004, a 
moratorium was still in place. Peary caribou have been assessed as 
endangered since 1996 by the International Union for Conservation of 
Nature (IUCN).

Dolphin and Union Caribou

Description

    The Dolphin and Union caribou is generally larger than Peary 
caribou but smaller than the mainland population of barren-ground 
caribou (R. t. groenlandicus). The pelage (coloring) of Dolphin and 
Union caribou is slightly darker than Peary caribou and their antler 
velvet is grey (like the Peary caribou) but is distinct from mainland 
barren-ground caribou, which do not have grey antler velvet.

Distribution and Population

    The Dolphin and Union caribou primarily reside on the southern part 
of Victoria Island and its range does not overlap with Peary caribou. 
Seasonally, they cross the frozen ice of the Dolphin and Union Strait 
to winter on the mainland. Their range consists of the lower part of 
Victoria Island (excluding northwestern Victoria Island), and is 
estimated to be 195,417 km\2\ (75,451 mi \2\) and Stefansson Island 
(4,463 km\2\ (1723 mi \2\)).
    A 1922 estimate (Anderson, cited in COSEWIC 2004, p. 41) indicated 
that between 100,000 and 200,000 caribou migrated across the Dolphin 
and Union Strait to Victoria Island. Using other caribou population 
densities as a proxy, Manning (1960), indicated that 100,000 was likely 
a more realistic estimate. In 1973, both subspecies experienced a 
population crash due to freezing rain and sheets of ice (Miller et al. 
1977). In 1980, a survey by Jackimchuck and Carruthers indicated that 
there were approximately 3,400 Dolphin and Union caribou on Victoria 
Island (COSEWIC 2004, p. 41). Gunn et al. (2000, p. 43) estimated the 
southern Victoria Island population to be 14,600 caribou in 1994 and 
27,800 caribou in 1997. This herd does not appear to have been surveyed 
since then. The 2004 COSEWIC report indicates the population is 
estimated to be approximately 25,000 and the population appears to be 
stable or increasing (pp. viii and 15).

Conservation Status

    As of 2004, the Dolphin and Union caribou is assessed as ``Special 
Concern'' (COSEWIC 2004, p. 19) by the Canadian Government. It is not 
listed on any CITES appendices. Hunts are managed by boards such as the 
NWMB, the Canadian Department of Environment, and hunting associations 
(COSEWIC 2004, p. 61). Indigenous tribes who hunt caribou for 
subsistence have voluntarily placed moratoriums on hunts in the past. 
IUCN in 2008 listed R. tarandus at the species level, as least concern. 
The IUCN criteria are designed for global taxon assessments (IUCN 2003, 
p. 1). Before assessments of taxa below the species level (subspecies, 
variety or subpopulation) can be included on the IUCN Red List, an 
assessment of the full species is required. No assessment has been made 
of this subspecies by the IUCN.

Evaluation of Information for This Finding

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species 
to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an 
endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors 
described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence.
    Following is a threats assessment in which we evaluate whether any 
of these factors threaten or endanger these two subspecies. This 
evaluation is specific to each subspecies unless specified that the 
evaluation is for both subspecies. In making this 90-day finding, we 
evaluated whether information regarding threats to both the Peary and 
Dolphin and Union subspecies, as presented in the petition and based on 
other information available in our files, is substantial, thereby 
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Our evaluation 
of this information is presented below.

[[Page 18704]]

Peary Caribou

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of the Peary Caribou's Habitat or Range

    The petitioner asserts that global climate change due to global 
warming presents the largest threat to the Peary caribou's habitat in 
that previously frozen water surrounding the Queen Elizabeth Islands 
will become navigable to large ships associated with shipping and oil 
exploration and these ships will threaten caribou movement. In this 
finding, we will evaluate climate change threats under Factor E. Other 
Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued Existence. 
Climate change was the only stressor asserted as having an effect on 
this subspecies under Factor A by the petitioner. Although we 
determined that the petition does not present substantial information 
indicating that listing the Peary caribou as endangered or threatened 
may be warranted under factor A, we intend to assess the present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the Peary 
caribou's habitat or range more thoroughly during the status review.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    The petitioner does not indicate that overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific or educational purposes is 
currently contributing to the decline of the Peary caribou. Nor do we 
have other data in our files that this factor is a threat to the Peary 
caribou. Therefore, we determine that the petition does not present 
substantial information that the petitioned action may be warranted due 
to overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes.

C. Disease or Predation

    The petitioner acknowledged that disease is not thought to be a 
significant factor affecting either subspecies of caribou addressed in 
this finding. We concur with the petitioner that, based on the 
information provided with the petition and information available in our 
files, disease is not currently a threat to either subspecies.
    The petitioner asserted that if climate change caused significant 
increases in snowfall, caribou could be more susceptible to attacks by 
wolves. We acknowledge that caribou are preyed upon by various 
predators such as wolves. However, information presented in the 
petition and available in our files does not indicate that the effect 
of increased predation by predators would increase such that it rises 
to the level of a threat to either subspecies (Miller 1998, in COSEWIC 
2004, p. 50; Gunn 2005, pp. 10-11, 39-41). Therefore, we determined 
that the petition does not present substantial information that the 
petitioned action may be warranted due to disease or predation. 
However, all factors, including threats from disease or predation, will 
be evaluated when we conduct our status review.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The petitioner asserts that the regulatory mechanisms with respect 
to climate change are inadequate to protect both the Peary caribou and 
the Dolphin and Union caribou. Because this factor is applicable to 
both subspecies, this evaluation under Factor D applies to both 
subspecies in this finding. The petitioner indicates that the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms with respect to global 
climate change is the gravest threat to the long-term survival of these 
two subspecies. The petitioner discussed the ineffectiveness of various 
regulatory mechanisms associated with climate change such as the United 
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto 
Protocol, and United States climate initiatives.
    Currently, there are no regulatory mechanisms in place that 
effectively address climate change and associated changes in habitat or 
sea-ice or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. International efforts to 
address climate change began with the UNFCCC, which was adopted in May 
1992. The UNFCCC's objective is stabilization of GHG concentrations in 
the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic 
interference with the climate system, but it does not impose any 
mandatory and enforceable restrictions on GHG emissions. The Kyoto 
Protocol became the first agreement to set GHG emissions targets for 
signatory counties, but the targets are not mandated. Current 
international efforts to regulate GHG emissions are focused on 
emissions targets, monitoring requirements, and voluntary actions. None 
of these mechanisms establish mandatory requirements limiting the 
amount of GHG that may be emitted. For several decades, the surface air 
temperatures in the Arctic have warmed at approximately twice the 
global rate (Christensen et al. 2007, p. 904). The observed and 
projected effects of climate change are most extreme during summer in 
northern high-latitude regions, in large part due to the ice-albedo 
(reflective property) feedback mechanism, in which melting of snow and 
sea ice lowers surface reflectivity, thereby further increasing surface 
warming from absorption of solar radiation.
    The petitioner provided information with the petition that states 
that climate change may result in irregular winter events such as 
freezing rain or heavy snow accumulation, which may not allow caribou 
access to vegetation (COSEWIC 2004, pp. 51-52). Both subspecies of 
caribou forage by pushing snow away from vegetation and by breaking 
through hard-packed snow to reach vegetation. If these conditions 
occur, both species could suffer widespread starvation (Miller and 
Gunn, 2003, p. 6). Energetic costs will increase if they have to travel 
greater distances to locate food. Over time, poor body condition could 
lead to lower reproductive rates, greater susceptibility to disease or 
predation, and possibly higher mortality rates. Currently, there are no 
regulatory mechanisms in place that effectively address a warming 
climate and its consequences for both subspecies of caribou addressed 
in this finding due to associated changes in habitat. Accordingly, we 
conclude that there is substantial information presented in the 
petition or readily available in our files to indicate that regulatory 
mechanisms in place may be inadequate to effectively address changes in 
habitat or sea-ice habitat relied upon by these two subspecies of 
caribou. We find that the information provided presents substantial 
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for 
both subspecies due to increased snowfall events and freezing rain 
based on the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. We will 
evaluate this factor further for each subspecies during the status 
review.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Subspecies' Continued 
Existence

    The petitioner states that global warming due to global climate 
change presents the largest threat to both subspecies of caribou. The 
petitioner asserts that the Arctic is warming more rapidly than other 
areas on the globe. If warming occurs, there may be less sea ice 
available for crossing from one island to another in search of 
vegetation (COSEWIC 2004, pp. 54-55; Atkinson et al. 2006, pp. 350, 
355, 357). The petitioner asserts that climate change will cause Peary 
caribou to use more energy in search of food by migrating farther. Some 
of the information provided with the petition supports these assertions 
(Thomas 1982, pp. 597-

[[Page 18705]]

602; Struzik 1998, pp. 38-44). Both subspecies of caribou forage by 
pushing snow away from vegetation and by breaking through hard-packed 
snow to reach vegetation. The petitioner provided information with the 
petition that states that climate change may result in irregular winter 
events such as freezing rain or heavy snow accumulation, which may not 
allow caribou access to vegetation (COSEWIC 2004, pp. 51-52). If these 
conditions occur, both species could suffer widespread starvation 
(Miller and Gunn, 2003, p. 6). This type of starvation has been the 
primary cause of decline in the past. The extreme mortality events--
between 1973 and 1974 and between 1994 and 1997--coincided with 
extremely heavy snowfall, deep snow packs, and heavy icing in those 
same years (Miller and Gunn 2003, pp. 5-6). After reviewing the 
information provided in the petition and available in our files, we 
find that the information provided presents substantial information 
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for both 
subspecies due to increased snowfall events and freezing rain.
    Low genetic diversity was an issue raised by the petitioner as a 
stressor on the subspecies. We will further evaluate this during the 
status review.

Dolphin and Union Caribou

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of the Dolphin and Union Caribou's Habitat or Range

    The petitioner states that the waters of the Dolphin and Union 
Strait will become navigable to large ships in the near future based on 
decreased sea ice due to global warming, and that these ships will 
disrupt caribou movement. The petitioner suggested that shipping 
traffic has, in the past, interrupted the migration of the Dolphin and 
Union caribou. Other than expression of concern, the supporting 
information did not indicate that this increase in shipping traffic has 
had a negative impact on the subspecies (COSEWIC 2004, pp. 46-47). The 
petitioner also suggests that caribou will be adversely affected by the 
increasing development associated with shipping and oil exploration. 
Although oil development and increased shipping may occur, there is no 
evidence that it will have a significant effect on caribou. After 
reviewing the information provided in the petition and available in our 
files, it does not support the claim that oil exploration, and an 
increase in shipping, development, and related human activity will 
affect the Dolphin and Union caribou's habitat.
    The petitioner provides no other information addressing Factor A, 
and we have no information in our files indicating that listing the 
subspecies due to the present or threatened destruction, modification, 
or curtailment of the Dolphin and Union caribou's habitat or range may 
be warranted. Therefore, we find that the petition does not present 
substantial information to indicate that the petitioned action may be 
warranted based on the present or threatened destruction, modification, 
or curtailment of its habitat or range.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    The petitioner identifies hunting of the Dolphin and Union caribou 
as a possible factor in the decline of this subspecies. The petition 
reports that this subspecies is hunted by the Inuit for subsistence, 
and it is also hunted commercially along the mainland on the north 
coast bordering the Dolphin and Union Strait. Various management units 
such as the NWMB, the Wildlife Management Advisory Council for the 
Inuvialuit Settlement Region in the Northwest Territories, the Canadian 
Department of Environment, and the Inuit and Inuvialuit tribes play a 
role in the regulation of hunting of the various caribou populations at 
the larger scale. At more local scales, committees and trapper 
associations are involved in monitoring caribou. Hunting has not been 
implicated as a causative factor in any of the major caribou die-offs. 
The hunting of this subspecies appears to be sufficiently managed by 
the local hunting boards, the local indigenous peoples of Canada such 
as the Inuit and Inuvialuit, who are allowed to hunt caribou for 
subsistence. Based on the information available in the petition and in 
our files, hunting does not appear to be causing a decline in the 
Dolphin and Union caribou.
    The petitioner did not indicate any other threats under this 
factor. After reviewing the information provided in the petition and 
available in our files, we find that the information provided does not 
present substantial information indicating that the petitioned action 
may be warranted due to overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes.

C. Disease or Predation

    Refer to the discussion under Factor C above for Peary caribou for 
additional information. Based on the information provided in the 
petition and available in our files, we find that the petition does not 
present substantial information indicating that listing the Dolphin and 
Union caribou as endangered or threatened may be warranted due to 
disease or predation.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Refer to the discussion under Factor D above for Peary caribou for 
additional information. After reviewing the information provided in the 
petition and available in our files, we find that the information 
provided presents substantial information indicating that listing the 
Dolphin and Union caribou as endangered or threatened may be warranted 
due to the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued Existence 
of Dolphin and Union Caribou

    The petitioner states that global climate change presents the 
greatest threat to the Dolphin and Union caribou's habitat. We 
currently do not know the extent of the subspecies' capacity to adapt 
to potential changes in its habitat resulting from climate change. 
However, there is an upward trend in temperature which may decrease sea 
ice in the Dolphin and Union Strait (refer to discussion above). This 
subspecies crosses the sea ice in the Strait seasonally, and this 
decrease in sea ice may affect the species' migration patterns and 
availability to access food sources. Seasonally, herds congregate at 
the edge of the Strait while waiting for the ice to form. Energetic 
costs will increase if they have to travel greater distances to locate 
food sources, and foraging efficiency is reduced. Over time, poor body 
condition could lead to lower reproductive rates, greater 
susceptibility to disease or predation, and ultimately higher mortality 
rates. The loss of seasonal ice across the Dolphin and Union Strait 
could reduce access to traditional foraging areas and it may increase 
competition among individuals for food resources in areas close to 
staging grounds. After reviewing the information provided in the 
petition and available in our files, we find that the information 
provided presents substantial information indicating that the 
petitioned action may be warranted due to changes in sea ice (also 
refer to the discussion under Factor E above for Peary caribou). We 
intend to investigate the effects of climate change, particularly the 
changes in sea ice, on the Dolphin and Union caribou during the status 
review.

[[Page 18706]]

Finding

    On the basis of our evaluation under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, 
we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating that listing both the Peary and Dolphin and 
Union caribou as endangered or threatened may be warranted. This 
finding is based on information evaluated under factors D and E for 
both subspecies. Because we have found that the petition presents 
substantial information indicating that listing these two subspecies 
may be warranted, we are initiating a status review to determine 
whether listing these two subspecies of caribou as endangered or 
threatened under the Act is warranted.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at 
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