Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48619 

PART 517—SPECIAL CONTRACTING 

METHODS 

■ 2. Amend section 517.207 by revising 

the introductory text and paragraph (a) 

to read as follows: 

517.207 Exercise of options. 

In addition to the requirements of 

FAR 17.207, the contracting officer 

shall: 

(a) Document the contract file with 

the rationale for exercising the contract 

option to extend the period of 

performance if the contractor’s 

performance under the contract is less 

than satisfactory. 

* * * * * 

PART 538—FEDERAL SUPPLY 

SCHEDULE CONTRACTING 

■ 3. Revise section 538.270 heading to 

read as follows: 

538.270 Solicitation, evaluation, and award 

of Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) 

contracts. 

■ 4. Amend section 538.273 by adding 

paragraphs (d)(36) and (e) to read as 

follows: 

538.273 FSS solicitation provisions and 

contract clauses. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(36) 552.238–116, Option to Extend 

the Term of the FSS Contract. Use in all 

FSS solicitations and contracts. 

(e) Insert the following fill-in 

information within the blank of 

paragraph (d) of FAR clause 52.216–22, 

Indefinite Quantity: ‘‘the completion of 

customer order, including options, 60 

months following the expiration of the 

FSS contract ordering period’’. 

PART 552—SOLICITATION 

PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT 

CLAUSES 

■ 5. Add section 552.238–116 to read as 

follows: 

552.238–116 Option to Extend the Term of 

the FSS Contract. 

As prescribed in 538.273(d)(36), insert 

the following clause: 

Option To Extend the Term of the FSS 

Contract (Date) 

(a) The Government may require continued 

performance of this contract for an additional 

5 year period. This option may be exercised 

up to three times. 

(b) The Contracting Officer may exercise 

the option by providing written notice to the 

Contractor 30 days before the contract 

expires. 

(End of clause) 

[FR Doc. 2021–18517 Filed 8–30–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–61–P 

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; Threatened Status With 

Section 4(d) Rule for the Dolphin and 

Union Caribou and 12-Month Finding 

for the Peary Caribou 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, announce a 12-month 

finding on a petition to list the Peary 

caribou (Rangifer tarandus pearyi) (a 

caribou subspecies) and the Dolphin 

and Union caribou (Rangifer tarandus 

groenlandicus x peary) as endangered or 

threatened subspecies under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). Both Peary caribou and 

Dolphin and Union caribou are native 

only to Canada. After a review of the 

best available scientific and commercial 

information, we find that it is not 

warranted at this time to add the Peary 

caribou to the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife. We find that 

listing the Dolphin and Union caribou 

as a Distinct Population Segment (DPS) 

of the barren-ground caribou subspecies 

(Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus) is 

warranted. Accordingly, we propose to 

list this DPS with a rule issued under 

section 4(d) of the Act (‘‘4(d) rule’’). To 

ensure that subsequent rulemaking 

resulting from this proposed rule is as 

accurate and effective as possible, we 

are soliciting information from the 

public, other governmental agencies, the 

Government of Canada and its 

provincial governments, the scientific 

community, industry, and any other 

interested parties. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

November 1, 2021. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, 

below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on the closing date. We 

must receive requests for public 

hearings, in writing, at the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by October 15, 2021 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter the docket number or RIN for this 

rulemaking (presented above in the 

document headings). For best results, do 

not copy and paste either number; 

instead, type the docket number or RIN 

into the Search box using hyphens. 

Then, click on the Search button. On the 

resulting page, in the panel on the left 

side of the screen, under the Document 

Type heading, check the Proposed Rule 

box to locate this document. You may 

submit a comment by clicking on 

‘‘Comment.’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 

FWS–HQ–ES–2019–0014; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; MS: JAO/3W; 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on http://

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see Public 

Comments, below, for more 

information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Maclin, 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– 

2646. If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf, call the Federal 

Relay Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (‘‘Act,’’ 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 

if we determine that a species warrants 

listing as an endangered or threatened 

species, we are required to promptly 

publish a proposal in the Federal 

Register and make a determination on 

our proposal within 1 year. 

What this document does. We find 

that listing the Peary caribou subspecies 

is not warranted, and we propose to list 

the Dolphin and Union caribou DPS as 

a threatened species with a rule under 

section 4(d) of the Act. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48620 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

existence. We have determined that the 

Peary caribou is not 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 DPS is likely to become 

endangered in the foreseeable future 

throughout all of its range, meeting the 

definition of a threatened species. 

Both caribou subspecies exist in harsh 

environments to which they have 

adapted over millennia. These harsh 

environmental conditions combined 

with the fact that they live on islands 

from which they make seasonal 

migrations across sea ice in order to find 

adequate nutrition combine to exert 

pressure on both the Peary caribou 

subspecies and Dolphin and Union 

caribou DPS. The major threats that 

impacted both the Peary caribou and 

Dolphin and Union caribou are the 

cumulative effects of climate change 

and other changes brought about by 

climate change. While these two 

subspecies face similar threats, the 

magnitude of threats they face is 

different between the two subspecies, 

including with respect to the following 

threats: 

• Long-term decline in sea ice; 

• Increase in icing events on land; 

• Hunting; 

• Outbreaks of parasites or disease; 

• Disturbance due to development, 

oil and gas exploration, and shipping; 

and 

• Increases in shipping traffic. 

The Peary caribou is found farther to 

the north of the Canadian Arctic while 

the Dolphin and Union caribou is 

located to the south. Certain activities, 

such as shipping and oil and gas 

exploration, are more concentrated in 

the southern portion of the Canadian 

Arctic, thus affecting the Dolphin and 

Union caribou more strongly than the 

Peary caribou. Furthermore, models of 

sea-ice loss projected that the decline in 

sea ice in the lower Canadian Arctic 

will occur earlier and faster than the 

high Arctic. The differences in degree of 

threats result in the population trends 

for these two subspecies moving in 

opposite directions. Although the Peary 

caribou has experienced wide 

fluctuation in its population, the 

subspecies has experienced an increase 

of about 150 percent within the past two 

decades (COSEWIC 2015, pp. 42–43). In 

contrast, after reaching a high in 1997, 

the Dolphin and Union caribou 

population has steadily declined. 

We are also proposing a section 4(d) 

rule. When we list a species as 

threatened, section 4(d) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1533(d)) allows us to issue 

regulations that are necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation of the species. 

Accordingly, we are proposing a 4(d) 

rule for the Dolphin and Union caribou 

that would, among other things, prohibit 

import, export, interstate or foreign 

commerce in the course of commercial 

activity, sale or offer for sale, or to 

attempt to engage in any such conduct. 

Exceptions are provided for import of 

personal sport-hunted trophies legally 

hunted in and exported from Canada. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities, 

including those described above, 

involving threatened wildlife under 

certain circumstances, such as for 

scientific purposes, or the enhancement 

of propagation or survival of the 

subspecies in the wild. 

Peer review. 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 Status Assessment that 

provides the biological basis for this 

proposed listing determination. 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://

www.fws.gov/endangered/improving_

ESA/peer_review_process.html. 

Because we will consider all 

comments and information received 

during the comment period, our final 

determination may differ from this 

proposal. After considering comments 

and information we receive, we may 

conclude that the species is endangered 

instead of threatened, or we may 

conclude that the species does not 

warrant listing as either an endangered 

species or a threatened species. Such 

final decisions would be a logical 

outgrowth of this proposal, as long as 

we: (1) Base the decisions on the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

after considering all of the relevant 

factors; (2) do not rely on factors 

Congress has not intended us to 

consider; and (3) articulate a rational 

connection between the facts found and 

the conclusions made, including why 

we changed our conclusion. 

Information Requested 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule will be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

information from other concerned 

governmental agencies, including 

Canadian national and provincial 

governments, local indigenous people of 

Canada, the scientific community, 

industry, and any other interested 

parties concerning this proposed rule. 

We particularly seek comments 

concerning: 

(1) The species’ biology, range, and 

population trends, including: 

(a) Biological or ecological 

requirements of the species, including 

habitat requirements for feeding, 

breeding, and sheltering; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy of the two 

caribou entities; specifically, any 

genetic information that would help 

inform the taxonomic status of the 

Dolphin and Union caribou; 

(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; and 

(e) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for these species and/or their 

habitat. 

(2) Factors that may affect the 

continued existence of the species, 

which may include habitat destruction, 

modification, or curtailment, 

overutilization, disease, predation, the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms, or other natural or 

manmade factors. 

(3) Biological, commercial, trade, or 

other relevant data concerning any 

threats (or lack thereof) to this species 

and existing regulations that may be 

addressing those threats. 

(4) Additional information concerning 

the historical and current status, range, 

distribution, and population size of this 

species, including the locations of any 

additional populations of this species. 

(5) Information on regulations that are 

necessary and advisable to provide for 

the conservation of the Dolphin and 

Union caribou and that the Service can 

consider in developing a 4(d) rule for 

the species, particularly, information 

concerning the extent to which the 4(d) 

rule should prohibit any act prohibited 

by section 9(a)(1) or whether any 

exceptions should be provided from the 

prohibitions in the 4(d) rule. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support for, or opposition to, the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, will not be considered 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48621 

in making a determination, as section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 

determinations as to whether any 

species is an endangered or a threatened 

species must be made ‘‘solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available.’’ 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. We request that you send 

comments only by the methods 

described in ADDRESSES. 

If you submit information via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy submissions 

on http://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on http://www.regulations.gov. 

Public Hearing 

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for 

one or more public hearings on this 

proposal, if requested. Requests must be 

received by the date listed above in 

DATES. Such requests must be sent to the 

address shown in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. If requested, we 

will schedule any such public hearings, 

and announce the dates, times, and 

places of those hearings, as well as how 

to obtain reasonable accommodations, 

in the Federal Register at least 15 days 

before the hearing. For the immediate 

future, we will provide these public 

hearings using webinars that will be 

announced on the Service’s website, in 

addition to the Federal Register. The 

use of these virtual public hearings is 

consistent with our regulation at 50 CFR 

424.16(c)(3). 

Previous Federal Actions 

On September 15, 2009, we received 

a petition dated the same day from the 

International Fund for Animal Welfare 

(hereafter referred to as petitioner) 

requesting that two subspecies of 

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 caribou (R. t. groenlandicus 

x pearyi). On April 5, 2011, we 

published a ‘‘positive’’ 90-day finding 

that the petition presented substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that listing both the Peary 

caribou subspecies and Dolphin and 

Union caribou subspecies as endangered 

or threatened may be warranted (76 FR 

18701), and we initiated a status review 

of these two subspecies. 

This document summarizes the status 

reviews for these two species under 

section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act and 

publishes our findings. The actual 

assessments of each species (also called 

a species report) are available at http:// 

www.regulations.gov in Docket No. 

FWS–HQ–ES–2019–0014. This 

document also includes the proposed 

rule to list the Dolphin and Union 

caribou Distinct Population Segment 

(DPS) of the barren-ground caribou 

subspecies as a threatened species with 

a 4(d) rule. 

Supporting Documents 

A species report was prepared for 

each species. The species reports 

represent compilations of the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

concerning the status of each species, 

including the impacts of past, present, 

and future factors (both negative and 

beneficial) affecting the species. The 

Service sent the species reports to five 

independent peer reviewers and 

received five responses. 

I. Proposed Listing Determination— 

Peary Caribou 

Background 

Description 

Peary caribou have relatively large, 

short hooves; square muzzles; short, 

rounded ears; and dense pale fur made 

of hollow hairs. Their fur is long and 

silky white in early winter and changes 

to a light brown/tan in the spring. In the 

summer, the coat is slate with a white 

stomach; legs are white with the flank 

having a pronounced frontal stripe. Both 

male and female caribou grow narrowly 

spreading antlers, although antlers may 

be absent in some females. Antler velvet 

is grey, and the antlers are bone-colored 

(COSEWIC 2004, pp. 9–10). Peary 

caribou have smaller bodies with 

shorter legs and faces when compared to 

the barren-ground caribou (Rangifer 

tarandus groenlandicus) on the North 

American mainland (COSEWIC 2015, p. 

5). 

Taxonomy 

All caribou and reindeer worldwide 

are considered to be the same species 

(Rangifer tarandus) in the Order 

Artiodactyla (even-toed ungulates) and 

Family Cervidae (deer) (Integrated 

Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) 

2013, unpaginated; Mountain Caribou 

Science Team 2005, p. 1; Smithsonian 

National Museum of Natural History 

2013, npn; COSEWIC 2011, p. 11). 

Although caribou and reindeer are 

referred to by different names based on 

geography and whether or not they are 

bred in captivity, they are able to 

interbreed and produce offspring 

(COSEWIC 2002, p. 9; Hummel and Ray, 

2008, p. 31). In Europe, the common 

name for Rangifer tarandus is reindeer. 

In North America, the common name for 

the species is caribou; only the 

individuals bred in captivity are called 

reindeer (Cichowski et al. 2004, p. 224). 

For consistency, the term caribou will 

be used to refer to the species Rangifer 

tarandus in this document. According 

to the American Society of 

Mammologists’ checklist of mammal 

species of the world and ITIS, 14 

subspecies of caribou are currently 

recognized worldwide, including the 

subspecies Peary caribou, Rangifer 

tarandus pearyi (ITIS 2017, 

unpaginated). 

Peary caribou were first 

taxonomically described in 1902. The 

first widely accepted classification 

below the species level of caribou, 

Rangifer tarandus, in North America 

was in 1961 (COSEWIC 2015, p. 5; 

COSEWIC 2011, pp. 11–12; Shackleton 

2010, p. 3; Banfield 1961, entire). 

Since the 1960s, much has been 

learned about caribou ecology, 

distribution, and genetics that has 

revealed substantial diversity within the 

initial 1961 subspecies classifications 

(Miller et al. 2007, p. 16). Many have 

proposed alternative classifications to 

account for variability within and 

among the various subspecies of 

caribou. Populations were described 

with terms such as ‘‘ecotypes’’ based on 

migration patterns and calving 

strategies, and adaptations to a certain 

set of environmental conditions 

(Bergerud 1996, entire, as cited in 

COSEWIC 2011, p. 13). This later 

classification has caused confusion 

because there is no universally accepted 

list of caribou ecotypes or criteria to 

distinguish them (COSEWIC 2011, pp. 

12–13). 

In 1979, an independent advisory 

committee of wildlife experts, 

Committee on the Status of Endangered 

Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), 

assessed the status of Peary caribou, 

Rangifer tarandus pearyi, and what is 

now known as the Dolphin and Union 

caribou as a single subspecies for 

purposes of Canada’s Species at Risk 

Act (SARA). Following the assessment, 

COSEWIC assigned the species a status 

of threatened under SARA. A threatened 

species under SARA is a wildlife 

species that is likely to become 

endangered if nothing is done to reverse 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48622 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

the factors leading to its extirpation or 

extinction (COSEWIC 2016, pp. 85–86). 

In 1991, this entity was split up and 

assessed as three separate populations: 

Banks Island (Endangered), High Arctic 

(Endangered), and Low Arctic 

(Threatened). In May 2004, these three 

populations were deactivated and 

combined into a single entity, the Peary 

caribou. The Peary caribou was then 

reassessed and given the status of 

endangered (COSEWIC 2016, p. 86). 

In 2011, COSEWIC prepared to 

conduct a reassessment of all caribou in 

Canada; as a result, they published a 

document detailing the ‘‘designatable 

units’’ (DU) of caribou, which were 

geographically based areas created for 

management purposes. Peary caribou 

populations are considered one of the 

DUs, and as such, a review of the 

current science on the species was 

conducted. In this report, COSEWIC 

recognized Peary caribou as a 

subspecies (R. t. pearyi) distinct from 

the barren-ground caribou (R. t. 

groenlandicus) and distinct from the 

Dolphin and Union caribou 

subpopulation. Additionally, the report 

states that Peary caribou have ‘‘no clear 

morphological differentiation within 

[the Peary populations] to support any 

subdivision’’ (Gunn 2009, as cited in 

COSEWIC 2011, p. 23). 

A new status report published in 2015 

confirmed Peary caribou status as a 

subspecies (COSEWIC 2015, p. 13). At 

this time, both the northern and 

southern Peary caribou populations are 

considered the same subspecies (Taylor 

et al. 2012, p. 36746; Jenkins et al. 2011, 

p. 27; McFarlane et al. 2014, as cited in 

COSEWIC 2015, p. 6). We accept the 

characterization of the Peary caribou as 

a subspecies based on genotypic and 

phenotypic evidence, and we consider 

all Peary caribou to be one subspecies 

distinct from the barren-ground caribou 

and distinct from the Dolphin and 

Union caribou (COSEWIC 2015, p. 13; 

Peterson et al. 2010, p. 698; COSEWIC 

2004, pp. 8, 11–17; McFarlane et al. 

2009, pp. 105, 120–126). 

Life History 

Peary caribou have an average 

lifespan of 13–15 years, similar to other 

types of caribou. Males typically reach 

breeding age at around 4 years and 

females (cows) between 2–3 years 

(COSEWIC 2004, p. 28). Approximately 

80 percent of females will calve 

annually; females will generally 

reproduce between the ages of 2 and 13 

years and males between 4 and 13 years 

(Gunn et al. 2000, as cited in COSEWIC 

2004, p. 28). The subspecies resides at 

a latitude that occurs at the edge of 

suitable areas for plant growth. This 

condition necessitates a mobile feeding 

strategy where the Peary caribou migrate 

from island to island to maximize forage 

(Miller and Barry 2009, pp. 179, 185). 

The annual rut (mating season of 

caribou) usually occurs in late autumn, 

and calving occurs in late spring with 

variation depending on the latitude and 

environmental conditions (COSEWIC 

2011, p. 11; Gates et al. 1986, pp. 216– 

221). Caribou cows are known to be 

loyal to their calving grounds 

(COSEWIC 2004, p. 30). In free-ranging 

caribou populations, the proportion of 

caribou averages 40 males to 60 females 

(Miller et al. 2007, p. 25). 

The fecundity (the reproductive rate 

of an organism) or calf production (the 

term often used in caribou research) and 

recruitment (when calves survive their 

first winter and become part of a 

population) of Peary caribou are highly 

dependent on the female’s physical 

condition, specifically on fat reserves 

(Cameron et al. 1992, p. 480). The 

nutritional condition of the female is 

dependent on the prevailing 

environmental conditions; as a result, 

there is high variability in annual 

pregnancy rate, calf production, and calf 

recruitment. Depending on the 

environmental factors and the physical 

conditions of females, pregnancy rates 

can vary from 0 percent to 100 percent. 

In severe winters, recruitment of calves 

can drop to 0 percent (COSEWIC 2004, 

p. 28). Under favorable conditions, 

roughly 50 percent of calves survive 

their first winter (Miller et al. 2007, p. 

25). 

Diet and Nutrition 

Peary caribou calving 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 surviving during the 

winter (COSEWIC 2004, pp. 28–35). 

Summer and winter forage varies based 

on availability, but Peary caribou prefer 

willow (Salix arctica), sedges (Carex 

species), purple saxifrage (Saxifraga 

oppositifolia), grasses and forbs, and 

lichens (COSEWIC 2004, p. 23). 

The diet of the Peary caribou varies 

depending on the season and 

availability of vegetation (Miller and 

Barry 2009, pp. 184–185; COSEWIC 

2004, p. 34). Generally, caribou acquire 

most of their dietary protein during the 

summer and consume higher energy 

plants in the winter when their energy 

demands are higher (Joly et al 2010, p. 

322). Additionally, willow has been 

found to be an important source of 

nutrition, especially in the summer, as 

caribou on a high willow diet seem to 

maintain a better reproductive condition 

(Parker 1978, as cited in COSEWIC 

2004, pp. 32–33). Lichens are generally 

understood to contribute a relatively 

low proportion (∼8 percent) of winter 

and summer diet, when compared to 

other caribou subspecies, for the Peary 

caribou on Bathurst, Melville, and 

Prince Patrick Islands (COSEWIC 2015, 

p. 22; Miller and Barry 2009, p. 184). 

While lichens provide easily digestible 

carbohydrates, they have fairly low 

protein content in comparison with the 

green foliage of vascular plants (Joly et 

al. 2010, p. 322; Chen et al. 2009a, pp. 

8–9). 

Under ideal conditions, caribou forage 

by pushing snow off vegetation with 

their noses, but when snowpack is 

deeper, they will dig small craters in the 

snow to reach the plants (COSEWIC 

2004, p. 35). However, snow conditions 

can limit the accessibility of the 

vegetation. Early winter snow, 

especially in combination with rain in 

late September or early October, can 

cause icing conditions, which may 

prevent caribou from accessing the 

vegetation (COSEWIC 2004, pp. 33–34). 

Snowfall within the range of the Peary 

caribou varies, and the amount of snow 

is determined by several variables, such 

as the terrain, wind speed and direction, 

and air and ground temperatures (Sturm 

2003, as cited in Maher 2012, p. 84). As 

a result, during the winter, caribou tend 

to forage in drier, more exposed areas, 

which have less snow or softer, less 

crusted snow. 

Range 

The Peary caribou is endemic to the 

Canadian Arctic Archipelago in 

northeastern Canada. The islands are 

located in the Territories of Nunavut 

and the Northwest Territories (NWT) in 

Canada in an ecozone described as the 

‘‘high arctic’’ 

The terrestrial range of Peary caribou 

is vast, with its size being roughly 

540,000 square kilometers (km2) 

(208,495 mi2) (Jenkins et al. 2011, p. 1). 

The subspecies’ range extends from 

Queen Elizabeth Islands (QEI) in the 

north, Banks Island in the west, 

Somerset Island in the east, and the 

Boothia Peninsula in the southeast 

(Jenkins et al. 2011, p. 1; see map 1). In 

Nunavut, the subspecies’ range includes 

approximately 25 large islands and 40 

small islands, the majority of which are 

uninhabited by humans (Jenkins et al. 

2011, p. 15). In the NWT, this 

subspecies occurs in an area consisting 

of over 237,022 km2 (91,514 mi2) 

(Governments of NWT and Nunavut 

2011, p. 6). The Queen Elizabeth 

Archipelago consists of 35 islands that 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48623 

are over 129 km2 (49.8 mi2) in size 

(Hummel et al. 2008, p. 216). 

Population Estimates and Migration 

Due to ambiguity in taxonomy, older 

population surveys from the early 20th 

century may not be accurate in terms of 

which subspecies was documented in 

various island populations. 

In Nunavut, a 2011 survey of Peary 

caribou reported the most current 

population estimates (Jenkins et al. 

2011, p. ii; Jenkins 2008, 17 pp.). In the 

NWT, an aerial survey of Peary caribou 

was conducted in 2012 (Davison and 

Williams 2016, p. 3). For detailed 

information about the most recent 

surveys of Peary caribou, we refer 

readers to both documents and our 

species report, which are available at 

www.regulations.gov, Docket number 

FWS–HQ–ES–2019–0014. In this 

finding, we summarize this information. 

Peary caribous occur in small groups 

consisting of three to five individuals; as 

a result, these caribou are referred to at 

the scale of ‘subpopulations’ or 

‘clusters’ as opposed to herds, as seen in 

barren-ground caribou (Davison 2017, 

pers. comm.; Jenkins et al. 2011, p. 11). 

The size of these clusters will vary 

depending on the season; 

subpopulations will increase slightly 

prior to calving, then stabilize or 

decrease during calving, and increase in 

the ‘‘post-calving aggregations’’ as they 

migrate inland from coastal areas 

(COSEWIC 2004, p. 35). Peary caribou 

populations are often described as 

‘‘island group’’ subpopulations as they 

are associated with a set of islands used 

regularly during their seasonal 

migrations (Jenkins et al. 2011, p. xiii; 

Gunn et al. 2011, pp. 41–44). That said, 

interbreeding between island groups 

does occur (Nagy 2011, p. 33). 

Island groups are organized based on 

factors such as physical location and 

proximity of islands, management, 

observations of local communities, 

scientific observations, tracking of 

caribou herd migrations, and to some 

degree, genetic analyses. In 2015, 

COSEWIC divided the subspecies into 

four island groups (COSEWIC 2015, p. 

8). For the purposes of this status 

review, we used the latest COSEWIC 

review to provide a map representing 

four island-complex regions (COSEWIC 

2015, p. 8; Jenkins et al. 2011, p. 13; 

COSEWIC 2004, p. 12). See map, below. 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48624 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 

As noted above, the island 

populations are not reproductively 

isolated from each other; caribou travel 

hundreds of kilometers and can move 

among the Arctic Islands due to the sea 

ice that persists for almost 10 months of 

the year (COSEWIC 2015, p. 12; 

COSEWIC 2011, p. 23; McFarlane et al. 

2003, pp. 128–129). Thus, while we 

discuss these four island groups of 

Peary caribou, uncertainty regarding the 

genetic distribution and movement of 

these subpopulations remains 

(COSEWIC 2015, pp. 25–26; SARC 2012, 

pp. 20, 29). 

As of 2018, the estimated populations 

are presented in table 1, below. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALSEP31AU21.000</GPH>

Map 1: Pe,ary Caribou 

Island Complex,es 

Island Groups: 

l_ Banb Island-NWVictoria 

2. Prince ofWales-Somerset-Boothia Complex 

3. We.stem Queen Elizabeth Island 

4. Eastem Queen Elizabeth Island 

N +

' 

' 

Figure 1-Map of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago where the Peary caribou exist. (Source: 

Adapted from COSEWIC 2015, p. 9 and Jenkins et al. 2011, p. 13.) 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48625 

TABLE 1—ESTIMATES OF PEARY CARIBOU POPULATIONS IN 2018 BASED ON AERIAL SURVEYS

[Adapted from Jenkins et al. 2011, pp. 117–151,1 Davison and Williams 2013, pp. 1–2,2 COSEWIC 2015, pp. 33–34,3 Anderson 2016, pp. iii, 

14–19 4.] 

Island complex Islands Estimated 

population 

Year 

surveyed Territory 

Banks Island—NW Victoria ........................ Banks Island 3 .................

NW Victoria 3 ..................

2,248 

4 

2014 

2015 

Northwest Territories. 

Northwest Territories. 

Melville Island 3 ............... 2,740 2012 Northwest Territories/Nunavut. 

Prince Patrick 3 ............... 2,746 2012 Northwest Territories. 

Western Queen Elizabeth Islands .............. Eglington Island 2 ............

Byam Martin 3 .................

181 

121 

2012 

2012 

Northwest Territories. 

Nunavut. 

Emerald Islands 2 ........... 45 2012 Northwest Territories. 

McKenzie-King 3 ............. 36 1997 Northwest Territories/Nunavut. 

Bordon Island 3 ............... 16 1973 Northwest Territories/Nunavut. 

Brock Island 3 ................. 0 1997 Northwest Territories. 

Bathurst Island 3 ............. 1,463 2013 Nunavut. 

Cornwallis Island 1 .......... ∼1 2013 Nunavut. 

Ringnes Island 1 ............. 282 2007 Nunavut. 

Lougheed Island 3 ........... 103 2007 Nunavut. 

Devon Islands 4 .............. 69 2008 Nunavut. 

Eastern Queen Elizabeth Islands ............... Axel Heiberg Islands 3 ....

Ellesmere Islands 3 .........

2,255 

918 

2007 

2015 

Nunavut. 

Nunavut. 

Prince of Wales-Somerset-Boothia Peninsula Island Complex.Prince of Wales 3 ............

Somerset 3 ......................

Boothia Peninsula 3 ........

1 

4 

1 

2004 

2005 

2006 

Nunavut. 

Nunavut. 

Nunavut. 

Total estimated population in 2018: 13,234 

Population Trends 

The trend in population estimates 

since the 1960s demonstrates that Peary 

caribou populations have generally 

decreased with a partial recovery in the 

populations from 2010 through 2015 

(COSEWIC 2015, pp. 32–43; Gunn et al. 

2010, pp. 40–44). In 1961, the first 

comprehensive survey of Peary caribou 

across the Queen Elizabeth Islands was 

completed (Tener 1963, as cited in 

Jenkins et al. 2011, p. 2). Surveys in 

1961 estimated the population to be 

approximately 26,000 Peary caribou on 

Queen Elizabeth Islands and 

approximately 22,000 Peary caribou on 

the larger southern islands and the 

Boothia Peninsula (Gunn et al. 2011 p. 

40). However, the survey was not 

comprehensive, nor was it quantitative 

(Miller et al 2005, pp. 65–66). The 1961 

survey data were later reanalyzed, and 

the results were published in 2005. The 

new analysis determined the population 

estimate in 1961 for Peary caribou to be 

28,288 with a range of 20,436–37,031 at 

a 95 percent confidence interval (Miller 

et al. 2005, p. 65). 

While different methods and 

taxonomic changes affected the 

reliability of older surveys, recent 

surveys using consistent survey 

methods have provided additional 

clarity on the status of the subspecies. 

Between 1961 and 1973, an 83 percent 

reduction in the Peary caribou 

population is estimated to have 

occurred. Recent numbers are ∼80 

percent lower than the historical high 

population numbers seen 40–50 years 

ago (SARC 2012, p. xvi; Gunn et al. 

2011, pp. 37, 40). The declines were 

attributed to deep snow layers and 

icing, which likely caused widespread 

mortality and resulted in little or no 

reproductive success (Miller et al. 1975; 

entire). However, stochastic, periodic 

die-off followed by a population 

rebound is a characteristic of the Peary 

caribou ecology (COSEWIC 2015, p. 32). 

Overall, the trend data suggest some 

populations have experienced 

significant declines while others have 

recovered. On Banks Island, the 

subpopulation declined from 1982 to 

1992 but stabilized at low levels from 

1992 through 2010. The population on 

Banks Island was estimated to be 2,351 

in 1959, and declined to as low as 451 

in 1998, before recovering to 1,142 in 

2001, and 2,234 in 2014 (COSEWIC 

2015, p. 35). While the subpopulation 

on Banks Island appears to have 

stabilized, the subpopulation on 

Victoria Island has suffered almost a 100 

percent decline. The Peary caribou 

subpopulation on Victoria Island 

declined from 4,512 caribou in 1980 to 

159 in 1993. Potential reasons for the 

decline include hunting and disease. A 

survey in 2015 recorded only two 

individuals (COSEWIC 2015, p. 36). 

Similar to the conditions on Victoria 

Island, the Prince of Wales-SomersetBoothia Island complex appears to have 

also suffered a total decline. The 

subpopulation of this island group 

reached a maximum number of 10,000 

individuals between 1980 and 1985 

before plummeting to a handful of 

individuals in the early 2000s 

(COSEWIC 2015, p. 36). The cause for 

this decline remains unknown, although 

a number of possible reasons such as 

extreme weather, wolf predation, 

hunting, disease, and competition with 

muskoxen were suggested (COSEWIC 

2015, p. 37). 

In contrast to the subpopulation on 

Victoria Island and the Prince of WalesSomerset-Boothia Island complex, the 

Peary caribou subpopulation on 

Western Queen Elizabeth Island has 

stabilized and is increasing. While the 

subpopulation experienced two 

catastrophic die-offs (declines ranging 

from 72 percent to 92 percent) from 

weather extremes in 1974–1975 and 

1996–1997, it appears to have 

recovered. In 2012–2013, the population 

was an estimated 7,300 adults, an 

increase from the 1986–1988 survey 

population of 2,500 individuals (which 

includes calves) (COSEWIC 2015, p. 38; 

Jenkins et al. 2011, p. 120). 

Due to its location in the far northern 

part of the Peary caribou’s range, partial 

surveys of the Eastern Queen Elizabeth 

Island group have been conducted over 

the years. A complete survey of the 

island group was not completed until 

2007; that survey yielded 2,291 caribou 

(COSEWIC 2015, pp. 41–42). Recent 

surveys suggest the population is 

increasing. However, this higher 

number could simply be the result of 

the larger area covered by the more 

recently conducted surveys (COSEWIC 

2015, p. 42) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48626 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

As of 2015, the number of Peary 

caribou was estimated to be 

approximately 13,700 in Canada 

(COSEWIC 2015, p. 42). While some 

island groups have experienced a 

significant decline, others are more 

stable or increasing. One subpopulation 

(Prince of Wales-Somerset-Boothia 

island complex) had fewer than 10 

individuals at the last count in 2005, 

with no evidence of any recovery. 

However, despite experiencing declines 

in the 2000s, the Banks Island 

population has returned to its 1959 

numbers. The WQEI subpopulation, 

which now accounts for almost half of 

the extant population, has recovered 

from a catastrophic die-off in the 1990s 

and experienced increases for the 15- 

year period between 1997 and 2012. 

Overall, while the Peary caribou 

experienced population declines in the 

1990s due to icing events and other 

factors, the subspecies has since 

experienced an increase of about 150 

percent within the past two decades 

(COSEWIC 2015, pp. 42–43). 

Conservation Status of the Peary 

Caribou 

The Peary caribou subspecies was 

listed as endangered under Canada’s 

Federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) in 

February 2011, due to a decline in its 

population size, and due to expected 

changes in long-term weather patterns 

(Giroux et al. 2012, p. 4; COSEWIC 

2004, pp. 36–41, 51–58). Under SARA, 

an ‘‘endangered species’’ is defined as a 

species facing imminent extirpation or 

extinction (Statue of Canada (SC) 2002, 

c. 29). SARA makes it an offense to kill, 

harm, harass, capture, or take an 

individual of a listed species that is 

endangered, threatened, or extirpated; 

possess, collect, buy, sell, or trade an 

individual of a listed species that is 

extirpated, endangered, or threatened— 

or its part or derivative; or damage or 

destroy the residence of one or more 

individuals of a listed endangered or 

threatened species (or of a listed 

extirpated species, if a recovery strategy 

has recommended a reintroduction site). 

Subsistence hunting by indigenous 

communities is generally exempt from 

prohibitions under SARA (COSEWIC 

2015, p. 52). Caribou are granted 

protections by various mechanisms in 

Canada such as land-claim agreements, 

and hunts are co-managed by boards 

such as the Nunavut Wildlife 

Management Board, the Wildlife 

Management Advisory Council in the 

Northwest Territory, and hunting and 

trapping associations (COSEWIC 2004, 

p. 61). Both a Federal recovery strategy 

and territorial management plan are 

currently being developed for this 

subspecies (Giroux et al. 2012, p. 4). 

Due to improvement in the subspecies 

condition, COSEWIC reassessed this 

subspecies as threatened in 2015 

(COSEWIC 2015, p. 56). This 

reassessment does not change the 

subspecies’ status under SARA, which 

requires an amendment to the SARA 

listing. The subspecies’ status is 

currently being reviewed under SARA 

based on the COSEWIC 2015 

reassessment (Carriere 2017, pers. 

comm.). 

Caribou are recognized at the species 

level as ‘‘vulnerable’’ by the 

International Union for Conservation of 

Nature (IUCN) (the Peary caribou 

subspecies is not addressed by the 

IUCN) (Gunn 2016, unpaginated). The 

IUCN identifies and documents those 

species considered to be most in need 

of conservation attention if global 

extinction rates are to be reduced and is 

recognized as an approach for 

evaluating the conservation status of 

plant and animal species; however, 

designations by the IUCN convey no 

actual protections. 

Regulatory Framework 

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 is an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘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 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 

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 foreseeable future as a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48627 

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’ likely responses to those 

threats in view of its life-history 

characteristics. Data that are typically 

relevant to assessing the species’ 

biological response include speciesspecific factors such as lifespan, 

reproductive rates or productivity, 

certain behaviors, and other 

demographic factors. 

Analytical Framework 

The species reports document the 

results of our comprehensive biological 

status review for the two subspecies, 

including an assessment of the potential 

threats to the subspecies. The reports do 

not represent decisions by the Service 

on whether the species should be 

proposed for listing as endangered or 

threatened species under the Act. They 

do, 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 

reports; the full reports can be found at 

[Docket FWS–HQ–ES–2019–0014 on 

http://www.regulations.gov]. 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

In this section, we review the 

biological condition of the Peary caribou 

and its resources and factors that affect 

the species to assess the species’ overall 

persistence. The Peary caribou lives in 

a harsh environment that is sparsely 

populated with people, and this 

subspecies is not consistently monitored 

in all locations where it exists. Caribou 

biologists have suggested a number of 

potential threats that are likely 

contributing to the decline of the Peary 

caribou. The primary threats will be 

discussed below. We also assessed other 

threats that we concluded to have minor 

effects on the species; those assessments 

can be found in our Species Report. The 

minor threats are disease, predation 

(primary by wolves), and competition 

with other species for food (including 

other caribou and muskox). The major 

threats that will be discussed below are: 

• Effects of climate change; 

• Inaccessibility of food due to snow 

and ice conditions; 

• Hindered ability to seasonally 

migrate due to lack of sea ice; 

• Disturbance due to development, 

oil and gas exploration, or shipping; 

• Parasitic harassment by botflies; 

and 

• Hunting 

Climate Change 

Changes in climate and weather 

patterns are suspected to be a major 

contributor to the decline of this 

subspecies (COSEWIC 2015, p. 44; 

Hansen et al. 2011, p. 1,922; Miller and 

Barry 2009, p. 175; Prowse et al. 2009a, 

p. 269; Tews et al. 2007, pp. 95–96; 

COSEWIC 2004, pp. viii, 55–58). Our 

analysis under the Act includes 

consideration of ongoing and projected 

changes in climate. The terms ‘‘climate’’ 

and ‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC). 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 (IPCC 2013, p. 1,450). 

As noted above, to determine whether 

these species are threatened, we must 

evaluate threats and the species’ 

response to threats over ‘‘the foreseeable 

future.’’ The demographic, ecological, 

and evolutionary responses of caribou to 

threats resulting 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, 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 (Steiner et al. 

2013, p. xii; Hansen et al. 2011, p. 1,917; 

Turunen et al. 2009, pp. 813–814; 

Putkonen and Roe 2003, entire). Under 

these models, caribou populations will 

respond negatively to climate change 

due to the occurrence of more 

precipitation, greater snowfall, and 

subsequently more freezing-rain events, 

which will make access to food more 

difficult (COSEWIC 2015, pp. 44–46; 

Hummel and Ray 2008, pp. 137–141; 

Miller et al. 2007, p. 33). Reduced 

access to food would lead to increased 

starvation, die-offs, and reduced calf 

production and recruitment, which are 

highly dependent on the female’s 

physical condition, specifically on fat 

reserves (Governments of the Northwest 

Territories and Nunavut 2018, p. 28). 

However, other models support a 

conclusion that Peary caribou may 

experience increases in population 

numbers if climate change results in a 

50 percent increase of taller, denser 

vegetation and woody shrubs (Tews et 

al. 2007, pp. 95 96). 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) (Green 

and Sadedin 2005, pp. 117–118; Burkett 

et al. 2005, entire). Given that caribou 

experts consider the primary threat to 

the Peary caribou to be climate-change 

related, we rely on climate projection 

models undertaken by the IPCC (IPCC 

2014a, pp. 8–12). The models discuss 

future trends for precipitation and air 

and water temperature, which have an 

impact on the caribou’s habitat. 

Projections of sea-ice loss using 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 sea-ice loss will 

result in an ice-free period. 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. 2016, 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. This is 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). Additionally, as seen 

in the population trend above, Peary 

caribou subpopulations can fluctuate 

widely from year to year and mass dieoff events can occur within a single 

season. We thus need to identify a 

timeframe long enough to observe 

changes in the subspecies. 

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. 2016, p. 16; Lu et al. 

2014, p. 61). Although we possess 

projections that go out to 2100, there is 

greater uncertainty between the climate 

model projections in the latter half of 

the 21st century and how the effects of 

climate change will affect species 

response when projected past midcentury. Accordingly, we determined 

that the foreseeable future extends only 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48628 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

to 2050 for the purpose of this analysis 

and we rely upon projections out to 

2050 for predicting changes in the 

species conditions. This timeframe 

allows us to be more confident of 

assessing the impact of climate change 

on the species. Therefore, based on the 

available climate projection and 

information we have on the subspecies, 

we have determined 2050 as the 

foreseeable future timeframe for the 

Peary caribou. 

One additional concept that adds to 

the uncertainty of what will occur in the 

Arctic ecosystem is ‘‘sudden climate 

change,’’ an amplified response that has 

been a concern to scientists for several 

years (Hansen et al. 2011, p. 1,917; 

Barber et al. 2008, p. 8). Surface 

temperature and albedo (reflection of 

sunlight) are two critical factors of the 

Arctic climate system (Wang et al. 2012, 

p. 2). An area that does not contain 

snow absorbs more heat than an area 

covered with snow (areas with snow 

reflect more heat), so the albedo effect 

is less in areas of the Arctic that lack 

snow and ice (Stroeve et al. 2012, p. 

1,012). The Arctic climate both affects 

global-scale climate change and is 

affected by it through feedback 

mechanisms (Barber et al. 2008, p. 8). 

All combinations of models and 

emission scenarios yield increases in 

global temperature. Therefore, if there 

are large-scale changes in temperature, 

the weather patterns could change 

drastically, and the overall effect on the 

ecosystem is unknown. 

We acknowledge that the climate is 

changing in the Arctic region, and based 

on the best scientific and commercial 

information available on Peary caribou, 

we reach reasonable conclusions about 

the likely impacts specific changes in 

climatic conditions may have on the 

species over the foreseeable future, 

which will be discussed below (IPCC 

2014b, entire; Schiermeier 2011, p. 185; 

Olsen et al. 2011, entire; Liston and 

Hiemstra 2011, p. 5,691; Prowse et al. 

2009b, entire; Turunen et al. 2009, p. 

813; Barber et al. 2008, entire; Rinke and 

Kethloff 2008, p. 173). 

Snowpack, Ice Events, and Food 

Availability 

One of the major causes of 

catastrophic die-offs of caribou is the 

formation of hard, crusted snow or 

layers of ice on the ground, which 

restricts the animals’ access to forage 

(COSEWIC 2015, p. 44; COSEWIC 2004, 

pp. 51–53; Miller and Gunn 2003, pp. 

385–386). These layers of ice crust form 

in several ways. One way is repeated 

cycles of thawing and refreezing of the 

snowpack (Tyler et al. 2008, p. 1,679). 

Ice layers can also form due to freezing 

rains or rain-on-snow events (Miller and 

Barry 2009, p. 182; Putkonen and Roe 

2003, pp. 37–1–37–2). A third way is 

when spring melt water trickles through 

the snow-pack and freezes as it comes 

into contact with the very cold ground 

beneath (Woo and Heron 1981, as cited 

in Tyler 2010, p. 198). 

Layers of thick ice block access to 

food and influence caribou movement 

patterns by pushing herds to move to 

areas with less ice but poorer forage 

(Hansen et al. 2011, p. 1,921; Stien et al. 

2010, p. 917). The decline of Peary 

caribou in four major die-offs in western 

Queen Elizabeth Islands between 1970 

and 1998 coincided with extremely 

heavy snowfall, deep snow-packs, and 

heavy icing, which limited access to 

forage, increased energy expenditure, 

and led to extreme malnourishment and 

subsequent mass starvation events 

(Jenkins et al. 2011, p. 6; Miller and 

Barry 2009, p. 176; Gunn et al. 2006, p. 

6; Adams and Dale 1998a, as cited in 

Tyler 2010, p. 198). 

Climate change is expected to cause 

heavier and more frequent snowfall 

events, more variable weather patterns, 

freezing rain, and higher layers of snow 

during these winter events (Steiner et al. 

2013, p. 83; Turunen et al. 2009, p. 813, 

COSEWIC 2004, pp. 51–53). Due to 

changes in temperature, air-circulation 

patterns, and ocean-circulation changes, 

precipitation is expected to increase 

strongly during the summer season. 

Some caribou researchers project that, 

as temperatures rise, more severe 

weather patterns will occur and will 

cause increased snow and ice cover over 

vegetation. Under this scenario, food 

availability is projected to decrease. If 

these conditions occur, Peary caribou 

could suffer additional widespread 

starvation events, thereby decreasing the 

resiliency of the subspecies (Miller and 

Gunn 2003, p. 386). 

Loss of Sea Ice 

Sea ice is a vital component of the 

seasonal migrations of the Peary 

caribou. Peary caribou use multiple 

islands throughout their annual 

migrations and require sea ice to cross 

between islands. Older, multiyear sea 

ice is becoming less prevalent. In 

Canada’s Arctic Archipelago, sea ice can 

attain a thickness of 4 to 6 meters (13 

to 20 ft) (Haas et al. 2006, as cited in 

Meier et al. 2011, p. 9–13). Within the 

range of the Peary caribou, these old 

layers of sea ice are vital for crossing 

between islands. The majority of the ice 

in the Arctic Ocean is now young, ‘‘firstyear’’ sea ice, which is not only more 

susceptible to summer melt, but is also 

thinner and less able to support caribou 

during their seasonal migrations 

(COSEWIC 2015, p. 44; SARC 2012, p. 

25; Meier et al. 2011, pp. 9–6–9–8; 

Prowse et al. 2009a, p. 266). Sea ice in 

the Arctic has been at extremely low 

summer levels in recent years. Most of 

the oldest typical forms of sea ice 

(which were usually more than 5 years 

old) no longer exist (Meier et al. 2011, 

p. 9–4). 

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). Additionally, landfast ice 

has also been decreasing. This is 

important to the Peary caribou as the 

Canadian Arctic Archipelago contains 

many narrow channels that the 

subspecies uses for its migration 

corridors. Over the 10-year intervals 

starting in 1976, the maximum extent of 

landfast ice was: 2.1 × 106 km2 (1976– 

1985), 1.9 × 106 km2 (1986–1995), 1.74 

× 106 km2 (1996–2005), and 1.66 × 106

km2 (2006–2018) (Li et al. 2019, p. 5). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48629 

Sea-ice loss is likely to continue and 

accelerate throughout this century, and 

Arctic seas may be seasonally ice-free as 

early as 2040 (Engler and Pelot 2013, p. 

21; Meier et al. 2011, p. 9–3; Olsen et 

al. 2011, p. 112; Wang and Overland 

2009, p. 1; Boe ́ et al. 2009, p. 1). 

Decreased ice concentrations during 

warmer summer temperatures result in 

significant heating of the ocean surface, 

which then further increases ice melt 

(Stroeve et al. 2012, p. 1,012; Meier et 

al. 2011, p. 9–16). As a consequence of 

earlier ice-break-up dates and later 

freeze-up dates, caribou would have to 

begin their spring migration earlier to 

ensure safe passage over large water 

bodies or possibly shift their 

distribution in search of food sources 

(COSEWIC 2015, p. 46; Post and 

Forchhammer 2008, as cited in Sharma 

et al. 2009, p. 2,559). Some researchers 

have theorized mass drownings have 

occurred during migrations when sea 

ice was too thin to support the weight 

of the caribou (SARC 2012, pp. 35, 47). 

Additionally, changes in sea ice may 

inhibit movement of populations, which 

could lead to certain subpopulations 

being geographically isolated and the 

potential for reduced genetic diversity 

within the subspecies (SARC 2012, p. 

xvii). 

While the overall climate trend for the 

Canadian Arctic points toward a 

decreasing ice level over time, the 

condition in the Canadian Arctic 

Archipelago is likely to experience 

slower ice loss. Overall, the Canadian 

Arctic archipelago possesses the 

thickest Arctic sea ice (Li et al. 2019, p. 

1). The growth of multiyear ice within 

the Peary caribou’s range is the result of 

both first-year to multiyear ice 

conversion and the arrival of multiyear 

ice from the Arctic Ocean located to the 

west (Pizzolato 2015, p. 4). This Arctic 

Ocean sea ice wedges up against the 

western portions of the WQEI making 

the sea ice in the region the oldest and 

thickest in the world, with some ice 

potentially reaching 6–8 meters thick. 

The result is that the western Canadian 

Arctic multiyear ice makes up as much 

as 50 percent of all sea ice (Li et al. 

2019, p. 7 Engler and Pelot 2013, p. 25). 

In summary, while the increasing 

temperatures related to climate change 

have produced a marked decrease in sea 

ice throughout the Arctic that is 

projected to continue into the 

foreseeable future, sea-ice loss in Peary 

caribou habitat is not as pronounced 

due to the unique geography of the 

region. In situ formation of multiyear ice 

as well as new ice from the Canadian 

Basin creates a condition that allows 

multiyear ice to persist for a longer 

period. The persistence of multiyear ice 

in the region facilitates the continued 

existence of migration corridors for the 

Peary caribou. This is expected to allow 

the species to continue to have access to 

food resources, thereby maintaining the 

resiliency of the subspecies to future 

stochastic events. 

Summary of Climate Change 

As a subspecies native to Canada’s far 

north, the Peary caribou is affected by 

climate change in multiple ways. 

Climate change increases the frequency 

of ice events, which limits access to 

forage, and has been linked to major dieoffs (Hansen et al. 2011, p. 1,921; 

Jenkins et al. 2011, p. 6; Stien et al. 

2010, p. 917). On the other hand, the 

effects of climate change on plant 

phenology and composition remain 

more uncertain. Potential effects of 

climate change include a delay in the 

emergence of green foliage during the 

spring and decreasing shrub cover with 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALSEP31AU21.001</GPH>

·2:sooooo 

N 2000000 

< 

E 

~ 

..., 

C 

<ll 

Landfast Ice 1976 - 2018 

~. 1500000 · .. · ... --····· .. 

<ll 

.~ 

...., 

"' ,E 

7;J 

~ 1000000 

E 

::l 

E 

X 

re 

~ 500000 ······~ · ... · -·· · · ·-······-·•··· ··--····••·-'•••··- ··-~·---- ........ · ........................ •·· --

1976-19&5 1986-1995 1996-2005 2006--2018 

Figure 2-Landfast ice area in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago from 1976 to 2018. (Adapted 

from Li et al. 2019, p. 5.) 
48630 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

an increase in the number of shrub 

species (Chen et al. 2009a, pp. 17–19; 

Miller and Gunn 2003, p. 386). 

However, an increase in shrub species 

does not translate to higher nutritional 

content for caribou (COSEWIC 2015, pp. 

22, 25). Whether Peary caribou will be 

able to adapt to these changes remains 

unknown. While uncertainty remains 

about the effects of climate change on 

plant condition, the continued 

persistence of multiyear sea ice in the 

species’ range facilitates the continued 

existence of migration corridors for the 

Peary caribou (Pizzolato 2015, p. 4; 

Engler and Pelot 2013, pp. iii, 25; Meier 

et al. 2011, p. 9–3; Boe ́ et al. 2009, p. 

1; Wang and Overland 2009, pp. 1–4). 

The Peary caribou is found in Canada’s 

high Arctic, which comprises a number 

of islands. The Peary caribou 

subpopulation’s continued ability to 

migrate between these islands in search 

of food will help maintain the resiliency 

of the species to future stochastic 

events. 

Exploration, Shipping, and Other 

Developmental Activities 

Peary caribou herds appear to be 

affected by human activities during the 

caribou’s inter-island migrations and 

during calving season. 

The projected decline of sea ice may 

lead to an increase of shipping traffic 

through the Northwest Passage. Between 

1990 and 2011, shipping traffic 

increased by 75 percent (COSEWIC 

2015, p. 49). Ships sailing through the 

Passage break up the ice impeding 

migration between islands. The Peary 

caribou then have to spend additional 

time waiting for the ice to reach 

sufficient thickness for crossing. 

Caribou have been observed at the 

water’s edge waiting for the ice to refreeze, even up to several days (Poole et 

al. 2010, p. 426). These events can cause 

significant decreases in body fitness if 

there is not adequate nutrition available 

for the herd while they are waiting to 

cross a body of water. Increased 

shipping is likely to affect island 

complexes farther to the south of the 

subspecies’ range, including Prince of 

Wales and Somerset Island and the 

Bathurst-Cornwallis island group 

(COSEWIC 2015, p. 50). Islands farther 

to the north, such as Ellesmere, Axel 

Heiberg, or the Ringnes group, are likely 

to be less impacted due to the presence 

of pack ice and being far away from 

major trade lanes (COSEWIC 2015, p. 

50; Engeler and Pelot 2013, p. 9). A high 

concentration of sea ice within the 

Queen Elizabeth Islands and difficult 

terrain will restrict ship traffic in this 

region (Pizzalato 2015, p. 4). 

Movements of caribou indicate that 

they avoid seismic lines, roads, and 

other infrastructure (Nagy 2011, pp. 

158–159; Latham 2011, p. 2,854). 

Seismic lines are vital components of oil 

and gas exploration and development 

(Nagy 2011, pp. 10–11). Although an 

earlier study suggested that caribou 

were not significantly disturbed by 

human presence (Slaney et al. 1975, as 

cited in COSEWIC 2004, p. 46), an 

abundance of information since then 

supports a conclusion that these 

activities do affect caribou behavior 

(Nagy 2011, pp. 158–159; Jenkins et al. 

2011, p. 6; Hummel and Ray 2008, pp. 

210, 219; Mahoney and Schaefer 2002, 

pp. 147, 151). In addition to scientific 

studies, anecdotal reports in Resolute 

Bay (Cornwallis Island, Nunavut) and 

Grise Fiord (Ellesmere Island, NWT) 

indicate that exploration activities for 

resources such as oil and gas are an 

additional threat for caribou (Jenkins et 

al. 2011, p. 6). Local Inuit communities 

also expressed concern that industrial 

activities can increase avoidance 

behavior and pollution and spills can 

adversely affect the health of the caribou 

(COSEWIC 2015, p. 54). Caribou 

biologists appear to generally be in 

agreement that these exploration and 

development activities have been 

observed to deter caribou from moving 

into areas that are vital for their survival 

(Nagy 2011, p. 158; Jenkins et al. 2011, 

p. 6). 

While development has the potential 

to impact the Peary caribou by 

increasing energy expenditure, 

exploration and developmental 

activities have declined in recent years. 

Oil and gas exploration in the Peary 

caribou range peaked in the 1960s and 

1970s (COSEWIC 2015, p. 54). Although 

exploration efforts have continued since 

then, it has not resulted in a large 

increase in mining or extraction sites 

(COSEWIC 2015, pp. 54–55). This is due 

to fluctuating market prices having a 

significant impact on extent and 

intensity of activities. In addition, 

environmental reviews undertaken by 

provincial governments have also 

slowed the rate of exploration and 

developmental activities (COSEWIC 

2015, pp. 53–54). That said, there are 

currently active mining and extraction 

sites within the Peary caribou range. 

However, these sites remain localized 

and only impact nearby herds 

(COSEWIC 2015, p. 55). Overall, while 

current exploration and extraction 

efforts do result in negative effects to the 

Peary caribou, the effects on the overall 

subspecies are likely to be more limited. 

In summary, the best available 

information supports that current levels 

of exploration, development, and 

shipping activities may have some 

negative effects on the Peary caribou 

resulting in behavioral changes in 

response to these activities. However, at 

present, these activities do not rise to 

the point where there is a significant 

impact to the subspecies (COSEWIC 

2015, p. 55; Taylor 2005, as cited in 

Jenkins et al. 2011, pp. 6, 8, 118). 

Parasitic Harassment by Botflies 

Botflies, oestrids from the family 

Oestridae, have been identified as a 

potential threat that can affect Peary 

caribou in the future with a warming 

climate. Caribou species serve as host to 

two oestrid species: Warble flies 

(Hypoderma tarandi) and nose bot flies 

(Cephenemyia trompe). In the Arctic 

region, few hosts are available for 

parasites; warble flies and nose bot flies 

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, they are 

considerably less prevalent in the high 

Arctic as they are at the latitudinal 

extreme of their range due to 

temperature, hours of daylight, and 

wind conditions (Gunn et al. 2011, pp. 

13–14; Kutz et al. 2004, p. 114). 

However, some researchers have 

expressed concern that, should warming 

trends continue, the parasitic rate of 

development and infectivity timeframes 

could become altered, which may 

increase the energy expenditure of Peary 

caribou through avoidance behavior. 

Prolonged avoidance behavior increases 

the risk of the caribou succumbing to 

other illnesses, exposure to predation, 

and decreased survival rates of offspring 

(Kutz et al. 2004, p. 114; Kutz et al. 

2001, as cited in Kutz et al. 2004, p. 

112). 

Warble Flies 

Behavioral changes in response to 

insect harassment have commonly been 

observed in caribou. Warble flies trigger 

panic responses in caribou when they 

swarm around them. Warble flies live 

on the flesh underneath the skin of 

caribou. As many as 458 warble larvae 

have been documented on a single 

caribou (Hughes et al. 2008, p. 257). 

Adult females lay their eggs on caribou’s 

body hair. After hatching, the larvae 

penetrate the skin and live 

subcutaneously over the winter until the 

next spring. The larvae spend the winter 

growing under the skin on the caribou’s 

back, feeding on the flesh of the caribou. 

The larvae create a hole through the 

caribou’s flesh and skin so the larvae 

can breathe. Between May and June, the 

larvae leave their host through the 

breathing pore in the skin, pupate on 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48631 

the ground, and after a few weeks 

metamorphose inside a pupal case into 

adult flies (Nilssen 1997, p. 296). The 

peak emergence of these oestrids is in 

July. 

Parasites deprive their hosts of energy 

that could be normally used for growth, 

maintenance, or reproduction (Cuyler et 

al. 2012, p. 251; Ballesteros et al. 2011, 

p. 34; Hughes et al. 2008, entire; Colman 

et al. 2003, p. 11; Hagemoen and 

Reimers 2002, pp. 883–884). The warble 

flies create an opening in the skin, and 

these open wounds make caribou more 

susceptible to blood loss and bacterial 

infections, which increase their energy 

expenditure (Scheer 2004, pp. 10–11). 

Severe insect harassment negatively 

affects growth rates and body size of 

caribou (Helle and Tarvainen 1984, as 

cited in Weladji et al. 2003, p. 80). 

When food availability is limited during 

the winter season, caribou lose body fat 

and catabolize protein (muscle) reserves 

(Miller 2003, as cited in Hughes et al. 

2008, p. 253). Body mass is a fitnessrelated trait in caribou. Females need at 

least six percent body fat to reproduce 

(Jenkins 2012, personal 

communication). Heavier females are 

more likely to reproduce than lighter 

females, and increased weights prior to 

winter assist in preventing winter 

starvation (Ballesteros et al. 2011, p. 34). 

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 as the temperature increases 

(Weladji et al. 2003, pp. 80–81). Within 

the Arctic, the annual mean surface 

temperature has increased at a rate of 

0.34 °C (0.61 °F) per decade (Wang et al. 

2012, p. 1). Throughout the Queen 

Elizabeth Islands, the mean average 

daily temperature from December to 

February is between ¥35 °C and ¥27 

°C (¥31.0 °F and ¥16.6 °F). In July, the 

mean average daily temperature is 

between ¥1 and 3 °C (33.8 and 37.4 °F) 

(Meteoblue 2017, unpaginated). General 

circulation models and other climate 

models indicate that average annual 

temperatures will increase 3–6 °C by 

2080 (Meier et al. 2011, pp. 9–17–9–18; 

Olsen et al. 2011, p. 112). Based on 

these anticipated temperatures, we 

calculated the expected temperatures if 

the temperature was to increase by 3 °C 

(scenario 1) and by 6 °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 lowemissions using scenario (SRES B1) and 

high-emissions scenario (SRES A2) 

(Marengo et al. 2011, p. 27). More 

recently, a newer set of scenarios (i.e., 

RCPs) were prepared that include a 

wider range of future conditions and 

emissions. However, to compare the 

SRES and RCP scenarios, 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 2, below. 

TABLE 2—QUEEN ELIZABETH ISLANDS: TEMPERATURE INCREASE SCENARIO UP TO 2080 

[Adapted from Meier et al. 2011, p. 9–18; Olsen et al. 2011, p. 112.] 

Month Mean average 

daily temp. 

Current conditions Scenario 1 (temperature increase by 3 °C) Scenario 2 (temperature increase by 6 °C) 

December .................... Low ................ ¥35 °C ¥31 °F ¥32 °C ¥26 °F ¥29 °C ¥20 °F 

High ............... ¥27 °C ¥16.6 °F ¥24 °C ¥11 °F ¥21 °C ¥5.8 °F 

July ............................... Low ................ ¥1 °C 30.2 °F 2 °C 35.6 °F 5 °C 41 °F 

High ............... 3 °C 37.4 °F 6 °C 42.8 °F 10 °C 50 °F 

The low temperature threshold for 

warble fly activity is around 10 °C 

(50 °F) (Vistness et al. 2008, p. 1,312; 

Weladji et al. 2003, p. 81; Nilssen 1997, 

pp. 296, 300; Breyev 1961, as cited in 

Nilssen and Anderson 1995, p. 1,236). 

Farther north, temperatures became low 

enough that the warble fly is not able to 

survive and reproduce. Because 

parasitic fly harassment is low below 

13 °C (55.4 °F), and because no oestrids 

fly below 10 °C (50 °F), this temperature 

threshold is significant for caribou, 

particularly the Peary caribou with 

respect to warble fly harassment. While 

scenario 1 will not lead to a significant 

increase in fly activity, if the 

temperature increases to 10 °C, as is the 

case in scenario 2, there is potential for 

warble fly harassment to increase, 

resulting in decreasing fitness, which 

could lead to increasing mortality due to 

disease, predation, and stochastic 

weather events. However, given the fact 

that Peary caribou reside in the 

northernmost range of the warble flies, 

the impact from harassment may be 

more limited. 

Nose Botflies 

Caribou experts consider the potential 

negative effect of the nose bot fly on 

caribou to be less than that of the warble 

flies. While the type 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 (Whitney 

1999, p. 2). 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, pp. 

496–497). An increase in the 

temperature by more than 10 °C in July 

could increase harassment of nose bot 

flies on the Peary caribou resulting in 

elevated energy expenditure and 

reduced forage time, although the 

severity will not be as high as for warble 

flies. 

Summary of Parasitic Harassment 

We note that a threat to a species and 

the species’ response to that threat are 

not in general equally predictable or 

foreseeable. The demographic, 

ecological, and evolutionary responses 

of Peary caribou to threats from a 

warming climate are very complicated 

to predict, even though future warming 

is highly likely to occur. Oestrid flies 

could expand their range, and they 

could possibly negatively affect the 

Peary caribou. The lower temperature 

threshold for warble fly activity has 

been determined to be around 10 °C 

(50 °F), which occurs in the most 

northern part of the Peary caribou’s 

range. A warmer climate is very likely 

to affect the distribution and abundance 

of warble flies. However, the best 

available information indicates that, due 

to the very low temperatures in the 

Peary caribou’s range, oestrid 

harassment will not significantly 

negatively affect the Peary caribou now 

or in the foreseeable future (Jenkins 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48632 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

2012, personal communication; 

Hummel and Ray 2008, p. 217). 

Status of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

Under the Act, we are required to 

evaluate whether the existing regulatory 

mechanisms are adequate. As 

previously explained, the Peary caribou 

subspecies was listed as endangered 

under Canada’s SARA in February 2011, 

due to its apparent decline in 

population size and due to expected 

changes in long-term weather patterns 

(Giroux et al. 2012, p. 4). SARA makes 

it an offense to kill, harm, harass, 

capture, or take an individual of a listed 

species that is endangered, threatened, 

or extirpated; possess, collect, buy, sell, 

or trade an individual of a wildlife 

species that is listed as extirpated, 

endangered, or threatened, or any part 

or derivative of such an individual; 

damage or destroy the residence of one 

or more individuals of a listed 

endangered or threatened species or of 

a listed extirpated species if a recovery 

strategy has recommended its 

reintroduction (SC Ch. 32.1 § 32.2). 

However, exceptions to SARA 

prohibitions enable Indigenous peoples 

to exercise their harvesting rights 

(COSEWIC 2015, p. 52). Additionally, 

permits may be issued under certain 

conditions if the activity is conducted 

for scientific research, benefits the 

species or is required to enhance its 

chance of survival in the wild, or 

affecting the species is incidental to 

carrying out the activity (S.C. Ch 73). 

In the NWT, the Species at Risk 

Committee (SARC) designated the Peary 

caribou as threatened within their 

Territory in 2012 (as 40–60 percent of 

the subspecies reside within the NWT) 

and Peary caribou were listed as 

threatened under the Species at Risk 

(NWT) Act in 2014 (SARC 2012, entire). 

Both the Federal recovery strategy and 

territorial recovery strategy management 

plan are currently being developed for 

this subspecies (Giroux et al. 2012, p. 4). 

For efficiency, the NWT Peary Caribou 

Recovery Strategy and the Federal Peary 

Caribou Recovery Strategy will be 

combined into a single document; 

although this plan was anticipated to be 

completed in February 2016, it has been 

extended to December 2021 due to the 

complex nature of caribou management 

(Species at Risk Act 2019, unpaginated 

SARC 2015, entire). 

The Government of Canada may base 

a decision to list a species, assessed by 

COSEWIC at some level of 

endangerment, on social or economic 

factors (Festa-Bianchet et al. 2011, p. 

422). Management must consider that 

subsistence hunting by indigenous 

people of all caribou is constitutionally 

guaranteed by treaty rights and landclaim agreements (Festa-Bianchet et al. 

2011, pp. 423–424). In addition, 

subsistence hunting is not typically 

monitored by provincial wildlife 

management agencies, nor is reporting 

of barren-ground caribou harvest 

mandatory in Nunavut (Giroux et al. 

2012, p. 12). They also note that a listing 

under SARA does not necessarily imply 

any additional conservation measures 

for lands directly under the control of 

the Federal Government (Festa-Bianchet 

et al. 2011, p. 423). 

In Nunavut, the Department of 

Environment (DoE) is responsible for 

the management and conservation of 

caribou within its jurisdiction (Jenkins 

et al. 2011, p. 8). DoE shares 

management responsibility for Peary 

caribou with the Nunavut Wildlife 

Management Board and the Government 

of Canada. This responsibility is 

described in the Nunavut Land Claim 

Agreement 1993, Article 5 (Indian and 

Northern Affairs Canada 1993, as cited 

in Jenkins et al. 2011, p. 8). 

In the NWT, the Government of NWT 

shares management responsibility for 

the Peary caribou with the Wildlife 

Management Advisory Council, the 

Inuvialuit Game Council, and the 

Government of Canada (AANDC 2012, 

p. 3). The relevant Canadian 

management authorities monitor aspects 

of caribou population health including 

body condition, diet, sex, and age, in 

part through harvest. Management and 

conservation actions are enforced 

through regulations under the Wildlife 

Act statutes of the Northwest Territories 

2013 and through by-laws drafted at the 

community level by hunter and trapper 

committees and written into regulation. 

The Inuvialuit have taken a leadership 

role in the management of Peary 

caribou. For Banks Island, Peary caribou 

harvest quotas have been established for 

subsistence purposes (only hunting by 

Inuvialuit is allowed); quotas were 

implemented in 1991 and are reviewed 

annually. On NW Victoria Island, the 

Olokhaktomiut Hunters and Trappers 

Committee (Ulukhaktok) created 

specific zones that allow management 

actions such as enforcement of quotas 

(NWT 2016, p. 27; SARC 2012, pp. iii, 

xii; AANDC 2012, p. 3). In Resolute Bay, 

Nunavut, during the last decade, about 

10–36 animals are hunted each year. 

Another 10–60 are hunted annually by 

residents on Ellesmere and Devon 

Island. In the Northwest Territory, 

annual harvest was reported to be 12 or 

fewer on Banks Island, and zero animals 

were taken from WQEI (COSEWIC 2015, 

p. 52). These numbers indicate that 

annual take of the Peary caribou by local 

hunters remains low. Additionally, local 

communities have voluntarily curtailed 

hunting when the Peary caribou 

population is in decline. For example, 

as a result of the mass die-off between 

1995 and 1997, the Resolute Bay 

Hunters and Trappers Association 

prohibited hunting of Peary caribou on 

Bathurst Island. A similar ban was 

instituted by local communities at Sachs 

Harbor on Banks Island (COSEWIC 

2015, p. 52). 

Protection of habitat for Peary caribou 

has increased in the past few decades 

(Gunn et al. 2011, pp. 26–27). Since the 

early 1990s, three national parks have 

been established in areas that are 

important for Peary caribou 

(Government of Canada 2015, entire; 

Gunn et al. 2011, p. 27). In 1992, 

summer habitat for Peary caribou on 

northern Banks Island became a 

protected area as Aulavik National Park. 

In 2001, approximately one-fifth of 

Ellesmere Island became protected as 

Quttinirpaaq National Park (formerly 

Ellesmere Island National Park Reserve); 

this park is the second largest national 

park in Canada. The Qausuittuq 

National Park (formerly proposed as 

Tuktusiuqvialuk National Park) was 

created to provide protection for Peary 

caribou on northern Bathurst Island in 

2015. However, despite designation as 

protected areas, the actual conservation 

measures that apply to these ‘‘protected 

areas’’ are unclear. These protected 

areas provide some protection for the 

Peary caribou through prohibiting landuse activities such as those for resource 

exploration and development. Hunting 

activities in the park is regulated 

through a permitting system. However, 

they do not prohibit other human 

activity such as tourism and aircraft 

flight (Gunn et al. 2011, pp. 26 27), nor 

do they address climate change. Some 

caribou researchers indicate that 

protection for migratory caribou calving 

grounds is still needed (Festa-Bianchet 

et al. 2011, p. 430). 

In summary, the combined NWT/ 

Federal Peary Caribou Recovery Strategy 

has not been completed; as a result, we 

are unable to evaluate whether this 

recovery plan will effectively mitigate 

the factors that are negatively impacting 

the Peary caribou. However, the 

development and enforcement of the 

harvest quota system in addition to 

other management efforts by the 

Wildlife Management Advisory 

Committee (Northwest Territories) on 

NW Victoria Island and Banks Island, 

both areas where the caribou 

populations seem to be stable, indicate 

that current regulatory mechanisms may 

be having a positive impact on the 

subspecies. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48633 

Synergistic and Cumulative Effects 

Peary caribou live in a harsh 

environment, and their populations 

fluctuate in response to various factors. 

This subspecies is susceptible to abrupt 

changes in population size (Giroux et al. 

2012, p. 4; Jenkins et al. 2011, pp. 9, 

156). Population fluctuations are not the 

result necessarily of a single cause; they 

can occur due to a combination of 

environmental factors that are acting 

together. 

Although the Peary caribou 

populations appear to have stabilized or 

slightly declined, the interactions 

within an ecosystem are complex, 

interrelated, and not linear and, 

therefore, complicated to predict (Tews 

et al. 2012, pp. 271, 275; Meier et al. 

2011, p. 9–46). Subtle cumulative effects 

can occur when several factors act either 

singly at different times or in 

combination over the long term 

(Hovelsrud et al. 2011, p. 10–3; Miller 

et al. 2007, p. 33). The observed and the 

projected effects of a warming global 

climate are more extreme in northern 

high-latitude regions, in part due to the 

ice-albedo feedback mechanism in 

which melting of snow and sea ice 

lowers reflectivity and thereby further 

increases surface warming by absorption 

of solar radiation (Wang and Overland 

2009, p. 1; IPCC 2007a, p. 30). A warmer 

climate will interact with other factors 

that are affecting the Peary caribou, and 

the combination of all of these factors 

acting together affects the subspecies 

more than if just one factor was 

adversely affecting the subspecies. 

The most significant threat affecting 

this subspecies appears to be extreme 

weather events that cause massive 

starvation events and death among 

herds. Additionally, the predicted 

trends related to the effects of climate 

change (snowpack and ice events), the 

potential for changes in the composition 

of plant communities, the expected 

continuation of loss of sea ice (changing 

migratory routes and access to critical 

habitats), and the subspecies’ tendency 

towards small and isolated populations 

are cumulatively affecting this 

subspecies now and are expected to 

continue into the foreseeable future 

(SARC 2012, p. xvii; Joly et al. 2010, p. 

322; Chen et al. 2009a, entire; Chen et 

al. 2009b, entire; Post and Forchhammer 

2008, as cited in Sharma et al. 2009, p. 

2,559). 

Determination of Peary 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 the Regulatory 

Framework section 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 Peary caribou. 

As with all biota, there are many 

uncertainties about this subspecies, 

including how changes in climate will 

affect its ecosystem, in part due to the 

complexity of biological systems and 

processes, and we have made reasonable 

conclusions about the potential impacts 

these changes may have on the species 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial information available on 

Peary caribou. Extreme weather events 

(heavy snow and icing) affect plant 

phenology and the availability of 

nutrients within its ecosystem, which 

influence the caribou’s annual life cycle, 

thus affecting the size of annual 

populations. The effects of weather 

events are particularly a threat with 

respect to some of the island 

populations that are extremely small. 

The threats likely to affect the Peary 

caribou are disruption of migration 

routes as a result of loss of sea ice 

(Factor A), reduced accessibility of 

vegetation resulting from extreme 

weather events and a changing climate 

(Factor A), changes in plant 

composition (Factor A), and synergistic 

and cumulative effects of all factors 

working in concert. 

The vast majority of Peary caribou’s 

habitat is covered by snow and ice for 

a significant portion of the year. Icing 

events are expected to increase (Steiner 

et al. 2013, p. 83; Turunen et al. 2009, 

p. 813, COSEWIC 2004, pp. 51–54). This 

increase will reduce caribou access to 

food, and icing events in the past have 

historically been linked to major die-offs 

(Jenkins et al. 2011, p. 6). The loss of sea 

ice is very likely to occur due to 

warming temperatures throughout the 

Canadian Arctic (Shepherd et al. 2012, 

pp. 1,188–1,189; Sharp et al. 2011, pp. 

1, 4). However, the northern range of the 

Peary caribou, the Queen Elizabeth 

Islands, contains some of the thickest 

sea ice in the world (Engler and Pelot 

2013, p. 25). The best available 

information supports a conclusion that 

continued persistence of sea ice in the 

QEI is likely to continue to facilitate the 

subspecies’ ability to migrate between 

the different islands up to the year 2080 

(Jenkins et al. 2015, p. 4). The other 

extant subpopulation, the Banks Island 

group, now likely completes its life 

cycle on Banks Island. This 

subpopulation will not be as affected by 

long-term changes in sea ice. Overall, 

due to the continued persistence of sea 

ice in the QEI and the migration 

behavior of the caribou farther south, 

the effects of changes in sea ice on the 

Peary caribou will be limited. 

The effects of climate change can also 

lead to changes in plant composition. 

The current trend suggests a decline in 

lichen availability and increase in 

vascular foliage (Chen et al 2009a, pp. 

19, 25–27). However, the increase in 

shrubs does not necessarily translate to 

an increase in the nutritional quality for 

the subspecies (COSEWIC 2015, p. 45). 

As a subspecies listed as endangered 

under SARA, hunting of the Peary 

caribou is prohibited except when a 

permit is issued (Giroux et al. 2012, p. 

4). For non-indigenous individuals, a 

permit can be issued if an activity is 

conducted for research, benefits the 

subspecies, or the subspecies affected is 

incidental to carrying out an activity 

(COSEWIC 2015, p. 52). Indigenous 

communities are excepted from this 

restriction for the purpose of exercising 

their harvesting rights, and coordination 

between these communities and 

provincial governments help set an 

annual quota. Additionally, local 

communities will sometimes ban 

hunting on certain years when the 

subspecies population is too low 

(COSEWIC 2015, p. 52). These 

continued collaborative efforts between 

national, provincial, and local 

communities in areas where the caribou 

populations seem to be stable suggest 

hunting of the Peary caribou is 

adequately regulated. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48634 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

These factors (extreme weather events 

that cause mass starvation and death, 

changes in plant composition due to 

warming weather, loss of sea ice, small 

and isolated populations, synergistic 

and cumulative effects) affecting this 

subspecies are predicted to occur 

throughout its entire range with 

southern subpopulations experiencing a 

greater impact than subpopulations 

found farther north. 

We evaluated all relevant threats, 

including any regulatory mechanisms 

and conservation measures addressing 

these threats. The primary threats are 

the effects of climate change on icing 

events and sea-ice loss. We find that 

overall sea-ice loss is projected to 

continue for the whole Canadian Arctic; 

however, this loss will not be as severe 

within the subspecies’ range. 

Furthermore, recent presence and 

absence surveys have resulted in 

additional observations of the 

subspecies within its range. 

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.’’ While the subspecies has 

experienced previous population 

decline due to icing events, the 

population was able to rebound within 

two generations (COSEWIC 2015, p. vi). 

Additionally, reliable climate change 

models for the High Arctic where the 

subspecies is found project the likely 

persistence of sea ice during the winter 

time ensuring connectivity between the 

islands throughout the subspecies range 

out to the foreseeable future of 2050, 

even under high emission scenarios 

(Mallory and Boyce 2018, p. 2,197; 

Jenkins et al. 2015, p. 4). Continued 

migration between islands will allow 

the subspecies access to food resources 

during the wintertime thereby allowing 

the subspecies to withstand stochastic 

events caused by icing events. In 

addition, the continued presence of 

thick sea ice will also limit shipping 

traffic through the subspecies habitat. 

Lastly, continued management by 

Canadian governmental authorities in 

cooperation with local indigenous 

communities have limited the effects of 

hunting on the species. Overall, the 

Peary caribou consists of sufficient 

currently robust populations such that 

threats currently acting on the 

subspecies do not put it in danger of 

extinction. In addition, we conclude 

that the threats will not within the 

foreseeable future rise to the level where 

the subspecies is likely to no longer 

have sufficient robust populations. In 

other words, the subspecies is not likely 

to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future. 

After evaluating threats to the species 

and assessing the cumulative effect of 

the threats under the section 4(a)(1) 

factors, we find that the effects of 

climate change and other potential 

threats, alone or in combination, do not 

rise to a level that causes this species to 

meet the definition of a threatened 

species or an endangered species 

throughout its entire range. Thus, after 

assessing the best available information, 

we conclude that Peary caribou is not in 

danger of extinction or likely to become 

so in the foreseeable future throughout 

all of its range. 

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. Having determined 

that the Peary caribou is not in danger 

of extinction or likely to become so in 

the foreseeable future throughout all of 

its range, we now consider whether it 

may be in danger of extinction or likely 

to become so in the foreseeable future in 

a significant portion of its range—that 

is, whether there is any portion of the 

species’ range for which it is true that 

both (1) the portion is significant; and, 

(2) the species is in danger of extinction 

now or likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future in that portion. 

Depending on the case, it might be more 

efficient for us to address the 

‘‘significance’’ question or the ‘‘status’’ 

question first. We can choose to address 

either question first. Regardless of 

which question we address first, if we 

reach a negative answer with respect to 

the first question that we address, we do 

not need to evaluate the other question 

for that portion of the species’ range. 

In undertaking this analysis for Peary 

caribou, we choose to address the status 

question first—we consider information 

pertaining to the geographic distribution 

of both the species and the threats that 

the species faces to identify any 

portions of the range where the species 

is endangered or threatened. We 

examined the following threats: Icing 

events, loss of sea ice, changes in plant 

composition, parasitic harassment, and 

shipping, including cumulative effects. 

For the Peary caribou, regional 

variations in threats are related to the 

latitudinal differences with the effects of 

climate change (sea-ice loss, icing 

events, and parasitic harassment) being 

greater on the southern subpopulations 

than on the northern subpopulation. 

Additionally, shipping traffic is more 

concentrated in the southern portion of 

the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. The 

cumulative effects of these threats mean 

that the four subpopulations of Peary 

caribou (Banks-Victoria islands, WQEI, 

EQEI, and Prince of Wales-SomersetBoothia Peninsula) are experiencing 

different population trends and threat 

responses. 

After experiencing population crashes 

in the 1990s due to icing events, the 

WQEI and EQEI now have stable or 

increasing population trends and now 

comprise 82 percent of the subspecies 

total populations (COSEWIC 2015, p. 

41). Additionally, the northern portion 

of the Canadian Arctic archipelago 

contains the thickest sea ice in the 

Arctic region and this ice is replenished 

by multi-year flowing in from the Arctic 

Ocean (Li et al. 2020, p. 1; Howell et al. 

2015, p. 1,623). The thickness of the sea 

ice around the Queen Elizabeth Islands 

contributed to shipping lanes being 

primarily located farther to the south 

(Engler and Pelot 2013, p. 9). The 

persistence of sea ice in this region 

allows the WQEI and EQEI Peary 

caribou subpopulations to be able to 

migrate between different islands. The 

continued ability to migrate between 

different islands will ensure the 

subspecies have access to sufficient food 

resources and help it recover from 

population fluctuations due to 

stochastic events. Overall, the stability 

as well as the previously noted lesser 

impact from threats related to climate 

change and shipping traffic for these 

most populous northern subpopulations 

suggests that the threats acting on these 

subpopulations do not rise to the level 

where the species is in danger of 

extinction or likely to become in danger 

of extinction within the foreseeable 

future. 

While the two QEI subpopulations 

now have stable population trends, the 

Banks-Victoria island subpopulation 

and the Prince of Wales-SomersetBoothia Peninsula island complex was 

experiencing a declining population 

trend. The Banks-Victoria island 

subpopulation also experienced a 

decline in the 1980s due to icing events. 

While the subpopulation in Victoria 

Island has yet to recover, the 

subpopulation on Banks Island has 

stabilized since 1992 albeit at a lower 

level (COSEWIC 2015, p. VI). Unlike the 

Queen Elizabeth Islands subpopulation 

discussed above, which regularly 

migrates between the smaller islands of 

the QEI, the Banks Island 

subpopulation, as suggested by the lack 

of outward gene flow, might not migrate 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48635 

as often as other Peary caribou 

subpopulations (COSEWIC 2015, p. 26). 

This means that fluctuations in sea-ice 

level may not affect this subpopulation 

to the degree of other subpopulations of 

the Peary caribou. Therefore, the biggest 

threat affecting this subpopulation is 

likely to be icing events. 

While icing events have and will 

continue to play a role in dramatic 

population crashes for this 

subpopulation, the population trend as 

noted above has remained stable since 

1992 (COSEWIC 2015, p. 35). This 

overall trend persists despite an extreme 

weather event that took place in the 

Canadian Arctic Archipelago in 1996– 

1997 that resulted in a population crash 

of the WQEI subpopulation (COSEWIC 

2015, p. 38; Jenkins et al. 2011, p. 120). 

Going into the foreseeable future, while 

climate models do project increases in 

the frequency and severity of icing 

events for Banks Island, there is greater 

uncertainty of the effect this will have 

on the population trend of this 

subpopulation (COSEWIC 2015, p. 47). 

Increased icing events could increase 

mortality, but reduced snow depth as a 

result of increases in temperature could 

result in greater access to foliage. That 

said, based on historical population 

trends, we have observed this 

subpopulation’s ability to persist and 

rebound after an icing event, suggesting 

that it possesses sufficient ability to 

recover from stochastic icing events. 

This long-term stability leads us to 

conclude that while the Banks Island 

subpopulation might not return to its 

historical level, the threats acting on the 

subpopulation do not rise to the level 

where the species is in danger of 

extinction or likely to become in danger 

of extinction within the foreseeable 

future. 

While the Banks Island subpopulation 

has stabilized, the Prince of WalesSomerset-Boothia Peninsula islands 

complex is suspected to be near zero 

and may be extirpated due to a number 

of possible factors including wolf 

predation, extreme weather, hunting, 

and disease. The potential extirpation of 

this subpopulation warranted further 

consideration due to its potential effects 

on the subspecies as a whole. We next 

evaluated whether this subpopulation 

may be significant to the Peary caribou. 

The Service’s most-recent definition of 

‘‘significant’’ has been invalidated by 

the courts (Desert Survivors v. Dep’t of 

the Interior, No. 16–cv–01165–JCS (N.D. 

Cal. Aug. 24, 2018)). Therefore, we 

evaluated whether the Prince of WalesSomerset-Boothia subpopulation could 

be significant under any reasonable 

definition of ‘‘significant.’’ To do this, 

we evaluated whether this 

subpopulation may be biologically 

important to the species. 

The Prince of Wales-Somerset-Boothia 

subpopulation contains very few 

individuals and may be extirpated. The 

decline or potential loss of this 

subpopulation will reduce the overall 

abundance of the subspecies and reduce 

its range. We do not have information 

on the genetic uniqueness of this 

subpopulation. That said, while the 

subspecies’ genetic diversity will be 

affected by the decline of this 

subpopulation, historical genetic 

exchanges between this subpopulation 

and the other subpopulations mean this 

subpopulation is likely not genetically 

unique. The loss of this subpopulation 

would likely have a limited effect on 

overall genetic diversity. Overall, while 

the loss of this subpopulation would 

have some effect on the subspecies as a 

whole, it would likely be minimal, and 

the Peary caribou has historically 

experienced wide fluctuation in its 

overall population. In the past, other 

subpopulations experienced 

catastrophic die-off of up to 80 to 90 

percent due to icing events and were 

able to recover within a few decades. 

This could allow other subpopulations 

to recolonize the island complex in the 

future. Therefore, because of the high 

number of individuals and the stability 

of other subpopulations as well as the 

potential for recolonization by those 

subpopulations, we determined that the 

Prince of Wales-Somerset-Boothia 

subpopulation is not biologically 

significant to the Peary caribou. 

In summary, the species is not in 

danger of extinction or likely to become 

so in the foreseeable future in any 

significant portion of its range. Our 

approach to analyzing SPR in this 

determination is consistent with the 

court’s holding in Desert Survivors v. 

Department of the Interior, No. 16–cv– 

01165–JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. 

Aug. 24, 2018). 

Determination of Status 

Our review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

indicates that the Peary caribou does not 

meet the definition of an endangered 

species or a threatened species in 

accordance with sections 3(6) and 3(20) 

of the Act. Therefore, we find that 

listing the Peary caribou is not 

warranted at this time. 

II. Proposed Listing Determination— 

Dolphin and Union Caribou 

Background 

Description 

The Dolphin and Union caribou is a 

medium-sized caribou that is larger than 

the Peary caribou and smaller than the 

larger mainland barren-ground caribou. 

The pelage of Dolphin and Union 

caribou is slightly darker than that of 

the Peary caribou and lighter than the 

barren-ground caribou. Its winter coat is 

a distinctive white with a light-brown 

back and white legs. In the summer, the 

coat becomes darker brown on the back. 

This entity does not display the 

pronounced flank stripe typical of 

barren-ground caribou. Additionally, its 

antlers are much like that of a Peary 

Caribou and the antler velvet is pale 

gray, which is distinct from the dark 

brown antler velvet of mainland barrenground caribou (SARC 2013, p. vi). 

Taxonomy 

The Dolphin and Union caribou has 

had a particularly confusing taxonomic 

history (COSEWIC 2011, p. 25). Most of 

the early taxonomic history of the 

Dolphin and Union caribou is identical 

to the Peary caribou. Therefore, this 

history can be found in the above 

section (Peary Caribou: Taxonomy). 

In 2003, participants in a workshop 

on caribou taxonomy considered the 

existing classification to be insufficient 

to demonstrate the level of diversity that 

exists between the subspecies of caribou 

(McFarlane et al. 2003, pp. 127–128). 

The workshop concluded that 

conservation units should reflect the 

biodiversity and preserve the 

uniqueness of each caribou population 

in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. 

They recommended the establishment 

of conservation units below the 

subspecies level to preserve the caribou 

(Rangifer tarandus) of the Canadian 

Arctic Archipelago (McFarlane et al. 

2009, p. 105). 

Several studies have postulated that 

Dolphin and Union caribou are 

genetically distinct from either the 

Peary caribou or the barren-ground 

caribou (McFarlane et al. 2013, pp. 124– 

126; Nagy et al. 2011, pp. 190, 194; 

Poole et al. 2010, p. 415). Dolphin and 

Union caribou have a high level of 

genetic distinctness (COSEWIC 2009, p. 

117). Additionally, the Dolphin and 

Union caribou are genetically more 

related to the mainland populations 

than to the Peary caribou that occur on 

Victoria Island. However, the Dolphin 

and Union caribou are still genetically 

distinguished from both barren-ground 

caribou and Peary caribou (McFarlane et 

al. 2009, as cited in COSEWIC 2011, p. 

25; McFarlane et al. 2003, pp. 124–126). 

In May 2004, COSEWIC reassessed 

the status of the three Peary caribou 

populations and reviewed the 

designation. The 2004 assessment 

defined the Dolphin and Union 

population as separate from the Peary 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48636 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

caribou and from the barren-ground 

caribou and recommended a taxonomic 

revision of the Dolphin and Union 

population as R. t. groenlandicus x 

pearyi to distinguish the population 

from the mainland barren-ground 

caribou, R. t. groenlandicus, and from 

the Peary caribou, R. t. pearyi 

(McFarlane et al. 2013, pp. 124–126; 

Nagy et al. 2011, pp. 184, 190, 194; 

Poole et al. 2010, p. 415). While the 

2004 COSEWIC report recommended 

the reclassification of the Dolphin and 

Union caribou, questions remained over 

whether the entity should be considered 

as a subspecies or a geographically 

distinct population. 

In 2011, COSEWIC prepared to 

conduct a reassessment of all caribou in 

Canada; in preparation for the 

assessment, they published a document 

detailing ‘‘designatable units’’ (DU), 

geographically based areas created for 

management purposes, of caribou. A DU 

can be a species, subspecies, variety, or 

geographically or genetically distinct 

population that may be assessed by 

COSEWIC, where such units are both 

discrete and evolutionarily significant. 

In this assessment, COSEWIC confirmed 

the status of the Dolphin and Union 

population as a DU (COSEWIC 2011, pp. 

10, 25). The Committee noted that the 

process of designating DUs takes into 

account taxonomy, phylogenetics, 

genetics, morphology, life history, and 

behavior of the species, as well as 

biogeographical information such as 

range disjunction and the ecogeography 

in which the species is found. 

In its 2011 report, COSEWIC 

discussed the changes in taxonomy for 

the Dolphin and Union population and 

included the scientific name R. t. 

groenlandicus x pearyi, as distinct from 

the barren-ground caribou (R. t. 

groenlandicus) and from the Peary 

caribou population (R. t. pearyi) 

(COSEWIC 2011, entire). This 

classification does not mean that the 

Dolphin and Union subpopulation is of 

hybrid origin but is due to taxonomical 

ambiguity. The current classification 

then is a way for researchers to 

distinguish the Dolphin and Union 

subpopulation from the barren-ground 

caribou and the Peary caribou (Ray 

2017, pers. comm.). However, this 

reclassification has not yet been 

formalized and the Dolphin and Union 

herd is currently classified as being part 

of the barren-ground caribou subspecies. 

Given the established taxonomic 

classification of the Dolphin and Union 

herd as part of R. t. groenlandicus, we 

evaluated whether the Dolphin and 

Union caribou represent a distinct 

population segment (DPS). 

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)). Such 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: 

(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., is the population 

segment 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 

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 

The Dolphin and Union caribou are 

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 

winter on coastal tundra on the 

mainland. In other words, the Dolphin 

and Union caribou spends part of its life 

cycle on the mainland and the other 

part on an island. This is in contrast to 

the remainder of the subspecies that 

either spend their entire life cycles on 

the mainland or on an island. Mainland 

barren-ground caribou subpopulations 

migrate between the tundra and boreal 

forest habitats. Meanwhile, other barrenground subpopulations (such as the 

ones on Baffin Island and Southampton 

Island) spend their entire life 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 

subpopulation during the wintering 

months on the mainland, while on 

Victoria Island, the Dolphin and Union 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48637 

caribou is geographically isolated from 

other subpopulations of the barrenground 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 caribous it shares Victoria 

Island with (McFarlane et al. 2009, p. 

125). On the other hand, despite being 

more closely related, the Dolphin and 

Union caribou also maintains genetic 

distinctness from mainland 

subpopulations (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 

around approximately 3000 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 per 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 comprises 

multiple subpopulations found in the 

Yukon, Northwest Territories, and 

Nunavut (which includes Baffin Island 

and the islands of the Hudson Bay) 

(McFarlane et al. 2016, p. 2). The 

Dolphin and Union caribou is one of the 

few populations of the barren-ground 

caribou subspecies that uses both the 

islands of the Canadian Arctic 

Archipelago and the mainland as part of 

its range (Nagy et al. 2011, p. 2,342). As 

mentioned above, barren-ground 

caribou have 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 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 which also identified the 

Dolphin and Union caribou as being 

distinct from all other mainland barrenground caribou subpopulations 

(McFarlane et al. 2014, p. 83; Zittlau et 

al. 2009, as cited in 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 neighboring mainland barrenground caribou subpopulation located 

to the south of Victoria Island. However, 

there is a slower gene flow of the 

mainland barren-ground caribou into 

the Dolphin and Union caribou 

subpopulation (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 

mainland barren-ground caribou 

subpopulation (Nagy et al. 2011, p. 

2,335). On the other hand, there is 

greater detection of first- and secondgeneration 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 barrenground caribou subpopulations 

resulting in outward gene flow. 

Additionally, there are periods of 

multiple years where the dispersal rate 

is zero meaning that there was no gene 

flow out of the subpopulation 

(McFarlane et al. 2016, p. 14). Overall, 

the gene flow patterns reinforce the 

genetic data, demonstrating that while 

there is occasional genetic exchange 

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 there are some genetic 

exchanges with the mainland barrenground caribou through the migration of 

male Dolphin and Union caribou, the 

subpopulation 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 evaluate 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48638 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Life History 

Dolphin and Union caribou have an 

average lifespan of 13–15 years. Males 

typically reach breeding age at around 4 

years and females between 2–3 years 

(COSEWIC 2004, p. 28). Approximately 

80 percent of females will have one calf 

annually; females will generally 

reproduce between the ages of 2 and 13 

years and males between 4 and 13 years 

(Gunn et al. 1998, as cited in COSEWIC 

2004, p. 28). The annual rut usually 

occurs in late autumn, and calving 

occurs in late spring, with variation 

depending on the latitude and 

environmental conditions (COSEWIC 

2011, p. 11; Gates et al. 1986, pp. 216– 

222). 

Calf production and recruitment of 

Dolphin and Union caribou are highly 

dependent on the female’s physical 

condition, specifically their fat reserves 

(Cameron et al. 1992, p. 480). The 

nutritional condition of the female is 

dependent on the prevailing 

environmental conditions. As a result, 

there is high variability in annual 

pregnancy rate, calf production, and calf 

recruitment. Depending on the 

environment, pregnancy rates can vary 

from 0 to 100 percent. In severe winters, 

recruitment of calves can drop to 0 

percent (COSEWIC 2004, pp. vii, 28). 

Under favorable conditions, roughly 50 

percent of calves survive (Bergerud 

1978, as cited in Miller et al. 2007, p. 

25). In free-ranging caribou populations, 

the proportion of males to females 

averages 40 to 60 respectively (Miller et 

al. 2007, p. 25). 

Range and Migration 

The range of the Dolphin and Union 

caribou consists of Victoria Island and 

the Canadian mainland, covering a 

surface area estimated to be 499,449 

km2 (192,838mi2). That range crosses 

two Canadian territories: Nunavut and 

the NWT (SARC 2013, p. xiv; 

Governments of NWT and Nunavut 

2011, p. 2; Poole et al. 2009, p. 415). 

Dolphin and Union caribou calve during 

the summer months on Victoria Island 

before moving south to the coast to rut. 

They then cross the sea ice of the 

Coronation Gulf, Dolphin and Union 

Strait, and Dease Strait to their 

wintering grounds on the mainland 

(SARC 2013, p. xiv; Nagy et al. 2011, p. 

2,335; Poole et al. 2009, pp. 416–417). 

While seasonal migration between 

Victoria Island and mainland appears to 

be annual behavior of the Dolphin and 

Union caribou, historically, when their 

population was much smaller, the 

Dolphin and Union caribou was only 

observed on Victoria Island (Gunn et al. 

2011, p. 37). Some caribou biologists 

suspect that the range of the Dolphin 

and Union population may be 

expanding southward, but any change 

in its range remains inconclusive 

(Governments of NWT and Nunavut 

2011, p. 8). The Peary caribou and the 

Dolphin and Union range has the 

potential to overlap in the northwest 

part of Victoria Island, and the 

populations may make contact with 

each other as each population may 

occupy this habitat during the summer. 

Peary caribou use the region for 

wintering and summer grounds, while a 

few Dolphin and Union may use it 

during the summer. On the other hand, 

during the rutting season (generally 

occurring in October and November), 

Dolphin and Union caribou are 

geographically isolated from other 

caribou (Nagy et al. 2011, p. 2,345; 

Poole et al. 2010, p. 415; McFarlane 

2009, p. 126). 

Population Estimates and Trends 

In contrast to the Peary caribou, 

which occur in small groups consisting 

of three to five individuals known as 

‘‘subpopulations’’ or ‘‘clusters’’ (Jenkins 

et al. 2011, p. 11), the Dolphin and 

Union caribou consists of a single herd 

with an estimated population in 2015 of 

18,413 (Leclerc et al., in litt. 2017). 

The Dolphin and Union population 

was first recorded in 1852 and was 

observed moving south, crossing the 

Dolphin and Union Strait, a part of the 

Northwest Passage, from Victoria Island 

to the mainland of Canada to spend the 

winter, and was recorded returning 

again in the spring (Manning 1960, pp. 

7–10). Using population densities as a 

proxy, the number of caribou on 

Victoria Island was extrapolated to 

100,000 animals, which was likely an 

unrealistically high estimate (SARC 

2013, p. 86; Jenness 1920, pp. 166–167 

and Stefansson 1920, pp. 135–136, as 

cited in Manning 1960, p. 8). By the 

mid-1920s, estimates of caribou crossing 

the Dolphin and Union Strait during the 

fall migration dropped to fewer than 30 

caribou, and the migration completely 

stopped in 1924. The decline in caribou 

numbers was found most likely to be 

related to the introduction of firearms 

and intense hunting of caribou in the 

region, possibly combined with effects 

from icing events (Gunn et al. 2011, p. 

37; COSEWIC 2004, p. 41; Manning 

1960, pp. 9–10). Since the 1920s, the 

Dolphin and Union caribou population 

has increased. By 1949, the population 

had increased to about 1,000, and by 

1980, the population increased to 

approximately 3,424 ± 522 (this estimate 

likely included calves) (COSEWIC 2004, 

p. 41). In the 1990s, the Dolphin and 

Union caribou rebounded even further 

and resumed its historical winter 

migration crossing the strait to the 

mainland (COSEWIC 2004, p. 41; Gunn 

et al. 1997, entire). A 1994 survey of the 

Dolphin and Union calving ground 

estimated 14,500 ± 1,015 animals (Nishi 

and Buckland 2000, p. 42). However, 

this survey underestimated the number 

of caribou, as it failed to define the 

calving ground and radio-collared 

females were found in eastern Victoria 

Island, which was an area not included 

in the survey (Leclerc 2017, in litt.). 

In 1997, a systematic aerial survey 

method was developed to count the 

Dolphin and Union caribou during the 

staging and rutting period on the south 

coast of Victoria Island (Nishi and Gunn 

2004, pp. 4–9). The survey counted 

5,087 caribou and estimated the herd 

total population to be 27,948 ± 3367 

individuals (Nishi and Gunn 2004, p. 

iii). That methodology was consistently 

used in following surveys. In 2007, 

researchers found 21,753 ± 2,343 

caribou within the survey area. This 

number was subsequently corrected to 

account for caribou that did not yet 

reach the coast during the survey. 

Therefore, the 2007 corrected Dolphin 

and Union population was estimated to 

be 27,787 ± 3,613, and this correction 

factor was also applied to the 1997 

survey estimate, giving an estimate of 

34,558 ± 4,283 caribou; these population 

estimates indicate that the population 

was at best stable or in a slight decline 

(Dumond and Lee 2013, p. 334). 

However, the 2015 Dolphin and Union 

population survey projected a decline 

with the population at that time 

estimated to be 18,413 caribou 

(Governments of the Northwest 

Territories and Nunavut 2018, p. 36; 

Leclerc et al. 2017, in litt.; McFarlane et 

al. 2016, pp. 2–3). 

Diet and Nutrition 

Calving is closely related to plant 

phenology (timing of plant blooming 

based on daylight and temperature) 

(COSEWIC 2004, p. vii). Seasonal 

feeding is critical for various life stages 

such as lactation and growth, increasing 

fat reserves during the summer, and 

survival during the winter (COSEWIC 

2004, pp. vii, 28–35). Summer and 

winter forage varies based on 

availability and season, but Arctic 

caribou prefer willow (Salix arctica), 

sedges (Carex species), purple saxifrage 

(Saxifraga oppositifolia), grasses, forbs, 

and lichens (COSEWIC 2004, pp. 23, 

32–34). During the summer, the Dolphin 

and Union caribou acquires most of its 

dietary protein from sedges, grasses, and 

willows (SARC 2013, p. 32; Joly et al. 

2010, p. 322; COSEWIC 2004, pp. 32– 

33). During the winter on the mainland, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48639 

caribou diet consists mostly of moss and 

willow and lichen (SARC 2013, p. 33). 

Under ideal conditions, caribou forage 

by pushing soft snow off the vegetation 

with their noses. When snowpack is 

deeper, they will dig small craters with 

their hooves in the snow to reach the 

vegetation (COSEWIC 2004, p. 35). 

However, snow conditions can limit the 

accessibility to vegetation. Rain in late 

October and November can cause a layer 

of ice to form over the vegetation, which 

may prevent caribou from accessing it 

(COSEWIC 2004, pp. 33–34). Snowfall 

within the range of the Dolphin and 

Union caribou varies, and the amount of 

snow is determined by several variables, 

such as terrain, wind speed and 

direction, and air and ground 

temperatures (Sturm 2003, as cited in 

Maher 2012, p. 84). During the winter, 

caribou tend to forage in drier, exposed 

areas that have less snow (Miller and 

Gunn 2001, p. 221). 

Conservation Status of the Dolphin and 

Union Caribou 

The caribou species (Rangifer 

tarandus) is recognized at the species 

level as ‘‘vulnerable’’ by the 

International Union for Conservation of 

Nature (IUCN 2012, unpaginated). 

Individual caribou subspecies are not 

differentiated by IUCN and as such, 

IUCN has made no assessment of the 

Dolphin and Union caribou. The IUCN 

Red List of Threatened Species 

identifies and documents those species 

considered to be most in need of 

conservation attention if global 

extinction rates are to be reduced, and 

the IUCN Red List is recognized as an 

approach for evaluating the 

conservation status of plant and animal 

species. However, designations by the 

IUCN convey no actual protections. 

COSEWIC (2004, entire) evaluated the 

status of Dolphin and Union caribou 

and assessed them as special concern. In 

February 2011, they were added to 

Canada’s Federal Species at Risk Act as 

Special Concern (SARC 2013, p. 97). 

The recovery plan for the Dolphin and 

Union caribou published in 2018. We 

will discuss the recovery plan in greater 

detail in Status of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms (Governments of the 

Northwest Territories and Nunavut 

2018, entire; SARC 2013, p. 97). 

Regulatory and Analytical Framework 

We apply the same regulatory and 

analytical framework to the Dolphin and 

Union as we apply to other species. 

Please consult the Regulatory 

Framework and Analytical Framework 

sections above in the discussion of 

Peary caribou for details. 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

In this section, 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 lives 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 contribute to 

the decline of the Dolphin and Union 

caribou. In addition to the major threats 

we discussed below, we also assessed 

other threats that we concluded to 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 

disturbing the gray ice (young ice whose 

thickness is less than 4–6 inches), icebreaking activities for tourism and oil 

and gas industries, and potential loss of 

sea ice due to climate change (Leclerc 

2017, in litt.; 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, in litt.). We refer readers 

to these documents, which are available 

at www.regulations.gov, Docket number 

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 (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 

will respond negatively to climate 

change due to the occurrence of more 

precipitation, greater snowfall, and 

subsequently more freezing rain events, 

which will make 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, in litt.; 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 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48640 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

the condition of the caribou habitat. 

Projections of sea-ice loss using RCP 4.5 

and 8.5 scenarios and rain-on-snow 

events in the Canadian Arctic varies 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). Some models project 

out to the year 2080 or 2100 (Mallory 

and Boyce 2018, p. 2,192; Jenkins et al. 

2016, p. 4). Other models project to a 

shorter timeframe of up to 2050s 

(Derksen et al. 2018, p. 218; 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. 

2016, 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. This is 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 

projected increase in ice-free periods, 

shipping traffic is highly likely to 

increase (Governments of the Northwest 

Territories 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. 2016, p. 16; Lu et al. 

2014, p. 61). Although we possess 

projections that go out to 2100, there is 

greater uncertainty between the climate 

model projections in the latter half of 

the 21st century and how the effects of 

climate change will affect species 

response when projected past midcentury. Accordingly, we determined 

that the foreseeable future extends only 

to 2050 for the purpose of this analysis 

and we rely upon projections out to 

2050 for predicting changes in the 

species conditions. This timeframe 

allows us to be more confident of 

assessing the impact of climate change 

on the species. Overall, given our 

knowledge of the Dolphin and Union 

caribou subpopulation trend and its 

fluctuations, incorporating all the 

variables stated above, we project the 

foreseeable future for this entity out to 

the year 2050. 

Based on the best scientific and 

commercial information available on 

Dolphin and Union caribou, we reach 

reasonable conclusions about the likely 

impacts that specific changes in climatic 

conditions may have on the species over 

the foreseeable future, which will be 

discussed below (IPCC 2014b, entire; 

Schiermeier 2011, p. 185; Olsen et al. 

2011, entire; Liston and Hiemstra 2011, 

p. 5,691; Prowse et al. 2009b, entire; 

Turunen et al. 2009, p. 813; Barber et al. 

2008, entire; Rinke and Kethloff 2008, p. 

173; Kutz et al. 2004, p. 114). 

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 (Poole et al. 2010, p. 414; Gunn 

2003, as cited in COSEWIC 2004, p. 35). 

Climate models indicate that the 

Arctic will experience accelerated loss 

of sea-ice (Zhang et al. 2010, as cited in 

in Meier et al. 2011, p. 9–3; Boe ́ et al. 

2009, p. 1; Wang and Overland 2009, 

pp. 1–3). 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). Additionally, 

landfast ice has also been decreasing. 

This 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: 2.1 × 106

km2 (1976–1985), 1.9 × 106 km2 (1986– 

1995), 1.74 × 106 km2 (1996–2005), and 

1.66 × 106 km2 (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). Seaice 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 decrease in sea ice is likely to 

negatively affect the crossings by the 

Dolphin and Union caribou, including 

the potential of breaking through the ice 

and drowning (Governments of the 

Northwest Territories 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 

Northwest Territories 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 seaice 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 

Northwest Territories 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, seaice freezing in the fall now forms 8–10 

days later than it was in 1982. Using 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48641 

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 

Northwest Territories and Nunavut 

2018, p. 43; Poole et al. 2010, p. 425). 

Given the increases in period 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 Northwest 

Territories and Nunavut 2018, pp. 41– 

44; Leclerc 2017, in litt.; Ray 2017, in 

litt.). 

Given the Dolphin and Union 

caribou’s current population, it is 

unlikely that Victoria Island will be able 

to support the subpopulation if 

connection to wintering grounds in the 

mainland is lost (Ray 2017, in litt.; 

Leclerc 2017, in litt.). 

Summary of Climate Change 

Climate change is likely 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 migrated 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 2017, in 

litt.; Gunn et al. 2000, pp. 42–43). While 

we do not know the exact reason for the 

decline, 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. Therefore, given the 

projected impacts of sea-ice loss in the 

Dolphin and Union strait, we anticipate 

that these effects will likely have a 

negative impact on the Dolphin and 

Union caribou. 

Parasitic Harassment by Botflies 

As noted above for Peary caribou, 

caribou serve as host to two oestrid 

species: warble flies (Hypoderma 

tarandi) and nose botflies (Cephenemyia 

trompe). In the Arctic region, there are 

few hosts 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). 

The biological effects of warble and 

nose botflies on caribou are described in 

the Peary caribou section above. Below 

we will describe the anticipated effects 

of fly activities for the Dolphin and 

Union caribou, which are found farther 

to the south than the Peary caribou. 

Warble Flies 

Temperature and cloud cover are vital 

factors for harassment of caribou by 

warble flies as these two factors affect 

their 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 °C (0.61 °F) 

per decade (Wang et al. 2012, p. 1). 

Satellite observations indicate an 

increase in the duration of the melt 

season 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 °C 

(¥33.2 and ¥21.6 °F). In summer, the 

mean average daily temperature is 

between ¥6.8 and 10 °C (37.4 and 44.2 

°F) (Dumund and Lee 2013, p. 330). 

Atmosphere-ocean-ice general 

circulation models (AOGCMs) and other 

models indicate that average annual 

temperatures may increase by 3–6 °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 

degrees Celsius (scenario 1) and by 6 

degrees Celsius (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) (Marengo et al. 

2011, p. 27). More recently, a newer set 

of scenarios (i.e., RCPs) were prepared 

that include a wider range of future 

conditions and emissions. However, to 

compare the SRES and RCP scenarios, 

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 3, below. 

TABLE 3—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 °C) Scenario 2 (temperature increase by 6 °C) 

December .................... Low ................ ¥36.2 °C ¥33.2 °F ¥33.2 °C ¥26 °F ¥30.2 °C ¥20 °F 

High ............... ¥29.8 °C ¥21.6 °F ¥26.8 °C ¥16.2 °F ¥23.8 °C ¥10.8 °F 

July ............................... Low ................ 6.8 °C 44.2 °F 9.8 °C 49.6 °F 12.8 °C 55 °F 

High ............... 10 °C 50.0 °F 13 °C 55.4 °F 16 °C 60.8 °F 

Many studies indicate that the low 

temperature threshold for warble fly 

activity is around 10 °C (50 °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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48642 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

at 4 °C (39.2 °F). At 4 °C (39.2 °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 °C (55.4 °F), and no oestrid 

harassment occurs below 10 °C (50 °F), 

this temperature threshold is significant 

for caribou, particularly the Dolphin 

and Union caribou with respect to 

oestrid harassment. Since the area 

where Dolphin and Union caribou exist 

is located farther to the south than the 

area for Peary caribou, the average 

summer temperature is higher. Under 

both scenarios, summer temperatures 

are projected to increase to a high of 

13–16 °C, which would result in an 

increase in warble fly harassment. 

Infestations by both warble flies and 

botflies cause 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 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 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 degrees Celsius 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 degrees 

by 2080. The lower temperature 

threshold for warble fly activity has 

been determined to be around 10 °C 

(50 °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. 

Status of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

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 (GNWT) Species at Risk 

(NWT) Act (SARC 2013, p. v). ‘‘Special 

concern’’ means that the NWT manage 

it 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). 

The management plan for the Dolphin 

and Union caribou was published in 

2018 (Governments of the Northwest 

Territories and Nunavut 2018, entire; 

SARC 2013, p. 97). The management 

plan contains a list of recommended 

actions. These actions include: Hold 

regular meetings between management 

agencies and local communities to make 

recommendation on the management of 

the Dolphin and Union caribou DPS, 

monitor changes in the Dolphin and 

Union caribou DPS’s population and 

habitat, and obtain better harvest data 

(Governments of the Northwest 

Territories and Nunavut 2018, pp. 56– 

61). However, these recommendations 

are voluntary and do not commit the 

parties involved to any actions 

(Governments of the Northwest 

Territories 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, there are concerns about the 

sustainability of hunting due to the lack 

of accurate harvesting data, which are 

submitted voluntarily by indigenous 

communities (Governments of the 

Northwest Territories and Nunavut 

2018, pp. 20, 67; Governments of 

Nunavut and the NWT 2011, p. 18). 

Non-subsistence hunting including 

sport-hunting by non-indigenous 

residents and non-residents is managed 

through an annual quota system 

(Governments of the Northwest 

Territories and Nunavut 2018, pp. 68– 

69). 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48643 

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 Northwest 

Territories 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 D&U 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 Northwest 

Territories and Nunavut 2018, p. 20). 

Since then, local communities have 

tried to reduce the annual harvests of 

the caribou. Data for 2010–2014 reveal 

a decline of annual harvest to 10–80 

caribou per year (Governments of the 

Northwest Territories and Nunavut 

2018, p. 20). While the reporting of this 

data is voluntary, the reduction in 

annual harvest since the 1990s suggest 

that local communities have been able 

to regulate hunting activities conducted 

by its members as the Dolphin and 

Union caribou population has also 

declined. 

In contrast to indigenous 

communities, Canadian citizens and 

resident immigrants are limited to a 

specific number of caribou they can 

hunt per year. 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). Non-resident 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 Northwest Territories and Nunavut 

2018, pp. 68–69). Despite the 

availability of hunting tags, in the past 

several years, there has been no tagbased sport-hunting of Dolphin and 

Union caribou in Nunavut 

(Governments of the Northwest 

Territories and Nunavut 2018, p. 69; 

Leclerc 2017, in litt.; Governments of 

Nunavut and the NWT 2011, p. 18). 

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 (harvest different 

age classes and sexes of animals 

depending on the season and avoid 

shooting pregnant cows during the 

spring) (Dumund 2007, p. 44). However, 

reporting of subsistence harvest is 

voluntary and there is uncertainty about 

the effect of hunting on the overall 

population (Governments of the 

Northwest Territories and Nunavut 

2018, p. 67; Ray 2017, in litt.). 

With respect to imports into the 

United States, as noted above there has 

been no tag-based non-subsistence 

hunting (sport-hunting) in Nunavut or 

NWT in recent years, and there is no 

trade data indicating 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) (http://www.cites.org; also see 

Conservation Status). 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 183 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 

As of 2011, no Canadian herd had a 

fully protected calving ground, although 

some are partly protected (Gunn et al. 

2011, p. 26). The southwestern portion 

of the Dolphin and Union caribou range 

lies within the boundaries of Tuktut 

Nogait National Park (Ray 2017, in litt.). 

There is no protection of the calving 

ground for this caribou herd with 

calving-ground delimitation projects 

having failed in the past. Studies are 

currently under way to define a calving 

strategy and determine suitable habitat 

(Leclerc 2017, in litt.). 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. 

Roads 

There is inconclusive information 

about the effects of roads on caribou 

(Fahrig and Rytwinski 2009, 

unpaginated; Frair et al. 2008, p. 1,504; 

Neufeld 2006, as cited in Nagy 2011, p. 

101). The presence of permanent or 

temporary roads could affect the caribou 

migration route. Additionally, roads 

could increase access for hunters, a 

trend observed in other caribou 

subspecies. Currently, there are major 

expansion projects (the Grays Bay Road 

and Port Project and the Black River 

Project) in the road network to service 

mining development near the Bathurst 

Inlet, which is located near the 

wintering range of the Dolphin and 

Union caribou (Governments of the 

Northwest Territories and Nunavut 

2018, pp. 51–52). However, the Dolphin 

and Union caribou exists in areas that 

are sparsely populated with human 

communities and have very few roads, 

which should limit the effects of 

development on the entity. While the 

road network in the species’ range 

remains limited, development could 

increase in the next 10 years 

(Governments of the Northwest 

Territories and Nunavut 2018, p. 51; 

Leclerc 2017, in litt.). 

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 and could 

be exposed to 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48644 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

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, in litt.; 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; SAC 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 has been sighted with 

a thicker coat 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). 

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. Such 

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) (Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, pp. 

24–25). 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 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. 

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 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 in the previous sections, 

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 °C (Dumund and Lee 

2013, p. 330). One recent climateprojection 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 threat to the Dolphin 

and Union caribou, acting 

synergistically with major threats of seaice loss and shipping, they can have a 

detrimental impact. 

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 the Regulatory 

Framework section 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. Experts remain 

uncertain of how changes in climate 

will affect this DPS and its ecosystem 

(Brodie et al. 2012, p. 29; Poole et al. 

2010, entire; Turunen et al. 2009, pp. 

816, 826), and we have made reasonable 

conclusions about the potential impacts 

these changes may have on the species 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial information available on 

Dolphin and Union caribou. As is the 

case with all threats that we assess, even 

if we conclude that a species is 

currently affected or is likely to be 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48645 

affected in a negative way by one or 

more climate-related impacts, it does 

not necessarily follow that the species 

meets the definition of an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ 

under the Act. That said, the best 

available information indicates that the 

Dolphin and Union caribou is in decline 

(Leclerc 2017, in litt). Although the 

exact cause is not known, a number of 

threats acting synergistically could have 

a role in reducing the population. We 

have concluded that these threats are 

primarily loss of sea ice due to climate 

change and an increase in shipping 

traffic (Factor A). Other threats, 

including parasitism (Factor C), disease 

(Factor C), predation (Factor C), and 

hunting (Factor B), have a limited or 

unknown impact. 

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 2017, in litt.; 

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; Boe ́ et al. 

2009, p. 1). Additionally, an increase in 

shipping traffic through the Dolphin 

and Union caribou’s habitat will delay 

the formation of sea ice. The result of 

both these threats is that 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). Although the 

Dolphin and Union caribou was able to 

adapt in the past after the caribou 

ceased migration to the mainland, the 

trend since 1997 suggests a steady 

decline. Furthermore, given the 

population size, it is unlikely that 

Victoria Island will be able to support 

the Dolphin and Union caribou (Leclerc 

2017, in litt). 

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 there are 

lingering concerns (Ray 2017, in litt.; 

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, there 

are current management efforts in place 

to 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). 

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). Populations 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). However, a 

survey in 2015 revealed that the decline 

continues (Governments of the 

Northwest Territories and Nunavut 

2018, p. 36; Leclerc 2017, in litt.). 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, are anticipated to 

continue to have a negative impact on 

the species, leading to continued 

decline over the foreseeable future. 

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.’’ As noted above, the Dolphin 

and Union caribou historically 

experienced population decline in the 

early 20th century. The DPS rebounded 

in the latter half of the previous century 

reaching a new maximum population in 

1997 at 28,000 individuals 

(Governments of the Northwest 

Territories and Nunavut 2018, p. 36). 

Since then, due to a combination of 

factors including primarily the effects of 

climate change and shipping traffic on 

sea-ice loss, the population has declined 

by approximately one-third with the 

most recent population estimate of 

18,413 in 2015 (Governments of the 

Northwest Territories and Nunavut 

2018, p. 36). Sea-ice thickness has been 

getting thinner and the quantity of 

multi-year ice is decreasing (COSEWIC 

2017, p. 30). Additionally, warming fall 

temperature on the south coast of 

Victoria Island has delayed the 

formation of new sea ice by up to 10 

days and thicker grey ice by 8 days 

when compared to the fall season in 

1982 (COSEWIC 2017, p. 30). Over the 

foreseeable future to mid-century, this 

trend will likely contribute to a decrease 

in sea-ice thickness, thereby increasing 

the possibility of mass drowning events 

by the Dolphin and Union caribou. 

Some climate-change models project 

that the strait between Victoria Island 

and the mainland may partially ice-free 

even during the wintertime by 2050 

(Jenkins et al. 2015, p. 4). However, at 

present, the Dolphin and Union caribou 

has been observed crossing the strait to 

the mainland (Governments of the 

Northwest Territories and Nunavut 

2018, p. 30). This suggests that current 

sea-ice thickness is still sufficient for 

crossings to occur. Continued migration 

to the mainland will give the Dolphin 

and Union caribou access to resources 

to survive the winter months in the 

short term such that the DPS is not 

currently in danger of extinction. 

While the Dolphin and Union caribou 

is not currently in danger of extinction 

due to wintertime connectivity with the 

mainland, climate models project 

fragmentation of migration corridors 

between Victoria Island and the 

mainland by the mid-21st century. Even 

without the effects of shipping traffic, 

many climate models project that sea ice 

in the southern portion of the Canadian 

Arctic Archipelago where Dolphin and 

Union caribou is found will likely 

become partially fragmented even 

during the wintertime by mid-century 

(Derksen et al. 2018, p. 218; Jenkins et 

al. 2015, p. 4). When adding the 

increasing frequency of shipping traffic 

through the strait currently and the 

likely further increase in the foreseeable 

future, the result is a likely greater 

fragmentation of migration corridor 

during the wintertime. The result of this 

change is thinner ice leading to likely 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48646 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

increases in mass drowning events. 

Because the effects of sea-ice loss due to 

climate change and shipping traffic are 

both projected to increase over the 

foreseeable future, these two threats will 

continue to have a negative and 

increasing effects on the Dolphin and 

Union caribou. Furthermore, because 

the Dolphin and Union caribou is 

already experiencing a persistent 

decline within the past twenty years, 

the increases of frequency of mass 

drowning events due to sea-ice loss as 

a result of climate change and shipping 

traffic will result in an accelerated 

population decline such that the DPS is 

likely to become in danger of extinction 

within the next few decades. 

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 

not currently in danger of extinction, 

but as a result of the ongoing and 

projected decline caused by the factors 

described above, the Dolphin and Union 

caribou is likely to become in danger of 

extinction within the foreseeable future 

throughout all of its range. 

Thus, after assessing the best available 

information, we conclude that Dolphin 

and Union caribou is not currently in 

danger of extinction but is likely to 

become in danger of extinction within 

the foreseeable future throughout all of 

its range. If new information is found 

that results in a changed level of threats, 

we will consider that information in the 

final rule. 

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. The court in Center 

for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020 

WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020) 

(Center for Biological Diversity), vacated 

the aspect of the 2014 Significant 

Portion of its Range Policy that provided 

that the Services do not undertake an 

analysis of significant portions of a 

species’ range if the species warrants 

listing as threatened throughout all of its 

range. Therefore, we evaluated whether 

the species is endangered in a 

significant portion of its range—that is, 

whether there is any portion of the 

species’ range for which both (1) the 

portion is significant; and, (2) the 

species is in danger of extinction in that 

portion. Depending on the case, it might 

be more efficient for us to address the 

‘‘significance’’ question or the ‘‘status’’ 

question first. We can choose to address 

either question first. Regardless of 

which question we address first, if we 

reach a negative answer with respect to 

the first question that we address, we do 

not need to evaluate the other question 

for that portion of the species’ range. 

Following the court’s holding in 

Center for Biological Diversity, we now 

consider whether there are any 

significant portions of the species’ range 

where the species is in danger of 

extinction now (i.e., endangered). In 

undertaking this analysis for Dolphin 

and Union caribou, we choose to 

address the status question first—we 

consider information pertaining to the 

geographic distribution of both the 

species and the threats that the species 

faces to identify any portions of the 

range where the species is endangered. 

For the Dolphin and Union caribou, 

we considered whether the threats are 

geographically concentrated in any 

portion of the species’ range at a 

biologically meaningful scale. We 

examined the following threats: Increase 

in icing events, sea-ice loss, and 

increase in shipping traffic, including 

cumulative effects. Icing events are 

often fairly localized to specific areas. 

Historical trends show that increases in 

icing events per year is associated with 

a decline in caribou numbers 

(Governments of the Northwest 

Territories and Nunavut 2018, p. 50). 

Sea-ice loss affects the Dolphin and 

Union caribou ability to cross the sea ice 

between Victoria Island and the 

mainland (Governments of the 

Northwest Territories and Nunavut 

2018, p. 30). Additionally, the migration 

route the Dolphin and Union caribou 

passes through is one of the primary 

shipping lanes in the Northwest Passage 

(Pizzolato et al. 2016, pp. 12,148– 

12,149). This increase in shipping traffic 

combined with climate change will 

result in the late formation or premature 

breakup of sea ice, which could lead to 

mass drowning events as well as delay 

in the subpopulation ability to migrate 

across the strait. 

While the threats affecting the 

Dolphin and Union caribou may be 

topographically differentiated (icing 

events on land and sea-ice loss and 

shipping traffic on water), the Dolphin 

and Union caribou consist of one herd. 

Although that herd temporarily splits 

into smaller subunits during calving 

periods (Governments of the Northwest 

Territories and Nunavut 2018, p. 30), 

this split is temporary, and individuals 

congregate in the fall at southern 

portion of Victoria Island. There, the 

herd forages until sea ice reaches a 

sufficient thickness for the herd to cross 

over (Governments of the Northwest 

Territories and Nunavut 2018, p. 32). 

Thus, there is no biologically 

meaningful subdivision of the Dolphin 

and Union caribou DPS’s range into 

portions. While threats can affect certain 

areas of the Dolphin and Union caribou 

range, any such threats will affect the 

entire herd. Overall, we found no 

concentration of threats in any portion 

of the Dolphin and Union caribou range 

at a biologically meaningful scale. Thus, 

there are no portions of the species’ 

range where the species has a different 

status from its range-wide status. 

Therefore, no portion of the species’ 

range provides a basis for determining 

that the species is in danger of 

extinction in a significant portion of its 

range, and we determine that the 

species is likely to become in danger of 

extinction within the foreseeable future 

throughout all of its range. This is 

consistent with the courts’ holdings in 

Desert Survivors v. Department of the 

Interior, No. 16–cv–01165–JCS, 2018 

WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), 

and Center for Biological Diversity v. 

Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. 

Ariz. 2017). 

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 a 

threatened species. Therefore, we 

propose to list the Dolphin and Union 

caribou DPS as a threatened species in 

accordance with sections 3(20) and 

4(a)(1) of the Act. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened under the Act include 

recognition, requirements for Federal 

protection, and prohibitions against 

certain practices. Recognition through 

listing results in public awareness and 

encourages and results in conservation 

actions by Federal and State 

governments, foreign governments, 

private agencies and interest groups, 

and individuals. 

As explained below, the proposed 

4(d) rule for Dolphin and Union caribou 

would, in part, 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 in the 

course of commercial activity; or sell or 

offer for sale in interstate or foreign 

commerce any Dolphin and Union 

caribou. Certain exceptions apply to 

agents of the Service and State 

conservation agencies. An exception is 

also provided in the proposed 4(d) rule 

for import of personal sport-hunted 

trophies legally hunted in and exported 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48647 

from Canada with accompanying sporthunting tags. 

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. An ‘‘action’’ that is 

subject to the consultation provisions of 

section 7(a)(2) has been 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 this 

species, there are no ‘‘actions’’ known to 

require consultation under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act. Given the regulatory 

definition of ‘‘action,’’ which clarifies 

that it applies to ‘‘activities or programs 

. . . in the United States or upon the 

high seas,’’ the species is unlikely to be 

the subject of section 7 consultations, 

because the terrestrial species conducts 

its entire life cycle outside of the United 

States and is unlikely to be affected by 

U.S. Federal actions. 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 ESA 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 ESA 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. 

Section 9 of the Act and our 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

17.21 set forth a series of general 

prohibitions that apply to all 

endangered wildlife, and which may be 

applied to threatened species through a 

regulation issued under section 4(d) of 

the Act. As noted above, the proposed 

4(d) rule for Dolphin and Union caribou 

imposes prohibitions tailored to the 

needs of the threatened species (see 

Proposed 4(d) Rule below). Permits may 

be issued to carry out otherwise 

prohibited activities involving 

threatened wildlife species under 

certain circumstances. Regulations 

governing permits for threatened species 

are codified at 50 CFR 17.32. With 

regard to threatened wildlife, a permit 

may be issued for scientific purposes, to 

enhance the propagation or survival of 

the species, for incidental take in 

connection with otherwise lawful 

activities, as well as for zoological 

exhibition, education, and special 

purposes consistent with the Act. 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. There are 

also certain statutory exemptions from 

the prohibitions, which are found in 

sections 9 and 10 of the Act. 

III. Proposed Rule for Dolphin and 

Union Caribou Issued Under Section 

4(d) of the Act 

Background 

Section 4(d) of the Act contains two 

sentences. The first sentence states that 

the ‘‘Secretary shall issue such 

regulations as he deems necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation’’ of species listed as 

threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has 

noted that statutory language like 

‘‘necessary and advisable’’ demonstrates 

a large degree of deference to the agency 

(see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 

(1988)). ‘‘Conservation’’ is defined in 

the Act to mean ‘‘the use of all methods 

and procedures which are necessary to 

bring any endangered species or 

threatened species to the point at which 

the measures provided pursuant to [the 

Act] are no longer necessary.’’ 

Additionally, the second sentence of 

section 4(d) of the Act states that the 

Secretary ‘‘may by regulation prohibit 

with respect to any threatened species 

any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1), 

in the case of fish or wildlife, or section 

9(a)(2), in the case of plants.’’ Thus, the 

combination of the two sentences of 

section 4(d) provides the Secretary with 

wide latitude of discretion to select and 

promulgate appropriate regulations 

tailored to the specific conservation 

needs of the threatened species. The 

second sentence grants particularly 

broad discretion to the Service when 

adopting the prohibitions under section 

9. 

The courts have recognized the 

Secretary’s discretion under this 

standard to develop rules that are 

appropriate for the conservation of a 

species. For example, courts have 

approved rules developed under section 

4(d) that include a taking prohibition for 

threatened wildlife or include a limited 

taking prohibition (see Alsea Valley 

Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 U.S. 

Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 2007); 

Washington Environmental Council v. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 

U.S. Dist. Lexis 5432 (W.D. Wash. 

2002)). Courts have also approved 4(d) 

rules that do not address all of the 

threats a species faces (see State of 

Louisiana v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th 

Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative 

history when the Act was initially 

enacted, ‘‘once an animal is on the 

threatened list, the Secretary has an 

almost infinite number of options 

available to him with regard to the 

permitted activities for those species. He 

may, for example, permit taking, but not 

importation of such species, or he may 

choose to forbid both taking and 

importation but allow the transportation 

of such species.’’ (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 

93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1973). 

Exercising its authority under section 

4(d) of the Act, the Service has 

developed a proposed rule that is 

designed to address the Dolphin and 

Union caribou’s conservation needs. 

Although the statute does not require 

the Service to make a ‘‘necessary and 

advisable’’ finding with respect to the 

adoption of specific prohibitions under 

section 9, we find that this rule as a 

whole satisfies the requirement in 

section 4(d) of the Act to issue 

regulations deemed necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation of the Dolphin and Union 

caribou. As discussed under Summary 

of Biological Status and Threats, the 

Service has concluded that the Dolphin 

and Union caribou is likely to be at risk 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48648 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

of extinction within the foreseeable 

future primarily due to the cumulative 

effects of sea-ice loss due to climate 

change and shipping traffic. The 

provisions of this proposed 4(d) rule 

would promote conservation of the 

Dolphin and Union caribou by ensuring 

that activities undertaken with the 

Dolphin and Union caribou by any 

person under the jurisdiction of the 

United States are also supportive of the 

conservation efforts undertaken for the 

Dolphin and Union caribou in Canada, 

thereby encouraging management in 

ways that meet the conservation needs 

of the Dolphin and Union caribou. The 

provisions of this rule are one of many 

tools that the Service would use to 

promote the conservation of the Dolphin 

and Union caribou. This proposed 4(d) 

rule would apply only if and when the 

Service makes final the listing of the 

Dolphin and Union caribou as a 

threatened species. 

Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule 

For the Dolphin and Union caribou, 

the Service has determined that a 4(d) 

rule is appropriate. In this proposed 

rule, we identified several factors that, 

in concert with climate change, may 

have a negative impact for the Dolphin 

and Union caribou. These risk factors 

include an increase in icing events, loss 

of sea ice, and parasitic harassment by 

botflies (Dumund and Lee 2013, p. 335; 

Poole et al. 2010, entire). Loss of sea ice 

due to climate change and shipping 

traffic constitute the primary threat 

affecting the Dolphin and Union 

caribou. However, because these effects 

are manifesting in Canada, the Service 

has limited regulatory means to 

ameliorate them. Therefore, the 

provisions of our 4(d) rule focus on 

ensuring that any activities undertaken 

with the Dolphin and Union caribou by 

any person under the jurisdiction of the 

United States encourage and support 

conservation management efforts for the 

Dolphin and Union caribou in Canada 

to help meet the conservation needs of 

the Dolphin and Union caribou. 

Additionally, we have identified the 

existing regulatory mechanisms in place 

in Canada to conserve Dolphin and 

Union caribou. We assessed the 

conservation needs of these caribou in 

light of the protections provided to the 

species under SARA and COSEWIC. 

The Dolphin and Union caribou is listed 

as an entity of ‘‘special concern’’ under 

SARA. While subsistence and sport 

hunting of Dolphin and Union caribou 

is allowed and managed, as noted 

previously, the management plan for the 

Dolphin and Union caribou provides 

recommendations on how to better 

manage and conserve the DPS. 

Accordingly, in part due to current 

management efforts to limit the take of 

the DPS in Canada, the best available 

commercial data indicates that the 

current legal harvest of this caribou DPS 

is not occurring at levels that are 

affecting the population of the DPS 

(Governments of the Northwest 

Territories and Nunavut 2018, pp. 47). 

While we have found that these current 

efforts alone will be inadequate to 

prevent the species from likely 

becoming in danger of extinction within 

the foreseeable future throughout all of 

its range, we also recognize the value 

these management efforts play in 

helping to conserve the species. 

This proposed 4(d) rule would 

provide for the conservation of the 

Dolphin and Union caribou and ensure 

that activities undertaken by any person 

under the jurisdiction of the United 

States are also supportive of the 

conservation efforts undertaken for the 

DPS in Canada, by prohibiting the 

following activities with the Dolphin 

and Union caribou, except as otherwise 

authorized or permitted: Importing or 

exporting; delivering, receiving, 

transporting, or shipping in interstate or 

foreign commerce in the course of 

commercial activity; or selling or 

offering for sale in interstate or foreign 

commerce. 

The proposed rule would also provide 

an exception for the import of personal 

sport-hunted trophies legally hunted in 

and exported from Canada with 

accompanying hunting tags. As 

explained previously, while there is no 

information to indicate that nonsubsistence hunting (sport-hunting) is 

occurring, legal subsistence hunting and 

sport-hunting is also not considered to 

be a current threat because of current 

management efforts undertaken by 

national and local governments. Under 

the current management efforts, a U.S. 

sport-hunter or other non-resident and 

non-Canadian citizen may be issued tags 

to hunt up to 5 caribou per year in 

Nunavut and need to be accompanied 

by a guide, while no more than 25 total 

caribou tags may be issued in NWT to 

U.S. or other non-Canadian outfitted 

sport-hunters. Our proposed 4(d) rule 

would provide that if a Dolphin and 

Union caribou is legally hunted in and 

exported from Canada with 

accompanying sport-hunting tag issued 

by Nunavut or NWT, import of the 

personal sport-hunted trophy by the 

hunter into the United States would not 

require a threatened species permit. 

We may also issue permits to carry 

out otherwise prohibited activities, 

including those described above, 

involving threatened wildlife under 

certain circumstances, such as for 

scientific purposes, or the enhancement 

of propagation or survival of the 

Dolphin and Union caribou in the wild. 

In issuing such permits we consider a 

number of factors, including whether 

the permit, if issued, would conflict 

with any known program intended to 

enhance the survival probabilities of the 

population, the probable direct and 

indirect effect that issuing the permit 

would have on the wild populations, 

and whether the purpose for which the 

permit is required would be likely to 

reduce the threat of extinction facing the 

species. Regulations governing permits 

for threatened wildlife are codified at 50 

CFR 17.32, and are further described in 

Available Conservation Measures, 

above. This proposed 4(d) rule, if 

finalized, would apply to all live and 

dead Dolphin and Union caribou and 

parts and products, support 

conservation management efforts for 

Dolphin and Union caribou in the wild 

in Canada, and allow for trade and 

interstate and foreign commerce 

consistent with the purposes of the Act 

and conservation of the species as 

provided for in our threatened species 

permitting provisions. 

Required Determinations 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(1) Be logically organized; 

(2) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(3) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(4) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(5) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To 

better help us revise the rule, your 

comments should be as specific as 

possible. For example, you should tell 

us the names of the sections or 

paragraphs that are unclearly written, 

which sections or sentences are too 

long, the sections where you feel lists or 

tables would be useful, etc. 

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 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.) in connection with listing a species 

under the Act. We published a notice 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48649 

outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available on http://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket Number FWS–R4–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 proposed 

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, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we hereby propose to 

amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 

I, title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, as follows: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 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. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.11(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: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and applicable 

rules 

MAMMALS

* * * * * * * 

Caribou, barren-ground [Dolphin 

and Union caribou DPS].

Rangifer tarandus 

groenlandicus.

Canada (Victoria Island, Canadian Mainland in Nunavut and 

Northwest Territories).

T [Federal Register citation when 

published as a final rule]; 50 

CFR 17.40(t). 4d

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 17.40 by adding paragraph 

(t) to read as follows: 

§ 17.40 Special rules—mammals. 

* * * * * 

(t) Caribou, barren-ground [Dolphin 

and Union caribou distinct population 

segment (DPS)] (Rangifer tarandus 

groenlandicus). 

(1) Prohibitions. Except as provided 

under paragraph (t)(2) of this section 

and §§ 17.4–17.5, it is unlawful for any 

person subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States to commit, to attempt to 

commit, to solicit another to commit, or 

to cause to be committed, any of the 

following acts with regard to this 

species: 

(i) Import or export, as set forth for 

endangered wildlife at § 17.21(b). 

(ii) Interstate or foreign commerce in 

the course of commercial activity, as set 

forth for endangered wildlife at 

§ 17.21(e). 

(iii) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth 

for endangered wildlife at § 17.21(f). 

(2) Exceptions from prohibitions. 

With regard to this species, you may: 

(i) Import personal sport-hunted 

trophies legally hunted in and exported 

from Canada with accompanying 

hunting tags. 

(ii) Conduct activities as authorized 

by permit under § 17.32. 

(iii) Conduct activities as authorized 

by a captive-bred wildlife registration 

for endangered wildlife under 

§ 17.21(g). 

Martha Williams, 

Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the 

Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–18098 Filed 8–30–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 20 

[Docket No. FWS–HQ–MB–2021–0057; 

FF09M22000–212–FXMB1231099BPP0] 

RIN 1018–BF07 

Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 

2022–23 Migratory Game Bird Hunting 

Regulations (Preliminary) With 

Requests for Indian Tribal Proposals; 

Notification of Meetings 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of 

supplemental information. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service or we) proposes to 

establish annual hunting regulations for 

certain migratory game birds for the 

2022–23 hunting season. We annually 

prescribe outside limits (frameworks) 

within which States may select hunting 

seasons. This proposed rule provides 

the regulatory schedule, announces the 

Service Migratory Bird Regulations 

Committee (SRC) and Flyway Council 

meetings, describes the proposed 

regulatory alternatives for the 2022–23 

general duck seasons and preliminary 

proposals that vary from the 2021–22 

hunting season regulations, and requests 

proposals from Indian Tribes that wish 

to establish special migratory game bird 

hunting regulations on Federal Indian 

reservations and ceded lands. Migratory 

bird hunting seasons provide 

opportunities for recreation and 

sustenance; aid Federal, State, and 

Tribal governments in the management 

of migratory game birds; and permit 

harvests at levels compatible with 

migratory game bird population status 

and habitat conditions. 

DATES:

Comments: You may comment on the 

general duck season regulatory 

alternatives and other preliminary 

proposals for the 2022–23 season until 

September 30, 2021. In subsequent 

Federal Register documents, you will be 

given an opportunity to submit 

comments on the proposed frameworks 

(see Schedule of Biological Information 

Availability, Regulations Meetings and 

Federal Register Publications for the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS